Pascal Michon

Could Rhythm Become a New Scientific Paradigm for the Humanities?

Article publié le 25 April 2018

Pour citer cet article : Pascal Michon , « Could Rhythm Become a New Scientific Paradigm for the Humanities?  », Rhuthmos, 25 April 2018 [en ligne].
Save this article in PDF Version imprimable de cet article Version imprimable Send this article by mail Send

This paper was presented in the Conference “Rhythm as Pattern and Variation : Political, Social and Artistic Inflections, Goldsmiths College — University of London, on April 23, 2016.

 Recent Development of Rhythmic Studies

The first thing that becomes obvious when you document, as I have been doing for the last five years, the studies dedicated in human and soc­ial science to rhythmic phenomena or using rhythm as operating concept—whatever its definition—is the rapid increase in their number.

Whereas thirty years ago rhythmic studies were very few and confined to sociology, economics, philosophy, musicology and poetics, they both multiplied and spread out in new disciplines. For the last twenty years, rhythmic research has been developing in psychiatry, psychoanalysis, cognitive science. It emerged in anthropology, history, geography, urbanism. We saw it rising in linguistics and communication science—even in disciplines that are more practical than scientific knowledge, such as management and education science. To make it short, we are witnessing a quite remarkable blooming of studies on rhythm or using rhythm as a tool.

 Emergence of a Rhythmic Scientific Paradigm?

This initial finding raises a question: should we see this reemergence of rhythm as more than a fad? Should we see it, more specifically, as a transformation of knowledge or what one might call a “paradigm shift”?

Assuming that we define the concept of “paradigm” as Thomas Kuhn did in the early 1960s, this would require that some problems, methods, concepts or certain findings would effectively be shared by a sufficiently large number of science and would provide a framework or a common epistemological support. Nowadays, obviously, this is not the case. Although increasingly frequent and spread in various fields, attention to rhythmic thematic remains dispersed and borrowings between disciplines are still rather rare.

This can be interpreted in three ways. The first, the most radical, would be that there is none and there never will be a “rhythm paradigm.” This interpretation cannot be excluded from the outset but it has the flaw of closing the debate even though we have not yet verified whether other interpretations might be possible.

The second, already a little more favorable, would be that the various examples that have just been quickly listed suggest that we would be at the mere beginning of a paradigm shift. This shift would be advanced enough to be detectable but not enough to be effective. The substitution of the new epistemological framework to the previous one would not be completed yet but it could happen in a foreseeable future.

The last one would be that we may need to question Kuhn’s view of scientific paradigms, which itself is a byproduct of a particular conception of science inspired by structuralism. Is it not possible indeed, that a paradigm supports, enlivens, irrigates various sciences without constituting an a priori, unconscious, uniform, with no exception framework? Could we not see the rhythmic paradigm rhythmically, i.e. as a simultaneously unitary and multiple ensemble of specific yet shareable ways to make the thought flow?

To put it in a nutshell, it is the third hypothesis which seems to me the most likely in view of the research that has been conducted on RHUTHMOS. The rhythm is indeed a new paradigm but in quite a new way which implies diversity of approaches and flexible articulations. It is in this sense that I will use the term paradigm in my presentation.

 Towards a New Kind of Paradigm?

In order not to remain too abstract, I would like first to present three examples: one taken in sociology, one in anthropology and finally another one in theory of language and poetics.

Sociology can rightly pride itself on numerous and ancient studies on rhythm of daily life, rhythm of work, rhythm of leisure. Time, labor, urban and entertainment sociologies are today flourishing. In most of these studies, the concept of rhythm is taken either in its traditional periodic sense or as mere speed of action. The change of rhythm is identified in the first case to a change of accentuation, that can sometimes lead to dissolution and complete fluidity [1], and in the second to a change of pace that supports the very fashionable theme of “acceleration” [2]. But one sees in the work of young urbanists, sociologists and geographers new concerns that give to the concept of rhythm a different and quite remarkable meaning.

