A passionate critique of Enlightenment--both in its contemporary invocation and its historical and cultural use--and a call to arms to rethink human equality and liberty without the sacrifice of individual rights and ethnicities.

Everything in their respective positions divides them: Alain Badiou is the thinker of a revitalized communism and Alain Finkielkraut the mournful observer of the loss of values. The two opponents, gathered here for their first-ever debate, have irreconcilable visions. Yet neither is a stranger to controversy, and in this debate they make explicit the grounds of their personal dispute as well as addressing, in a frank and open exchange, their ideas and theories. Guided by Aude Lancelin, the two philosophers (...) discuss subjects as diverse as national identity, Israel and Judaism, May 1968, and renewed popularity of the idea of communism. Their passionate debate is more than just the sum total of their disagreements, however, for neither of them is satisfied with the state of our society or the direction in which its political representatives persist in taking it. They agree that there needs to be change and their confrontation in this volume shows the importance of asking difficult questions, not only of each other, but also of our political systems. (shrink)

The notion that all the world's peoples constitute a "brotherhood of man" is not a given among all human beings--it is rather the product of history. So suggests acclaimed philosopher Alain Finkielkraut in _In the Name of Humanity,_ an unsettling reflection on the twentieth century in its twilight hours in which he asks us to rethink our assumptions about universalism and humanism. While many people look to humanist ideals as a deterrent to nationalist chauvinism, Finkielkraut challenges the abstract (...) idea of universalism by describing the terrible crimes "civilized" Europe has committed in its name. At the same time as it challenges the inhumanity of our century's great universalistic solutions, _In the Name of Humanity_ also confronts the more onerous elements of unreflective nationalism--clearly condemning the dangerous use of claims for ethnic purity. However, the book does not put forth a standard-issue polemic against the multitude of nationalistic currents that continue to plague the international arena. Indeed, even as he deplores the violence that seems to go hand in hand with nationalism, Finkielkraut defends its underlying cause--the need to belong. Eloquently quoting the experiences of refugees from Hitler's Germany, he shows the reader why we must heed the call of this irreducible need. Finkielkraut reminds us that the concept of cultural relativism--indeed, the very idea of tolerating other cultures--is a relatively recent development in Western history. As he looks for answers he interrogates the differences between historical racism and the racism embedded in the philosophies of this century's genocidal movements, showing how modern racist ideologies like National Socialism look not to sin within the self as the stumbling block of human advancement but to a clandestine conspiracy by a particular, identifiable element of human society. What this form of radical racist thought eliminates is the notion of personal responsibility--instead of finding the answers to misfortune within the self, modern racism suggests that evil can be identified in others and summarily eliminated. Lucidly connected to the ideas of past thinkers, from Plato to Levinas to Hannah Arendt, Finkielkraut's latest work is a troubling indictment of our century that refuses to back away from the "messiness" of human life and culture. In his willingness to abjure simple solutions, he offers a glimmer of hope. (shrink)

Alain Finkielkraut et Peter Sloterdijk mettent leurs pensées à l'épreuve des événements. Sous un ciel d'étoiles éteintes, les sujets s'imposent d'eux-mêmes : l'utopie qui menace, le culte de l'Autre et la question de l'ennemi, le destin des Juifs à l'heure d'Israël, la démocratisation du luxe, l'écologie de la beauté, la fracture de l'Occident, la critique de la raison extrémiste et la recherche du principe de réalité ; qu'est-ce qu'être adulte? Tout ce qui est sérieux revient et tout ce qui (...) est sérieux s'en va. A partir de ces deux évidences contradictoires surgissent les nouvelles lignes de partage dans la confrontation mondiale invisible dont l'enjeu est le poids des choses : la guerre du léger et du lourd. (shrink)

"Aujourd'hui, notre pitié ne s'arrête plus à l'humanité. Elle continue sur sa lancée. Elle repousse les frontières. Elle élargit le cercle du semblable. Quand un coin du voile est levé sur l'invivable existence des poules, des vaches ou des cochons dans les espaces concentrationnaires qui ont succédé aux fermes d'autrefois, l'imagination se met aussitôt à la place de ces bêtes et souffre avec elles. L'homme moderne est tiraillé entre une ambition immense et une compassion sans limite. Il veut être le (...) Seigneur de la Création et il découvre progressivement en lui la faculté de s'identifier à toutes les créatures. Ainsi s'explique l'irruption récente de la cause animale sur la scène politique. La nouvelle sensibilité aux animaux aura-t-elle le pouvoir de changer la donne ou l'impératif de rentabilité continuera- t-il à faire la loi, en dépit de tous les cris du coeur?" A. F. (shrink)

