Pierre Bourdieu on Radio Libertaire: A Cardinal visits the Anarchists*
Interview conducted by Archibald Zurvan transl. by Sharif Gemie
On 1 March 2001, Pierre Bourdieu discussed his most recent work, Contre-feux no 2, pour un mouvement social européen [Counter-Attack 2: For a European Social Movement] (Editions Raison d'Agir, 30 francs), on the `Weekly Diary' programme of Radio Libertaire. As Bourdieu has been placed on the black list by those who dominate the media, `Science's Cardinal Ratzinger' [1] (as he was described by the editor of the Temps Modernes: see Le Monde, 18 September 1998) came to debate some points with the anarchists.
Radio Libertaire: Why have you accepted the invitation from the anarchists' radio station? Is it to publicize your `Raisons d'Agir' collection? Don't you know that RL, which is almost the only independent radio station, only has a tiny audience even if they are the elite of the listening public? How do you get on with the official media?
Pierre Bourdieu: The official media repel me by which I mean that they are repulsive.[2] I consistently refuse all invitations from television or radio. It is simply out of pleasure, out of a sense of solidarity, and in order to call for a non-centralist, non-authoritarian form of mobilization, even a libertarian mobilization, that I am here. In the arguments which I develop, it seems to me that the anarchist tradition has a role to play. I consider that all who are inspired by anarchist thought, or who are close to that way of thinking, are precisely the sort of people I want to reach. Alongside others, anarchists seem to me to be particularly suitable to enter into the new international political movement which is being organized.
RL: You write that everybody who is concerned about social movements, and in particular intellectuals and researchers in Europe today, ought to get involved [in this movement]. Is there a general theme, a philosophy which inspires your thinking as editor of this collection?
PB: Yes and no. The basic philosophy is given by the title of the collection: `Raisons d'Agir' [reasons to be active]. We are trying to recreate a link between those who analyse and try to explain social phenomena (the researchers in social sciences, sociologists, economists, etc.), and those who act. This is an extremely difficult task, as the connection between the two has been muddled for a long time, particularly by certain intellectuals who are supposed to be supporting social movements, and who, having entered the Communist Party as if it was a church, have become zombies. It is also difficult to put the ideas of socio-economic experts into simple words. You need to decode what lies behind the economists' equations.
RL: To recreate the link between actors on the ground and intellectuals, to overcome the suspicion of the type of language used by those who claimed, in the name of the Marxist religion, to have the monopoly in leading the people along the unique path of emancipation and happiness, you need to find another language, different from that of the boss, the party or trade-union bureaucratÉ
PB: Yes, nobody speaks like they used to. People will no longer be treated as if they were bloody idiots. The creation of trade unions or of any sort of parallel institutions (such as SUD [3], for example), flow to an extent from this understanding that now is the moment to stop listening to the authorities' voices. Trade union officials, dogmatic intellectuals, even when they appear to be talking subversively, still unconsciously obey authority: this can be seen in the way they act. What we're doing with these little books that anyone can read, isn't a waste of time. This attempt to present complex knowledge, which is frequently difficult to put into simple language, is accompanied by an unrelenting struggle against one of the signs of voluntary obedience: that of veneration. There is a dreadful gap between the educated, who possess what I term `the monopoly of the universal' and the mass who aren't educated, who don't understand and who follow those with knowledge. I call for a struggle against the veneration of elites, a veneration which allows their self-reproduction a point which I also apply to myself in my analyses.
RL: In your book you correctly stress that Europe is a `trap', a `mask' which hides the unlimited domination of the USA and multi-national companies. However, couldn't you be bolder when proposing remedies? To `struggle' for the mere `democratic transformation' of `non-democratic' institutions', to `radicalize' instead of annihilating the European project, to replace the European Commission by `an executive which is responsible to a directly-elected European parliament'É To us, all your proposals seem extremely timid, particularly when compared to the pernicious potential of this process which has been systematically developed and set in place over half a century and which, today, is dragging all of us, Europeans and non-Europeans, towards a catastrophe whose first portents were visible as soon as the European framework was created, and whose latest terrifying symptoms are mad cow disease, diverse epidemics, the massacre of animals, the collapse of whole sectors of the economy, and the threats to public health, etc.
