Edgar Morin Road to metamorphosis
sociologist, historian, philosopher Edgar Morin thinks the change in the era of globalization. His book recently published by Fayard, with the explicit title, "the Way," explores new avenues in learning from the failures of the last century. (Photo Anne Tesson: Morin, Viveret De Rosnay. ..)
In the darkness of the diagnosis it provides the current price of our company, its prognosis steep, the height of the task that confronts us with it, do not you think that your path is likely to despair? Including younger generations?
Edgar Morin . Some readers find my book and other optimistic pessimist because I join the pessimistic outlook and likelihood of events that lead us to disaster in the idea that the awareness of disasters in which we are going that there will be a reaction that can give us a path, a path. In my book I show that there is anywhere in the world and whatever the creative field of future initiatives. Unfortunately, they are dispersed, they do not know each others.
Now, if you see young people today who are in disarray, so obviously you can tell me that if I show them that the situation worsens, it increases their disorientation. But I also show them that, perhaps, there is the path of resistance and change. There is a cause that is the largest that has ever existed in history and that is where the salvation of mankind and its survival is linked to a radical transformation, metamorphosis. This may provide an impetus.
Talking About Resistance. Up the end of 1941, which seemed highly unlikely, it was the victory of Nazi Germany. Many who have engaged in the struggle for national liberation have done in a sort of momentum and without being sure they would succeed. Our cause, then, that was beautiful, it was not only the liberation of France, but for me that was communist, it was also the salvation of mankind. But back then it was not two things. First released as France was again colonialist, and that the Setif massacres coincide with victory on Nazism and, secondly, that the Soviet Union was sinking for a long time in Stalinism. Today, there is no such ambiguity.
Recent events in Tunisia or Egypt, for example, break the sort of fear and reluctance that we had here, saying: "In all these Arab countries, the only alternative is a dictatorship military police or an Islamist theocracy. "These events show that Arabs are like us and that we are like the Arabs: we have the same fundamental aspirations. It performs a conjunction. In the way that I move, Of course, there will be mistakes, zigzags. But, basically, I echo the ideas of internationalism but with this new element we could not see: the realities and differences of specific plants. I expanded this view. I did not give up.
In your book, your reform proposals draw the face of a company that was known, until recently, a socialist or communist, in the usual sense. Democratic, polycentric, anti-bureaucratic, including in his thinking and criticism of ecology scientific and political complex in its understanding of the social reform of private property but a socialism. Why do you pronounce that word? Is twenty years after the fall of the wall, it is not time to call a spade a spade? Socialism or barbarism?
Edgar Morin. In my left, I indicate that there is a legacy of three faces that give the word socialism, anarchism and communism and that we must unite these three terms. What does the term socialism? That means reforming society. What does communism? That means creating a human community, a brotherhood of man. What does anarchism? Is giving freedom to the individual.
When I consider the thoughts of Marx and Lenin even before the turn of 1917, these terms were related. Their idea was: we must go through a phase of temporary dictatorship of the proletariat to achieve the abolition of the state. Among them, these words were related in one way but a bit too rigid, rather juxtaposed. What I am saying clearly is that you eat this triple heritage.
So why I do not pronounce the word socialism? Because this word has been much damaged and in two senses. In the direction of Soviet socialism that was a cartoon and in the direction of social democracy where today it is completely flattened. This term suffers, indeed, the flattening and staining and is much more appropriate because it refers to experiments, and each other, have led to a relative failure.
You're right, there is a question of vocabulary. But I am not very fastidious about semantic issues. If you say you're for socialism and that you agree with me, stay for socialism. This is not a fight of words. You say: socialism or barbarism, but to me, in fact, there were of the barbarism in the so-called real socialism. Maybe we have not the word. The word democracy is inadequate. I use the word reform, not reform, but in a sense in the idea of a gradual transforming. This transformation leads to the gradual metamorphosis that I substitute the word revolution.
revolution But why not? Please do Why you no purpose, place of convergence?
Edgar Morin. I mention this issue in order to Marx and cons. As much as I think Marx is present both in the discussion on globalization and consumption, as his anthropology, that is to say its base is restricted. He saw that man producer, he sees that Homo sapiens classic. He does not see the human capacity for delusion, mythology, Homo Ludens. What I wanted is complete, enrich and complicate these notions. Otherwise it is based on an abstract man. To I think Marx is a star in the constellation of thinkers who inspire me, with Hegel and Heraclitus.