Given the limit of this presentation, I will mention only one of these young researchers. In 2010 Benjamin Pradel has defended a PhD thesis entitled “Temporary Urbanism and Event Urbanity. The New Collective Rhythms” [3]. In this research he sought to challenge the common idea that life in great cities is becoming increasingly arrhythmic and dominated by movement and fluidity. He showed instead that numerous rhythms continue to organize the generation, support and destruction of singular and collective identities. But by so doing, he did not content himself with reintroducing discontinuity into continuity, or cadence into fluidity. His aim was to send back-to-back holistic and individualistic conceptions of social time and to show that the temporality of action is built in a constant interaction between individual and collective level, local and global scale. In great cities, rhythms of interaction certainly have no longer the regularity they had in urban societies of the past, but they are not completely dissolved either in what is often presented as a Brownian motion without term or form. To understand what is happening, we must, as Gilbert Simondon said, “start from the middle.” These interaction rhythms are new ways to produce social ties, which combine hypermodern features (e.g. the ceaseless weaving of weak ties) and updated legacy features (e.g. regular festive gatherings).

In anthropology the notion of rhythm which, in an already broader sense, was crucial to Boas, Mauss and Evans-Pritchard, was dismissed after WW2 and rejected out of the circle of scientific concern [4]. But in recent years, a mutation occurred through the emergence of what François Laplantine suggested calling a “modal anthropology” [5]. This, he said, is “an approach to apprehend lifestyle, action and knowledge, ways of being, and more precisely modulations of behavior, including the most seemingly trivial ones, in the dimension of time, or rather the duration. While a structural logic is a combinational logic presupposing the discontinuity of invariant signs likely to dispose and rearrange in a finite ensemble, a modal approach is much more attentive to transition processes and rhythmic transformations. Its main concern is less the nature of the relationship of the elements to the whole than the question of tone and intensity, that is to say the graduated oscillations between acceleration and deceleration, moving body and body at rest, contraction and relaxation” [6].

This new anthropology rejects any Eleatic perspective as well as any elementarism. It strongly rejects Structuralism. It wants to focus on continuity, modality, mutation, even derailment, and ultimately event, all kinds of phenomena that are not covered by traditional categories and deterministic logic. The rhythm, explicitly taken in the sense of mode of flowing, is thus becoming a leading operational concept. Without clearly saying it, this anthropology revives, in my view, reflections by Simmel, Mauss, Evans-Pritchard and many authors of the first half of the 20th century, who considered rhythm a key anthropological issue. In the 1930s, Marcel Mauss asserted in one of his lectures : “Socially and individually, man is a rhythmic animal.”

Last example: theory of language and poetics. For Henri Meschonnic, first of all, linguistics must be included into a more general discipline he called “theory of language”—in French “théorie du langage.” Unlike traditional linguistics, which presupposes the primacy of “la langue,” i.e. of a specific linguistic body linked to a social group—even when it includes the concept of enunciation—the theory of language is characterized by the primacy it gives to speech and language as an activity. It is part of a Humboldtian legacy that Meschonnic considers passing through Saussure and Benveniste. Moreover, this theory of language takes into account not only the ordinary discourse, as linguists and philosophers of language do, but also the literary discourse. So instead of considering poetics as external to linguistics, it places it instead at its center [7].

This double theoretical reversal is the frame that gives its meaning to Meschonnic’s quite innovative use of the rhythm concept. The language activity is characterized, Meschonnic says, by “a relational morphological performativity, [which] neutralizes the opposition between signifier and signified. [...] This neutralization involves a representative function of language as discourse at all linguistic levels, in intonation, phonology, syntax (word order), organization of speech [...] , etc. There is no longer a signifier opposed to a signified, but only one multiple, structural signifier, that brings about meaning from any part, a signifiance [...] constantly in the making and de-making.” [8]

Thus, far from being conceived, as in the tradition, as a succession of strong and weak beats more or less strictly arithmetically organized, the rhythm for Meschonnic means the continuing organization of this unique and at once multiple signifier, which produces signifiance : “I define rhythm in language as the organization of the marks by which the signifiers, be they linguistic or non-linguistic (especially in the case of oral communication), produce a specific semantics, separate from lexical meaning, that I call signifiance: that is to say the values specific to a discourse and to only one. These marks can be at all ‘levels’ of language: accentuation, prosody, lexis, syntax.” [9]

As we see, these three uses of the rhythm concept do not completely overlap. While the sociology of urban life still gives an important space to its metric definition and the anthropology of traditional groups adopts the opposite view by making rhythm the mere modality of a flow, theory of language and poetics seeks to elaborate a concept taking on the tension between form and flow.