La crise est un moment singulier de l’existence des hommes et du monde où l’ordre habituel des choses se met à vaciller et menace même de retourner au chaos. On la redoute donc le plus souvent, en essayant de l’éviter. Mais plutôt que d’en craindre le pire, ne peut-on en espérer le meilleur : dans sa violence même, la crise ne fait-elle pas apparaître de nouvelles possibilités d’être? Ne faut-il pas alors tâcher de s’en saisir comme l’occasion d’une renaissance, aussi (...) bien dans l’existence personnelle des individus que dans la vie collective des peuples? (shrink)

I. The Seduction of Immanence The vocabulary of humanism—in which concepts such as “man,” “humane,” and “humanity” figure prominently—has always been contentious. The sarcasm of the nineteenth-century Catholic conservative thinker Joseph de Maistre with regard to the abstraction-tainted works of revolutionary thinkers, has become famous: “In my life I have met Frenchmen, Italians, and Russians, but Man, I solemnly declare, I have never met before; perhaps he exists, but not to my personal knowledge.”1These concepts acquire a practical, political, and even (...) polemical meaning when acted upon in the name of man, human rights, and finally humanity against “inhuman” practices…. (shrink)

Le multiculturalisme a échoué. La postmodernité a failli. Le libéralisme a succombé. Comment en sommes-nous arrivés là? Comment s'en extirper? Comment ressusciter du relativisme moral, social et religieux? Pour Emmanuel-Juste Duits, la cause de ces maux est claire : à la recherche de la vérité, les pays européens ont préféré la consécration de la diversité ; à la pensée, l'opinion ; au "nous", le "je". Et à Socrate, la burqa. Comment retrouver notre héritage, réapprendre notre histoire, se réconcilier avec notre (...) passé pour mieux affronter notre avenir? Renouant avec la philosophie de Pascal, Platon ou encore Kant, interrogeant la sociologie, Weber, la littérature, Tchékhov, dialoguant avec des intellectuels contemporains, Michéa, Finkielkraut ou encore Habermas, Emmanuel-Juste Duits sonne la charge contre la société des festivités et des communautés. (shrink)

Loin du débat en France autour de la résurgence de « néo-réactionnaires » personnifiés par Éric Zemmour ou Alain Finkielkraut, entre autres, la question du conservatisme est de toute autre nature politique et philosophique. Qu'est-ce que le conservatisme au juste? Une doctrine? Un ensemble de pratiques? Cet ouvrage se propose de répondre à ces questions à travers la voix individuelle de quatorze observateurs qui ne nourrissent pas à son endroit un rejet de principe, comme c'est souvent le cas dans (...) nos sociétés captives d'un progressisme tout azimut. Issu de la modernité tout en étant critique et prudent à son égard, le conservatisme est de nos jours souvent mal compris, caricaturé et raillé. Paradoxalement, être conservateur de nos jours est souvent un acte d'anticonformisme, dans la mesure où c'est être contre l'idéologie dominante dans l'espace public comme au sein des cercles d'influence. D'abord anglo-saxon et non dogmatique, assez éloigné intellectuellement de la droite française, le conservatisme est en même temps aussi divers que le sont les contextes nationaux où il s'insère. Les entretiens réunis dans ce livre permettent d'en apprécier les modulations aussi bien que l'apport essentiel au dialogue social. Comme le souligne le titre, il ne s'agit pas ici de faire l'éloge du conservatisme, ni de le dénoncer mais bien plutôt de le comprendre. (shrink)

Interculturalism and multiculturalism seem to be finished. ‘Transculturalism’ is now the order of the day, an idea which, apart from referring to a break with the classical conception of culture, also indicates in which direction a solution should be sought: in the mutual intersection, penetration, interweaving and overlapping between the cultural forms and lifestyles cutting through the various national or ethnic cultures which are now seen to be less monolithic and less hermetic than they had appeared through multicultural spectacles. In (...) short, métissage is in, and we all find ourselves in a big melting pot where the political problem no longer consists in combining the different ingredients but in giving shape to the combination which has already come about de facto — and by ‘shape’, transculturalism is not simply referring to the syncretism of bringing old, already existing elements together, but rather means to establish something new.Multiculturalism, according to the champions of transculturalism, has never succeeded in doing this. Instead of leading to cultural contact, it produced a flourishing of cultural separatism, a kind of totalitarian particularism which carried ‘retribalization’ even into education: instead of grouping plants according to Linnaeus’ classification scheme, Mexican- American children now follow their ‘own’ rediscovered ethnobotanical principles.Multiculturalism, then, seems on the one hand to be outdated by facts which it cannot very well place within its own concept of culture . And, on the other hand, multiculturalism seems to have led to a fiasco when it has been able to impose itself politically: “Instead of plurality we find particularism; instead of citizenship, a dictatorship of minorities.” Authors such as Welsch in Germany, Finkielkraut in France, or Procee in the Netherlands are thus in search of a new concept of culture which would be able to curb multicultural violence.Since the plausibility of their ‘transcultural’ alternative seems to depend on the extent to which one is convinced by their critique of multiculturalism, I will begin by examining this critique , then go on to formulate another critique which concerns multiculturalism as well as transculturalism , and which is mainly centred on what I take to be a mistaken concept of alterity and difference which one finds in both conceptions and which links them together. (shrink)