Now the revolution? I dropped that term because it was too connoted by the idea of violence and that it was enough of a socio-economic transformation, to eradicate the exploiting class. The examples we see today in North Africa show that when revolutions are made, they are in peace movements. Those who shed blood are those that repress, not revolutionaries. Force today, and here I take an idea my friend Stephane Hessel, is to rely on non-violence. There are, at some point, awareness and aspirations that are expressed spontaneously. Without this part spontaneous, it nothing happens, but if it remains spontaneous, everything is brought to dissolve, to be converted, enslaved, turned away. I insist to be wary of violence that produces more violence and degenerates. Knowing that in extreme cases, it can obviously be justified.
Regarding the issue of capital and the economy very quickly I indicate the path is a path where the development of both mutuals, cooperatives, fair trade, direct relationships between producers and consumers, in short, all these things repress classical capitalism. Furthermore, I take a word from my friend Alain Touraine, who said that the capital and financial speculator placed himself above humanity and should be fully under control. In this, I indicate a finality.
company formed by the metamorphosis is a historical creation that we can not guess the aspect. We can not imagine what will be the creator. Moreover, never before creation, you can not imagine what it will become. We must show the way. A German poet, said: "Does not the goal, leading the way for the path and purpose come together." The road is very rich because it is made of all its transformative actions. Once you make deep reforms, you reach a certain goal. Which in turn opens another path. It is a dialectic and the final goal, we, we do not see it. Moreover, it will not even final, it will not be the end of everything. There will be other developments.
Your thoughts "Complex" which addresses the real from the standpoint of totality, of the oscillation, contradiction, seems very close to the dialectical thinking of Marx or Hegel. Why not name it as such?
Edgar Morin. I approach the issue head on in my method, in two volumes on the Knowledge of knowledge and also to Marx and cons. In these books, I talk about dialogue. Why not dialectical ? Because it has been perverted and not only in the grotesque versions of Marxism, but even in thought Hegel. Hegel, there is always the possibility of overtaking. There is this idea of negation of negation, and I find that in some cases, yes, we can overcome some contradictions and antagonisms. I am deeply imbued with Hegel but I think, and here I am quite loyal to Heraclitus, there are contradictions that constitute life. Not just life in the biological sense but of man and society. Contradictions that are vital. These are not contradictions to overcome. They feed us. For example, Heraclitus said: "Living with death, dying life." When he said this, he said, For example, the cells of our bodies are dying constantly to provide new cells to rejuvenate us, we regenerate. He said that we live the death of our cells. It's both, it's a contradiction that continues and thanks to which we are living.
I thought I would call a recursive loop, which, somehow, both terms refer to the contradiction of one another. I will not deny the contribution of Hegel Hegelian thought but also said that a thought that is unable to serve is a thought no contradictions. In Hegel, whenever there is an overshoot of a contradiction, the contradiction comes back. Finally, I am not so far. The idea is that if one is truly Hegelian, it does not produce a final reconciled vision. We are always in motion and in the path.
And now, compared to the idea of totality. Again, my point is dialogic or dialectical. To understand the phenomenon of globalization, our thinking must capture all the elements. But, of course, we are unable to grasp them all. Because I have introduced uncertainty in knowledge, that is to say, the idea that knowledge will never completely certain and sure, I am opposed to dogmatism which claims to enclose the whole of reality into a design. My design is open and I think she is still faithful to what is best in Hegel and Marx.
met a little girl like Alice, age from that of Lewis Carroll, angry reading the message of 'desperate hope "of the bottle you throw into the sea with your book, which would you say to comfort her and encouraged to enter into your lane?
Edgar Morin. All civilizations need an injection of femininity, tenderness and even beyond, of infantilism. Eibl-Irenaus Eibesfeld told what to grow in our civilization is the ability to love, which is a feature of childhood that we hold in adulthood but that tends to reduce, to shrink and crack. To this little girl, I would say to see all sides of life and life as those wonderful people who are atrocious. I would try to help it become itself through its experience, knowledge, readings and films. What I would teach her most is human understanding, and this I would also say to the boy, because it is in childhood that we must learn to understand each other. Often we tend to see the mistakes on others and self-justifying. I would say she develops her feminine qualities of love, tenderness, while being able to play roles in society in general occupy men and it may very well hold.
Interview by Jerome Skalski