Anyway, these three various investigations share what one might call a “family resemblance,” which makes them reject any structural and even systemic model, without falling either into differentialistic or individualistic views. They develop new perspectives from concepts neglected by previous paradigms: rhythms, modes and ways or manners of flowing.

These differences as well as these common theoretical rejections and choices make these studies form a constellation whose elements are relatively independent from each other but share some important features.

 Historical Differences with Previous Paradigms

To make the stakes of these innovations clearer to those who are not familiar with the debate concerning epistemology in human and social science, I will say now a few words about what distinguishes this new paradigm from previous ones. Then I will briefly address the question of its conceptual specificity.

In the 1950s and more than ever in the 1960s, the concept of “structure,” defined as a stable organization based on a set of internal differences, provided a formal model for many human and social sciences. At the same time, it allowed to organize these sciences around a discipline queen: linguistics. Language—at least as it was defined by phonology—was a type of organization that seemed to be generalizable to many other realities.

Simultaneously, but over a significantly longer period of time, the concept of “system” represented a second “universal” formal model, used both in social and natural science. This time it was not linguistics that provided the central model but cybernetics. Like the structure, the system was defined as a stable organization but its stability resulted from the divergent yet in the long run balanced interaction of differentiated elements.

Since the 1970s and especially the 1980s, both models have been regularly challenged and two other concepts began to occupy the space left by their progressive withdrawal: on the one hand, the concept of “difference” which was presented as a legacy of Nietzsche’s and Heidegger’s critiques of metaphysics, but which also presupposed a number of principles drawn from structuralism; on the other hand, the concept of “individual” that first, in the 1980s, openly challenged the concept of system, but eventually, in the 1990s, combined with it in new syntheses based on hermeneutical, interactionnist or neo-dialectic methodologies. While in the first case—the difference model—the philosophy of temporality replaced linguistics as paradigm core, in the second—the individualist model—the economy took the place of cybernetics.

The opinions on what remains today of these four paradigms diverge sharply. While everyone agrees that the structural paradigm collapsed long ago, the fate of the other three is still the subject of lively debate.

It seems to me that none of these paradigms correspond any longer to the way our neo-capitalist world, both fluid and full of shocks, operates and that this fact alone already opens a space for rhythm. The radical historical break through which we have passed in the last twenty years has made these theoretical models obsolete, while it gave again to rhythm an operative character.

If our societies are penetrated by forces that fragment them and increasingly individualize us, this does not entail a greater capacity for action and experience. It is rather the opposite: we are more and more individualized but we become less easily subjects. Therefore, except for the economists of the classical school and some sociologists, very few scientists still support the view that individuals could be considered as the primary elements of reality from which any human or social science should be built.

Overall systemic approaches have not lost all legitimacy. But here too there are questions about their appropriateness to a universe that has been largely de-systematized for at least two decades. While the world as it emerged from WW2 was composed of relatively stable systems nested inside each other—United Nations Organization, blocks, free trade areas, states, businesses, families, even individuals—the events that have occurred in the last decades have questioned all these modes of organization one after the other. The blocks have disappeared; the UN has been ruled out at least for a time; production, consumption and information have been globalized through transport, telecommunication, and information networks that grid now the entire globe. The states have been liberalized; businesses reorganized into networks; the traditional family had to accept periodic re-configurations and individuals to demonstrate capabilities of faster engagement and disengagement. None of these new social forms still pertains to the traditional system theories.

Finally, approaches based on the various philosophies of difference, whether ontological, semiotic or pragmatist, continue, meanwhile, to be a great success—at least quantitatively. But one may question the relevance of the critiques they have been developing, for a good fifteen years now, with regard to the contemporary world, whose operation consists for a great part in the deconstruction of oppositions and frontiers, the questioning of hierarchical systems and the commoditization of alternative lifestyles. One wonders even if, in some cases, these approaches have not become more or less willingly mere auxiliaries of the current capitalist revolution. What looked critical when the world was dominated by hierarchical, stable and stifling classification systems, seems less and less relevant since the world has become open, mobile and fluid.