This article focuses on a Talmudic lecture Levinas delivered in 1965. Its long central section is an extended reading of most of that lecture’s images and ideas. Its frame, however, treats what does and does not change in Levinas’s conception of the State of Israel between the early ’60s and the early ’80s. At issue here are two other texts: a short but important paragraph from the 1961 lecture published as “Messianic Texts,” and the interview with Malka and Finkielkraut (...) that took place in 1982, shortly after the massacres at Sabra and Shatila. The gist of my closing argument is that while the structure of the understanding of Israel he outlined in 1961 does not change, it is developed very differently in the 1965 lecture and the 1982 interview. I try finally to account for this difference. In the meantime, the long analysis of 1965’s “Promised Land or Permitted Land” offers a novel account of Levinas’s hermeneutic, an account that might perhaps be applied to other Talmudic lectures. (shrink)

Un análisis ameno e inteligente sobre los testimonios de los grandes pensadores del progreso: E. Fromm, F. Nietzsche, K. Popper, E. Morin, C.G. Jung, M. Ferguson, A. Finkielkraut, Ortega y Gasset, entre otros.

Un análisis ameno e inteligente sobre los testimonios de los grandes pensadores del progreso: E. Fromm, F. Nietzsche, K. Popper, E. Morin, C.G. Jung, M. Ferguson, A. Finkielkraut, Ortega y Gasset, entre otros.

The notion that all the world's peoples constitute a "brotherhood of man" is not a given among all human beings -- it is rather the product of history. So suggests acclaimed philosopher Alain Finkielkraut in _In the Name of Humanity,_ an unsettling reflection on the twentieth century in its twilight hours in which he asks us to rethink our assumptions about universalism and humanism. While many people look to humanist ideals as a deterrent to nationalist chauvinism, Finkielkraut challenges (...) the abstract idea of universalism by describing the terrible crimes "civilized" Europe has committed in its name. At the same time as it challenges the inhumanity of our century's great universalistic solutions, _In the Name of Humanity_ also confronts the more onerous elements of unreflective nationalism -- clearly condemning the dangerous use of claims for ethnic purity. However, the book does not put forth a standard-issue polemic against the multitude of nationalistic currents that continue to plague the international arena. Indeed, even as he deplores the violence that seems to go hand in hand with nationalism, Finkielkraut defends its underlying cause -- the need to belong. Eloquently quoting the experiences of refugees from Hitler's Germany, he shows the reader why we must heed the call of this irreducible need. Finkielkraut reminds us that the concept of cultural relativism -- indeed, the very idea of tolerating other cultures -- is a relatively recent development in Western history. As he looks for answers he interrogates the differences between historical racism and the racism embedded in the philosophies of this century's genocidal movements, showing how modern racist ideologies like National Socialism look not to sin within the self as the stumbling block of human advancement but to a clandestine conspiracy by a particular, identifiable element of human society. What this form of radical racist thought eliminates is the notion of personal responsibility -- instead of finding the answers to misfortune within the self, modern racism suggests that evil can be identified in others and summarily eliminated. Lucidly connected to the ideas of past thinkers, from Plato to Levinas to Hannah Arendt, Finkielkraut's latest work is a troubling indictment of our century that refuses to back away from the "messiness" of human life and culture. In his willingness to abjure simple solutions, he offers a glimmer of hope. (shrink)

