.jpeg)
PHILOSOPHY
Stéphanie Roza, philosopher: ‘Being in favor of
degrowth is anti-progressive, there are countries that need to grow’
This French researcher, who specializes in the history
of socialism, is concerned about how the left is distancing itself from the
values of the Enlightenment
Marc
Bassets
MARC
BASSETS
SEP 24,
2023 - 08:00CEST
Stéphanie
Roza, 43, is a leftist by origins, by family and by conviction. At the French
National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), the Paris-born philosopher
specializes in the Enlightenment and the history of socialism.
She sits
down with EL PAÍS at a table in an air-conditioned café in front of Lyon
station in Paris. Outside, it’s a blazing hot afternoon. She speaks about how
her grandparents — Eastern European Jews who arrived in France before World War
II — joined the Communist Resistance. Her parents, meanwhile, took part in the
mass protests in May, 1968.
Roza
herself was a member of the Trotskyist extreme left, until around the age of
30. After becoming disappointed in the movement, she distanced herself.
However, as a university student, she made the left — particularly its origins
in the ideals of the Enlightenment (1685-1815) and the French Revolution
(1789-1799) — a subject of study. She recently published a book in French
titled The Left Against the Enlightenment.
Question.
What bothers you about the left today?
Answer. I
think it’s in a deep crisis. The reconstruction of a credible alternative to
capitalism won’t be possible if we destroy the foundation of the emancipation
project: the universalist, progressive and rationalist heritage of the
Enlightenment.
Q. Isn’t it
paradoxical to say that the left goes against the Enlightenment? Doesn’t the
left precisely come out of the Enlightenment ideals of human rights, reason and
revolution?
A. I was
surprised to read [the writings of] left-wing militants or intellectuals. who
claim that universalism masks the domination of white European males, that
human rights are actually the rights of white men, or that progress in general
is disastrous for the human race. This was what motivated me to write my book.
Q. You
write that there’s an “irrationalist” left. How so?
A. There’s
a rejection of science among a part of the left. With the health crisis, [this
sector] questioned the scientific consensus regarding vaccines. Deputies from
France Insoumise (the far-left political party, “France Unbowed”) went to the
Antilles, not to convince the residents of the need for vaccines but, on the
contrary, to inflame [fears about vaccines] that, in the Antilles, are the
results of the past shortcomings of the French state. Being in favor of
scientific progress and thinking that technology should serve to improve the
lot of everyone… that’s part of the DNA of the left. There’s a rupture here.
Q. You also
mention an “anti-progressive” left.
A. The left
— perhaps a little naively — was very productivist in the past: it was thought
that all industrial and technical progress would mechanically improve the lot
of everyone. Today, with the ecological crisis, it’s clear that we have to be
selective [about which industrial activities to pursue]. But even in the face
of this, the only thing that can help us is science and technological progress:
to reduce pollution, to produce things in a cleaner way, to travel in a cleaner
way.
There’s a
part of the left that favors degrowth. I agree with degrowth if, for example,
it means that clothing consumption in rich countries is reduced. But being in
favor of global degrowth — without understanding that there are countries and
sectors that still need to grow — is anti-progressive. It represents a break
with an entire leftist, socialist, communist and anarchist tradition, which has
been in place since the 19th century.
Q. You also
maintain that today’s left is “anti-universalist.”
A.
Universalism is the principle that emerges from the different declarations of
human rights since 1789. It’s the idea that every human being — by the simple
fact of being human, regardless of their sex, religion, skin color — is endowed
with inalienable rights. It’s a formidable lever for emancipation that has been
claimed and used as such since the French Revolution.
Q. Why is
this segment of the left anti-universalist?
A.
According to certain leftists, the rights of the white man haven’t been
proclaimed to emancipate everyone, but proclaimed by white males for
themselves. It’s not entirely false: [in 1789], many [French] deputies didn’t
want to emancipate the Blacks of the colonies. But, once the [Declaration of
the Rights of Man and of the Citizen] existed and rights were proclaimed, it
fueled an emancipation movement. [In Haiti], the slaves rose up when they
learned that the Revolution had taken place in France and that rights had been
proclaimed.
Q. How do
you explain the current evolution of the left?
A. There
are political reasons, such as the disappointments caused by the large
traditional parties of the left: the Socialist Party [in France] gave
protection to the colonial wars, while the Communist Party was not only
committed to Stalinism, but was late to feminism and anti-racism.
Q. And
there are intellectual reasons, too.
A. Its
origin is found in philosophies of the radical right, such as those of
Nietzsche and Heidegger… Nazism in the case of Heidegger. Paradoxically, these
philosophies were recovered by thinkers who were on the left. Foucault’s case
is important. He exposed oppressions that nobody was paying attention to: in
prisons or against sexual minorities. But, starting from this positive
criticism, he went so far as to question the primacy of reason in modern
society. By assuming a bigger role in social discourse, reason becomes,
according to Foucault, a discourse of power. He presents the Enlightenment and
rationalist discourse as a discourse of domination. Thus, he discredits reason.
And there’s another thing from Foucault that we find in the current left: its fascination
with Islamist theological and political processes. [Certain leftists] defend
the rights of homosexuals and absolute sexual freedom in the West, but they go
to Iran and find nothing to object to, either regarding the situation of women
or sexual minorities. It’s a form of orientalism in reverse: what’s good for
the West — in terms of freedoms — isn’t good for Eastern societies.
Q. Doesn’t
this mean that the liberal center — such as what Macron represents in France —
is the heir of the Enlightenment? If the left is also anti-enlightened, like
the extreme right...
A. There
are two branches in the inheritance of the Enlightenment: the socialist and the
liberal. Since the French Revolution, it’s not only socialists who defend human
rights — so do liberals. The socialist heritage is more radical, though: we
must expand and deepen human rights and integrate more and more people. And
[socialists] oppose the liberals on socio-economic issues: the Macronists are
destroying the pension system, they’re allowing our public services to be
destroyed. The Macronists aren’t the first to do this, but they have
accelerated the process. In any case, today’s liberals continue to defend a
heritage that is theirs, too. It’s the left that’s facing a crisis and has
forgotten its roots.
.jpeg)
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário