The Myth of Performativity: From Aristotle to Arendt and Taminiaux

  • Pavlos KontosEmail author
Part of the Contributions To Phenomenology book series (CTPH, volume 89)


What I want to call the “Myth of Performativity” is a theoretical conception, mistakenly attributed to Aristotle, about what distinguishes praxis in the strict sense (i.e., morally and politically relevant actions) from other kinds of human activities. According to the Myth, actions constitute pure performances—i.e., a sheer display of ethical virtue—and do not leave behind themselves concrete traces in the world—i.e., any traces significant for appraising their goodness. If that is what performativity would amount to, it can only be mythical. So how can the Myth be a pitfall? The reason is that the Myth takes inspiration from a correct understanding of actions: to differentiate actions from other kinds of human activities—for instance, from productions (poiêsis)—it is useful to ascribe a sort of performativity to the former. The Myth becomes, however, a real risk once one distorts the performativity proper to actions and, instead, celebrates pure performativity. And the Myth of Performativity in this latter form becomes an irresistible temptation for those who hold inappropriate views about the political realm and the role assumed therein by certain Promethean activities which are supposed to be performative in a paradigmatic way. In this paper I mean to show that, throughout his work, Taminiaux’s concern remains one and the same: to alert us to the dangerous attractions of the Myth of Performativity. I will expound the above claims in two steps; first, by showing—pace Arendt and Taminiaux—that Aristotle himself had militated against the Myth and, second, by demonstrating that the phenomenology of action casts doubt on the legitimacy of the Myth.


Ethical Virtue Practical Wisdom Nicomachean Ethic Public Realm Narrative Identity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



I am grateful to Fabio Ciaramelli, Véronique Fóti, and Vassiliki Vergouli for their insightful comments on a penultimate version of the paper.


  1. Arendt, Hannah. 1958. The human condition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. ———. 1963. On revolution. New York: New York Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  3. ———. 1968a. Between past and future. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
  4. ———. 1968b. The origins of totalitarianism. San Diego/New York/London: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  5. ———. 1978. The life of the mind. San Diego/New York/London: Harcourt Brace & Company.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 1990. Philosophy and politics. Social Research 57 (1): 73–103.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 1992. In Lectures on Kant’s political philosophy, ed. R. Beiner. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. ———. 1993. In Was ist Politik? ed. U. Ludz. München/Zürich: Piper.Google Scholar
  9. Beiner, Ronald. 1992. Hannah Arendt on judging. In Lectures on Kant’s political philosophy, 89–156. Chicago: Univesity of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 2014. Political philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bernstein, Richard. 1986. Philosophical Profiles. Cambridge: Polity Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bodéüs, Richard. 1993. The political dimensions of Aristotle’s ethics. Albany: SUNY.Google Scholar
  13. Heidegger, Martin. 1986. Sein und Zeit. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. ———. 1992. Platon: Sophistes (Ga19). Frankfurt a. M.: V. Klostermann. English edition: Heidegger, M. 1997. Plato: Sophistes (trans:Rojcewicz, R. and Schuwer, A.). Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Husserl, Edmund. 1954. Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften und die transzendentale Phänomenologie, Husserliana VI. Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  16. Keyt, David. 1999. Aristotle Politics. Books V and VI. Clarendon Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
  17. Kontos, Pavlos. 2011. Aristotle’s moral realism reconsidered. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Kraut, Richard. 1997. Aristotle: Politics. Books VII and VIII. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  19. Miller, F.D. 1991. Aristotle on natural law and justice. In A companion to Aristotle’s Politics, ed. D. Keyt and F.D. Miller, 279–306. Oxford/Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Newman, W. L. 1887–1902. The Politics of Aristotle (4 volumes). Clarendon Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
  21. Reeve, C. D. C. 2014. Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics (translated with Introduction and Notes). Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
  22. ———. 2017. Aristotle. Politics (translated with Introduction and Notes). Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
  23. Schütrumpf, Eckart. 1991–1996. Aristoteles. Politik (4 volumes). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
  24. Taminiaux, Jacques. 1992. La fille de Thrace et le penseur professionnel. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
  25. ———. 1997. The Thracian maid and the professional thinker. Trans. and ed. M. Gendre. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  26. ———. 2002a. Sillages Phénoménologiques. Bruxelles: Ousia.Google Scholar
  27. ———. 2002b. The philosophical stakes in Arendt’s genealogy of totalitarianism. Social Research 69 (2): 423–446.Google Scholar
  28. ———. 2005. Art et événement. Paris: Belin.Google Scholar
  29. ———. 2009. Maillons herméneutiques. Paris: PUF.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. ———. 2014. Chroniques d’anthropologie politique. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
  31. Villa, Dana. 1996. Arendt and Heidegger: The fate of the political. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Yack, Bernard. 1993. Problems of a political animal. Berkley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of PatrasPatrasGreece

Personalised recommendations