Much thought is being given nowadays to the ways in which society might continue to substantiate the principle of solidarity in the economic sphere. Predictable cost increases in the social security system stand at the root of a number of problems that have arisen. While those concerned look for solutions, a discussion is emerging concerning the communal scope of solidarity. People are not only asking themselves how they are to remain in solidarity, but also with whom they should share the (...) means at their disposal. The concomitant question ‘with whom?’ is not always as evident as it might seem, since the ethical scope of solidarity appears, in principle at least, to be unlimited.De facto, however, the limits of solidarity tend to coincide with those of the political community. The ongoing unification of Europe should broaden matters in this regard, but whether this process will also broaden our perspective on world-wide solidarity remains to be seen. At the same time, certain groups are calling for a stricter delimitation of our solidarity. The elections in Europe during the past ten years have made it clear that a number of emotional factors play a role in this context, factors which are not infrequently expressed in the slogan ‘our own first’.The intention of this article is to confront, with the Christian principle of solidarity, certain spontaneous and emotional motivating forces which call for a limitation of our solidarity. Solidarity implies both a feeling and a rational decision. In line with any other emotion, the feeling of solidarity is rooted in motivating factors of which we are not always consciously aware. Such factors are rarely thematised in an explicit fashion, partly because they are as such difficult to discuss and partly because they are difficult to make operational at the ‘scientific’ level. As a rule, our attention tends to be focused on the ethical desirability and practical-economical achievabilty of solidarity.Ours is a talkative age. Never before have people talked so much. The telephone, radio, cinema, television, audio and video recording have all increased our opportunities for speaking to one another not only when we are together but across distance and across time as well. This has been the century of chatter .Chattering carries in itself the risk of superficiality. Before we realise it, we are talking without thinking deeply. Messengers of doom, such as Postman and Finkielkraut , warn the western world against the dangers of the television and video culture which they contend constitute a threat to western democracy. As we grow accustomed to the high speed and fleeting character of the ‘new media’, we tend to gradually lose our capacity to think things over and reflect. Ultimately, its cursory and uncritical approach to things becomes the norm.For those who consider television as the summit of idle chatter, reading is not merely a relief but a threatened activity which needs all our support. If we consider thoughtfulness and consideration to be virtues, then the unhurriedness associated with reading must be seen as a virtuous quality. More than at any other time in our history, being literate is of great importance in our industrialised societies. Hence, there is a growing awareness of the need to link critical thinking with literacy skills. More than ever before, we need the writings of others – distant in history, geography and profession – to understand our complex world. Such writings provide information, recommend actions and promote political and philosophical orientations.Discourse analysis proves that the complexity of the discourse is higher in written than in spoken language. Written language integrates more idea units in a clause, making use of nominalisation, embedded constituents, etc. Gaining access to such thorough knowledge is a first step in the long process of asserting control. Being literate creates the opportunity for increasing access to knowledge not generally available in the direct experience of life. Being able to read enables the individual to transcend time and space and to liberate his or her own mind and spirit. It removes the individual from dependence on immediate senses, direct contacts, commonplace talk.All these elements are important in the shaping of one’s personality. Confrontation with challenging, original and even provocative ideas forces the individual to make up his or her own mind. Democracy needs this kind of individualism. (shrink)

Dejó dicho Jean Cocteau que su pesimismo no era sino una variedad de su optimismo. Se acordaba uno de este aforismo mientras atendía a las intervenciones de Javier Gomá y Alain Finkielkraut en el Institut Français de Madrid.1 Acaso el optimismo del español llegaba a desazonar un tanto más que el pesimismo del francés. Las diatribas de Finkielkraut, defensor acérrimo de la educación republicana francesa, dirigidas al periodo que abarca las últimas cuatro décadas, encontraban en Gomá, apólogo de (...) la ejemplaridad2 como método pedagógico y del cosmopolitismo ilustrado —“Ser español es la manera más práctica de ser contemporáneo”, subrayó aquel día—, respuesta en forma de pregunta: “¿En qué otra época preferirías vivir?”. Pregunta que resulta ciertamente tramposa cuando de lo que se trata es de analizar la deriva de las democracias liberales de un tiempo a esta parte, considerando a lo que se tendía ayer y pensando donde, en efecto, estamos hoy... (shrink)

Peut-on élucider le sens de la phénoménologie? La première section est consacrée à Husserl, la seconde à Hannah Arendt et la troisième à l’expérience phénoménologique d’autrui. La première partie vise à montrer que la phénoménologie de Husserl porte en elle des thèmes par lesquels elle se soustrait au cadre métaphysique dans lequel elle s’est formée. La deuxième partie prétend que la phénoménologie politique de Hannah Arendt conduit à une mise en question de l’idéologie des droits de l’homme mais aussi à (...) une justification de l’idée des droits de l’homme. Cette section comprend en elle la reproduction d’un débat oral qui avait eu lieu sur France culture entre Claude Lefort, Alain Finkielkraut et Robert Legros. La troisième partie porte sur l’expérience phénoménologique d’autrui. Elle montre que cette expérience prolonge et renouvelle d’une part la conception kantienne de l’expérience du proprement humain, et d’autre part la conception tocquevillienne de l’expérience du semblable. L’examen de l’expérience phénoménologique d’autrui s’achève par une confrontation entre Arendt et Levinas. (shrink)