As in the late 19th and early 20th century, we are now faced with an intensification of the economic globalization, a fluidization of societies, an increase in social inequalities, and a reorganization of the balance of power in the world. And that is why, as a hundred twenty years ago when rhythm began to be taken into account by human and social science, we need new thinking models that are adequate to the new world, at once fluid and fractured, in which we have entered. Indeed it is precisely a model of this kind that the rebirth of the concept of rhythm suggests.

 Conceptual Particularities of the Rhythmic Paradigm

I turn now to the main features that give the new emerging concept of rhythm its particular potential in the historical and theoretical context that I have just described.

The first is the rejection of the metric model that has dominated Western thought since Plato, Aristotle and Aristoxenus of Tarentum. By explicitly abandoning the Platonic and Aristotelian model of rhythm as simple “order of movement”, kinêseôs taxis (ἡ τῆς κινήσεως τάξις, Pl. Lg. 665a) or “regular recurring motion” (πᾶς ῥ. ὡρισμένῃ μετρεῖται κινήσει, Arist. Pr. 882b2), Meschonnic anticipated what happened later in other disciplines, more or less explicitly: he returned to the pre-Socratic view reported by Benveniste in his famous article “The concept of ‘rhythm’ in its linguistic expression” (1951). The rhythm recovered its ancient meaning of rhuthmos, that is to say not only, as we read too often in hasty comments, “a configuration at a given moment of a reality that is soon going to change” but a real “way of flowing.” Now this is one of the most significant elements of the current scientific changes: the best of them are made in the name of what I call a rhuthmological conception of rhythm [10].

The second important feature of the new concept of rhythm concerns its ontogenetic dimension. Far from being a mere sensitive phenomenon, thus only pertaining to aesthesis, the rhythm is considered as the support of individuation phenomena, i.e. the generation of entities separate from each other but which are nevertheless in permanent if not constant mutation.

The last significant feature of the new concept of rhythm is its ethical and political dimension. If rhythm supports individuation, it may sometimes support subjectivation as well, in the sense of the becoming-agent of the individuals who are concerned. Then rhythm has a critical dimension that makes it a fundamental tool for understanding our past but also the new world we are now living in.

These three features explain in my opinion—although the analysis should certainly be further refined—the epistemological, ethical and political effectiveness of the new concept of rhythm. Once redefined as rhuthmos and with its aspects of individuation and possible subjectivation, the concept of rhythm becomes a very powerful tool.


Owing to historical studies that have multiplied in recent years, we begin to understand that the current emergence of rhythm actually re-actualizes a number of previous artistic, philosophical and scientific endeavors: before the 20th century, the Platonic metric model has already been challenged a number of times. I think of Diderot in France in the 18th century and of the group of artists and art theorists, which in Germany in the late 18th century included Moritz, Goethe, Schiller, Schlegel, Hölderlin [11]. I also think of the constellation that marked the second half of the 19th century with Baudelaire, Wagner, Nietzsche, Hopkins, Mallarmé, Debussy, Mahler. Finally, I think of the scholars who, in the late 19th century and the first half of the 20th, set the rhythm at the center of their concerns, while implicitly or explicitly challenging its Platonic definition: Tarde, Mauss, Evans-Pritchard, Granet, Bergson, Whitehead. To this list, we should add all thinkers who reflected on rhythm in the late 1970s and the early 1980s: Lefebvre, Foucault, Barthes, Serres, Maldiney, Deleuze, Meschonnic, who is one of the most articulate on the matter.

Taking rhythm as rhuthmos—let us repeat it because it is a source of persistent misunderstandings—is not intended to oppose the fact that there are phenomena ordered by a succession of strong and weak beats, distributed arithmetically or by recurring periods or cyclical oscillations. Simply, as already pointed out by Aristotle in his Poetics, rhythm is not in the meter, but meter in the rhythm. All metric organizations are organizations of dynamic phenomena and are therefore rhythms. But many rhythms are not reducible to the concept of measured order of movement, the Greek called metron. The contrast between rhythmics and metrics is therefore not only conceptual, it is primarily strategic: it is about how to fit these concepts into one another. The concept of rhuthmos is broader and more powerful than the traditional concept of rhythm. It includes more cases in extension while it describes better their specificities.

