|
Biography: PIERRE BOURDIEU (1930–2002)
"With the death of Pierre Bourdieu, the world has lost its most famous sociologist, and the European Left its most passionate and authoritative voice of the past decade. . . . The leitmotif of his work, throughout his life, was inequality—his writings can be read as one long investigation of its manifold forms and mechanisms in modern capitalist societies."
Discussion:
A Franco-German exchange between novelist and sociologist on the success of neoliberalism in transforming political regression into the standard of social progress; and the fate of the Enlightenment in the two leading cultures of the European Union.
G: " . . . the consequences of political failure—politics having now been entirely displaced by the economy."
B: " . . . political reasons: we believed that the violence wrought by neoliberal policies in Europe and Latin America, and many other countries, is so great that one cannot capture it with purely conceptual analyses."
G: " . . . Both of us—you as a sociologist and myself as a writer—are children of the Enlightenment, a tradition which today, at least in Germany and France, is being called into question, as if the process of the European Enlightenment had failed or been cut short, as if we could now continue without it. I don’t agree. I see flaws, incomplete developments in the process of Enlightenment—for example, the reduction of reason to what is purely technically feasible."
B: "I see neoliberalism as a conservative revolution, as the term was used between the wars in Germany—a strange revolution that restores the past but presents itself as progressive, transforming regression itself into a form of progress."
G: " . . . since the collapse of the Communist hierarchies, capitalism—recast as neoliberalism—has felt it could run riot, as if out of control. There is no longer a counterweight to it. Today even the few remaining responsible capitalists are raising a warning finger, as they watch their instruments slip from their grasp, and see neoliberalism repeating the mistakes of Communism—issuing articles of faith that deny there is any alternative to the free market and claiming infallibility."
G: "A capitulation to the economy is taking place."
B: "There has been a sort of permanent unrest, which has obliged the social democrats in power to adopt at least the pretence of a socialist discourse. . . . all social gains have historically come from active struggles. . . . the power of the dominant order is not just economic, but intellectual— lying in the realm of beliefs. That’s why one must speak out: to restore a sense of utopian possibility . . . "
G: " . . . what’s lacking is an attempt on the part of the unions to break out of the national framework into a form of organization and mobilization that would transcend frontiers. . . . working people who have been unionized their whole lives have far greater experience in the social sphere than intellectuals. Today, they’re either unemployed or retired; no one seems to need them any more. Their strength remains entirely unused."
G: " . . . beginning to doubt a little whether the untrammelled circulation of money around the globe, this madness that has broken out within neoliberalism, should go unopposed: for example, mergers without sense or purpose that result in two or three, or ten thousand people losing their jobs. Stock markets reflect only maximization of profits."
B: "Unfortunately, it’s not simply a question of countering a dominant discourse that preens itself as unanimous wisdom. To fight it effectively, we need to be able to diffuse and publicize a critical discourse."
G: "My understanding of narrative fiction was always . . . that it should tell a story from the point of view of people who do not make history, but to whom history happens: victims or culprits, opportunists, fellow- travellers, those who are hunted. . . . If we rely only on the documents of historians, we certainly learn a great deal about the victors; but the story of the losers is as a rule written inadequately, if at all. . . . [On TV talk shows a]midst all the blathering, the person who wins out is the one who talks longest or most completely ignores the others. As a rule, nothing of note is said because the moment anything becomes interesting, or issues come to a head, the anchor changes the subject."
B: " writers and thinkers today have been entirely dispossessed of the means of production and transmission; they no longer have any control over them, and must make their point in short programmes, by all manner of tricks and subterfuges."
G: " . . . what is astounding when you look at the course of history is how great an effect a minority can have. Of course, it has had to develop certain tactics, particular ruses, to make itself heard."
B: " . . . [in] the time of the Enlightenment. The Encyclopædia was a weapon that mobilized new means of communication against obscurantism. [n: deliberate obscurity or evasion of clarity.] . . . we should be trying to invent new ways of producing and conveying a message."
G: "Neoliberalism has adopted the deepest aspiration of anarchism . . . namely, to do away with the State altogether. Its message is: away with it, we’ll take over from here. In France or in Germany, if a necessary reform is to be carried out at all—and I’m speaking of reforms rather than revolutionary measures—nothing can happen until private industry’s demand for lower taxes is met, and the economy approves. This is a disempowerment of the State of which anarchists could only dream, and yet it is taking place—and so I find myself, as probably do you, in the curious position of trying to ensure that the State once again assumes responsibility, regulates society once more."
B: " . . . is it enough to demand a return to ‘more State’? In order to avoid falling into the trap laid by the conservative revolution, I think we have to invent another kind of State."
G: " . . . neoliberalism, naturally, only wants to do away with those activities of the State that impinge on the economy. The State ought to muster the police, to enforce public order—these are not the business of neoliberalism. But if the State is deprived of its power to regulate the social sphere, and of responsibility for those—not only the disabled, children or the elderly—who are excluded from the process of production or not yet involved in it, if a form of economy spreads that can escape any sort of accountability by flight forward into globalization, then society must intervene to restore welfare and social provision via the State. Irresponsibility is the organizing principle of the neoliberal vision."
B: " . . . I once wrote a critical analysis of Heidegger’s rhetoric, which has been wreaking havoc in France until very recently."
G: "That the foggy thinking which had such fateful consequences in Germany should be so admired in France, is a rich absurdity."
G: "Left trade unionists, who were otherwise progressive in every respect, believed jobs were at risk as soon as ecological issues were raised—an outlook that persists to this day. . . . It must be understood that ecological issues cannot be separated from issues of work and employment, and that all decisions have to be environmentally sustainable."
B: "Europeans are, deep down, ashamed of their civilization, and no longer dare to uphold their traditions. The process begins in the economic sphere, but gradually extends to the realm of culture. They are ashamed of their cultural traditions, they experience a continual guilt at defending traditions that are perceived and condemned as archaic—in the cinema, in literature, and elsewhere. . . . It is becoming increasingly difficult to resist a kind of superficial modernism, typically coming from the Anglo-Saxon countries, which represents itself as transcending older forms, while regressing well behind any of the artistic revolutions of the twentieth century."
G: " . . . the shared European process of the Enlightenment. Matters were different before nation-states became so dominant. The French took notice of what happened in Germany, and vice versa; . . . both minorities struggling to spread Enlightenment, against their respective censorships."
B: " . . . if we are to resist the destruction of what we associate more generally with the Enlightenment—scientific and technological progress, and control over that progress. We need to invent a new utopianism, rooted in contemporary social forces, for which . . . it will be necessary to create new kinds of movement."
B: "Today, since it is in crisis, the social movement as a whole is more open, more responsive to criticism, and becoming much more thoughtful. Suddenly, it is much readier to welcome new kinds of critique of our society that encompass it as well. These critical, reflective social movements are, in my opinion, the future."
G: " . . . I see little inclination or interest in continuing the Enlightenment tradition of speaking out, of getting involved. If there is no-one to relieve us, in the best sense of that word, then this part of a good European tradition will be lost." ... [more]
4:33:16 PM Google It! 
|