PB: Europe today is a network for the dominant economic forces. Europe has been identified with modernity, in the sense that modernity is the opposite of archaism, conservatism and nationalism. In fact, there are two Europes. The first, which distinguishes itself from the USA, and asserts its commitment to the ethics of solidarity, to solidarity with the Third World, and to a welfare state. The other Europe which is currently being built, and which hides the first, is a simple appendage of the USA. This is the Europe of social destruction, and the planned elimination of collective structures, following the model of Britain or Canada: leading to a type of dominion status or customs union with the American metropolis. This form of Europe must be clearly denounced: it is this form which today is preventing Ireland from saving its public services. But this struggle cannot be fought at a national level. At the national level, all we'd be fighting would be puppets, straw men, such as our two co-habiting rivals [ie Chirac and Jospin SG]. The struggle must be world-wide, but it is at the European level that one can hope to find new forms of organization which will allow the drawing together of the those forces which are already active today, and spur on new mobilizations, whether by trade unionists or others.
RL: What do you mean by what you term a European social movement?
PB: We must build on three pillars, or three forces.
The first is formed by the social initiatives which have been organized mainly in Europe over the past few years, which operate through open co-ordination, without hierarchies or centralization, inspired by anti-authoritarian, libertarian ideas of self-management, even if they don't use these terms.
The second is formed by the old trade-union structures, which have certainly disappeared in Britain, but which are still alive in Italy and in Germany, and which must renovate themselves.
The third is formed by researchers in Europe and the world in all fields (economics, sociology, sciences in generalÉ), who are devising the instruments needed for reflection and for action to radically transform the present socio-economic order.
I realize that the combination of three forces may seem an explosive mixture, but who could guarantee the unity of any combination in this matter?
RL: Concerning what you term the third force of the social movement, you write: `We must force scientific achievements into the realm of public debate. At present, they are tragically absentÉ' Putting to one side the positive aspects of scientific development, doesn't your idea risk masking the damage done by a science `without conscience', and risk making scientists into a homogeneous category, united in their support and participation with other social forces which are fighting for a radical transformation of society?
PB: That's true: you can't speak of a homogeneous class of scientists. Not all of them are joining the movement of opposition and struggle. Of course, you must be skeptical of science and experts, but that's easier to do if you have some experts with you.
Besides, you must recognize the bravery of some researchers, sometimes their real anguish. Like all of us, they too need recognition, and without respect, some will drift into an unhappy feeling of resentment, even towards fascism something which we have seen in the past.
RL: Even if we're only considering the need to stimulate, to co-ordinate and to organize both planned and spontaneous actions, don't you think that we must ensure that these actions move along the same path? We would like to hear your opinion about one such movement: ATTAC [4]. In our opinion, the idea of fighting economic inequality by a tax on currency movements which are said to be speculative seems to be a tragic misunderstanding, as the proposed instrument will legitimate and encourage the development of speculation.
PB: Yes, I agree with your analysis of ATTAC. But, to return to what I said concerning Europe, it's true that my proposals are somewhat reformist. But there are also something concrete activities, such as the forthcoming meetings in Vienna, Athens, etc. This is a utopia that is on the move, quite different from movements such as ATTAC.
It concerns the regrouping of militants, of resisters, of anarchists, of all conscious rebels. Through organizing, they can become a real opposition. They will contribute to raising people's consciousness, to awakening their judgements. Yes, the critical part of my book is more developed than the constructive part. You can't build social movements out of old models. There are no more master thinkers. To me, it seems useful to try to draw together and organize those forces which are looking for each other, to create forms of organization which will encourage the birth of new ideas.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor's note: There is a website that indicates the main pages on the web related to Pierre Bourdieu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Translator's note:
The following text is a translation of an interview given by the leading French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. It is freely available for non-profit purposes, on condition that the both original source (Le Monde libertaire, dated 5 April [i.e. 12 April] 2001, No. 1240 ) and the translator's name are acknowledged.
1. Cardinal Ratzinger is a controversial Catholic cleric who has criticized the Vatican. [SG]
2. In the original French, this sentence works much better as a pun. [SG]
3. SUD is a new trade union federation, created out of a wave of discontent with the recent Jospin governments. [SG]
4. An organization campaigning for the implementation of the Tobin Tax on currency dealing, and in more general terms, campaigning on issues raised by globalization. Recently, this movement has attracted widespread interest in France. [SG]