Recently I had the opportunity to read once again, thoroughly and carefully, the book entitled La défaite de la pensée 1 written by the French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut. This book provides a historical critique of the development of thought in the West since the Enlightenment through the interweaving of the two threads of "national spirit" (minzu jingshen, in German, Volksgeist) and "cosmopolitanism" (shijie zhuyi), and the mutual interaction between them.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Discourses of Jewish Identity in Twentieth-Century FranceEllen S. FineDiscourses of Jewish Identity in Twentieth-Century France, edited by Alan Astro; Yale French Studies 265pp. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994, $17.00.Ever since France became the first European country to grant Jews equal rights as citizens with the enactment of the Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1791, the question of identity has been a central preoccupation of French (...) Jews. Their emancipation brought about assimilation to the universalist principles of the French Republic and led them to detach themselves from their own traditions, generating conflicting emotions about what it meant for a Jew to be French. The topic of French-Jewish identity has been reflected upon by writers ranging from Sartre, Memmi, and Misrahi to Levinas and Finkielkraut, none of whose discourses are included in this volume but whose ideas are discussed in Seth Wolitz’s pertinent article, “Imagining the Jew in France: From 1945 to the Present.”Divided into two main sections, “Literary Texts” and “Cultural Contexts,” this collection contains articles written by authors not familiar to English speaking readers. They are excellently translated, mainly by the editor, Alan Astro. In his introductory essay, Astro notes that his aim is to portray the cultural and ethnic diversity of French Jews of different origins and to show their part in the formation of Jewish identity. The focus is on how French Jews feel about their own identity, and not on how others see them.The first section, “Literary Texts,” represents a variety of genres, generally fiction. Over half of the thirteen texts date from the 1970s to the present, and are mostly personal narratives, anecdotal in nature. The tone often conveys “a certain humor or self-irony,” described by Rachel Ertel in her essay, “A Minority Literature” (in the second section) as identifiable traits of a Jewish work.With no logical sequence to the presentation of the texts, a multiplicity of perspectives is clearly the objective. For example, Bernard Frank, whose ancestors have lived in France since the Revolution, feels “as French as anyone else,” yet recognizes that Jews are different, “because they’ve been made to be different.” Wolf Wieviorka in 1936 exalts his “noble pedigree,” being a naturalized French citizen; he was later murdered by the Nazis.North African Jews who emigrated to Paris in the 1950s and early 1960s, studied sociologically by Michel Abitbol, are portrayed in Gil Ben Aych’s novel, The Chant of Being (Algerian), and in Paula Jacques’s novel, Aunt Carlotta’s Legacy (Egyptian). Jews of Eastern European descent are depicted in the short stories by Cyrille Fleischman, one of which recounts how a Sorbonne professor of sixteenth-century French literature renounces his eminent career and like his father, opens up a delicatessen in the Jewish quarter of the Marais, thus returning to his roots. Henri Raczymow returns imaginatively to a pre-war Poland in Tales of Exile and Forgetfulness, recreating in French the intonations of Yiddish, the language of his grandparents who died in the Holocaust. In an [End Page 378] outstanding essay, “Memory Shot Through With Holes,” Raczymow articulates urgent questions posed by the second generation: “By what right could I speak, I who was not a victim, survivor or witness?”If the first section is multicultural, the second, “Cultural Contexts,” is interdisciplinary. Annette Wieviorka (granddaughter of Wolf Wieviorka) studies accounts by survivors, revealing the impact of Vichy’s imposing a Jewish identity on its citizens. Wieviorka also evokes the importance of the Six-Day War which compelled assimilated French Jews to proclaim their Jewish allegiance, a pivotal event transforming their sense of identity.Other significant contributions are Gérard Haddad’s exploration of the importance of Judaism in the life and work of Jacques Lacan, an outsider who seemed more concerned with Jewish identity than his fellow psychoanalysts. Ora Avni analyzes Patrick Modiano’s repudiation of his Jewish patrimony in his seminal novel, La Place de l’étoile. Elizabeth de Fontenay comments on how the quant-à-soi (“keeping to oneself”), the reserve characteristic of the French, becomes the quant-à-nous (“ourselves”) for the French Jew who is linked to a community beyond the... (shrink)