Now we see what may be the main reason that explains the emergence of rhythm we have witnessed for the last twenty years. Rhythm, when redefined as rhuthmos i.e. as way of flowing resulting in individuation and possibly subjectivation, is much better suited to the needs of all sciences that deal with objects that manifest themselves as organized flows. Whether those are the flows of speech, writing or information, the flows that constantly intertwine in major global cities and tourist places, or the personal and social flows that the new modal anthropology tries to understand, every time modern science must solve the same type of problem: the observer faces a dynamic reality that runs continuously and whose particularity is that it can never be stopped and fixed in a stable form. But it is not either a totally liquid, amorphous, unorganized reality as some claim a bit hastily. It involves moving organizations as well as organized mutations.

Studying beings from the rhythms that make them emerge, fulfills the vow of Simondon to “start from the middle”, that is to say from the activities in which they are constantly generated and destroyed, while they seem falsely exist by themselves and retain a substantial identity. Instead of starting from individuals or systems, as if they already existed per se, and look how they eventually interact, but also instead of looking only to the countless ways linguistic differance or temporal difference subvert identity, one will study the singular and collective individuation-disindividuation processes, i.e. the processes of simultaneous generation-destruction of individuals and systems at all body, language and social levels. Certainly, such an approach removes any ethical and political guarantee based on individual soul or collective consciousness, but it does not indulge in relativism either because these processes can always be classified and criticized according 1. to the degree of life power, that is to say of subjectivation, each of them guarantees to singular and collective individuals, and 2. the degree of shareability of this power. A process generating individuals by exploiting, discriminating or even destroying other individuals is clearly the lowest it can exist. On the contrary a process generating individuals by including and empowering others is the best one can hope for.

Let me conclude with a few words of praise and encouragement to all researchers who engaged in recent years in rhythmanalytical or rhythmological research. Apart from a few seniors as François Laplantine, Jean-Claude Schmitt [12] or myself, most of those researchers are young. They form a group of people who, without always being fully aware of it, share common formal and methodological concerns. These young researchers stumble against many obstacles: lack of job, rejection of innovation, fierce resistance against anything that might question the scientific legitimacy of existing authority relying on outdated paradigms. I have no less confidence in their future. I believe a new “rhythm-generation” is slowly emerging, a generation that will, I am confident, introduce a radical change of rhythm in human and social science.


[1Z. Bauman, Liquid Modernity, Cambridge, Polity, 2000.

[2H. Rosa, Accélération. Une critique sociale du temps, (2005) Paris, La Découverte, 2010.

[3For the introduction of this PhD thesis see B. Pradel, « Le rythme : une question de recherche urbaine ».

[4P. Michon, Rythmes, pouvoir, mondialisation, (2005) Paris, Rhuthmos, 2016 ; P. Michon, Les rythmes du politique. Démocratie et capitalisme mondialisé, (2007) Paris, Rhuthmos, 2015.

[5F. Laplantine, Le Social et le Sensible. Introduction à une anthropologie modale, Paris, Téraèdre, 2005.

[7P. Michon, Fragments d’inconnu. Pour une histoire du sujet, Paris, Le Cerf, 2010.

[8H. Meschonnic, Le Signe et le Poème, Paris, Gallimard, 1975, p. 512, my trans.

[9H. Meschonnic, Critique du rythme. Anthropologie historique du langage, Lagrasse, Verdier, 1982, p. 216-217, my trans.

[10See P. Michon, Elements of Rhythmology, vol. 1 and vol. 2, Paris, Rhuthmos, 2018.

[11P. Michon, Rythmologie baroque. Spinoza, Leibniz, Diderot, Paris, Rhuthmos, 2015 ; see also, « Elements of Rhythmology – Preface ».

[12J.-C. Schmitt, Les rythmes au Moyen Âge, Paris, Gallimard, 2016

Follow site activity RSS 2.0 | Site Map | Private area | SPIP