Improper communities in the work of Roberto Esposito and Jacques Rancière

  • Kevin InstonEmail author


Recent theories of community (Nancy, Agamben, Esposito) aim to think the term beyond its definition as the ownership of shared identity, language, culture or territory. For Esposito, to reduce community to a property whose possession distinguishes members from non-members undermines the commonality the term implies. The common opposes what is proper or one’s own; it belongs to everyone and anyone. Rather than securing identity and belonging, community, defined by its impropriety, disrupts them so that we are in common. While his work successfully illustrates the incompatibility of the common and the proper, it leaves unanswered the question of how communities come to experience their impropriety. Through a comparison with Rancière’s improper community, we can identify and gesture beyond this limit. Its members intervene in proper communities by exercising the right to decide on common matters despite officially having no right to do so. Their actions, by demonstrating the openness of the common to anyone and everyone, turn its privatisation into a shared wrong that connects community with non-community. By supplementing Esposito’s work with Rancière’s, we see how communities relate to what they have deemed improper in a way that both challenges and revitalises their sense of commonality.


Esposito Rancière community immunity impropriety the proper 



I wish to thank the anonymous reviewers of CPT and Mairéad Hanrahan for their invaluable comments on this article.


  1. Agamben, G. (1993) The Coming Community, Translated by Michael Hardt. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Agamben, G. (1998) Homo Sacer, Translated by D. Heller-Roazen. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Balibar, E. (2014) Nancy’s inoperative community. In: V.A. Conley and I. Goh (eds.) Nancy Now. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  4. Bird, G. (2017) Containing Community: From Political Economy to Ontology in Agamben, Esposito, and Nancy. New York: SUNY.Google Scholar
  5. Bird, G. and Short, J. (2013a) Roberto Esposito, Community and the proper. Angelaki 18(3): 1–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bird, G. and Short, J. (2013b) Community, immunity, the proper. Angelaki 18(3): 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bosteels, B. (2010) Politics. Infrapolitics, and the impolitical: Notes on the thought of Roberto Esposito and Albert Moreiras. The New Centenial Review 10(2): 205–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chambers, S. (2013) The Lessons of Rancière. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Derrida, J. (1995) On the Name, Translated by D. Wood. Stanford; Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Deutscher, P. (2013) The membrane and the diaphragm. Angelaki 18(3): 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Devisch, I. (2013a) How (not) to properly abandon the improper? Angelaki 18(3): 69–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Devisch, I. (2013b) Jean-Luc Nancy and the Question of Community. London and New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  13. Esposito, R. (2010) Communitas: The Origin and Destiny of Community, Translated by T. C. Campbell. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Esposito, R. (2011) Immunitas, Translated by Z. Hanafi. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  15. Esposito, R (2012) Third Person, Translated by Z. Hanafi. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  16. Esposito, R. (2013a) Community, Immunity, Biopolitics, Translated by Z. Hanafi. Angelaki 18(3): 69–80.Google Scholar
  17. Esposito, R. (2013b) Terms of the Political. Community, Immunity, Biopolitics, Translated by R. Welch. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Inston, K. (2017) Inscribing the egalitarian event: Jacques Rancière and the politics of iterability. Constellations 24(1): 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kioupkiolis, A. (2018) Commoning the political, politicising the common: Community and the common: Community and the political in Jean-Luc Nancy, Roberto Esposito and Giorgio Agamben. Contemporary Political Theory 17(3): 283–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marchart, O. (2011) The second return of the political: Democracy and the syllogism of equality. In: P. Bowman and R. Stamp (eds.) Reading Rancière. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  21. May, T. (2008) The Political Thought of Jacques Rancière. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mills, C. (2018) Biopolitics. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Nancy, J.-L. (1991) The Inoperative Community, Translated by P. Connor et al. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Nancy, J.-L. (1992) La comparution/the compearance. From the existence of ‘communism’ to the community of ‘existence’, Translated by T.B. Strong. Political Theory 20(3): 371–398.Google Scholar
  25. Nancy, J.-L. (2000) Being Singular Plural, Translated by R. D. Richardson, A. E. O’Byrne. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Nancy, J.-L. (2007) Nothing but the world: An interview with vacarme. Rethinking Marxism 19(4): 521–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Panagia, D. (2009) Improper event: On Rancière’s mannerism. Citizenship Studies 13(3): 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Panagia, D. (2018) Rancière’s Sentiments. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rancière, J. (1998) The cause of the other. Parallax 4(2): 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rancière, J. (1999) Dis-agreement: Politics and Philosophy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Rancière, J. and Noudelmann, F. (2003) Entretien avec Jacques Rancière: La communauté comme dissentiment. Paroles 42: 86–99.Google Scholar
  32. Rancière, J. (2006) Hatred of Democracy, Translated by Steve Corcoran. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  33. Rancière, J. (2007) On the Shores of Politics. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  34. Rancière, J. (2009) A few remarks on the method of Jacques Rancière. Parallax 15(3): 114–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rancière, J. (2010) Dissensus on Politics and Aesthetics, Translated by Steven Corcoran. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  36. Rancière, J. (2011) The thinking of dissensus: Politics and aesthetics. In: P. Bowman and R. Stamp (eds.) Reading Rancière. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  37. Rancière, J. (2016) Methods of Equality: Interview with Laurent Jeanpierre and Dork Zabunyan, Translated by J. Rose. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  38. Sandel, M.J. (1998) Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Short, J. (2013) On an obligatory nothing: Situating the political in post-metaphysical community. Angelaki 18(3): 139–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tönnies, F. (2001) Community and Civil Society, Translated by J. Harris and M. Hollis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Woodford, C. (2017) Disorienting Democracy: The Politics of Emancipation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of European Languages, Culture and SocietyUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations