By Santiago Zabala, Aljazeera, January 9, 2012
Barcelona, Spain - I just returned from the sixth International Forum of Philosophy in Maracaibo, Venezuela, where philosophers from four continents were
invited to discuss "State, Revolution and the Construction of
Hegemony". The event was inaugurated by the vice-presidents of Venezuela
and Bolivia, televised by several channels, and on the last day, a prize of
$150,000 was awarded to the best book presented within the Libertador Award for Critical Thinking of 2011.
Similar to the World Social Forum of Brazil, both the prize and forum
aim to reflect not only upon the social progress that characterises these
nations, but also the progress taking place in rest of the world; this is why
only thinkers whose position is essentially leftist are invited, that is, those
in the service of the weak, marginalised, and oppressed sectors of society.
Regardless of how effective the conference's statement is on the
governors that read it, what is interesting for us - European academics - is
the institutional significance that is given to philosophy in the region. Is
there a philosophy conference or forum in the United States or EU where
vice-presidents take time to inaugurate a similar event?
The attendees might have all been progressive socialists (or even
Marxists in some cases) and therefore have found from the start a certain
sympathy from these democratically elected politicians (in Latin America, only Honduras does not have a
democratically elected government), but our Western neoliberal governors do not
promote similar conferences for their preferred intellectuals. We can only
dream that the vice-presidents of Italy or Canada would finance a similar
conference for 50 philosophers to reflect upon their policies. Perhaps the day
will come, but in the meantime, we must ask ourselves what this Latin American
forum tells us about the relation between philosophy and government.
Before exploring this relation, it is necessary to remember that most
Latin American countries today are governed by socialist governments whose main
objective is to elevate from poverty those citizens that were discarded by the
neoliberal (and in some cases dictatorial) states that ruled the region in the
past. This is why for more than a decade now, such renowned progressive
intellectuals as Noam Chomsky, and
many others have been endorsing Chavez, Morales, and other democratically
elected presidents for their social programmes and economic independence from
the IMF.
But despite the social progress (since 2003, extreme poverty has been
reduced by 72 per cent in Venezuela), ecological initiatives (Morales has been
declared the "World Hero of Mother Earth" by the president of the
United Nations General Assembly), and economic efficiency (unlike the EU, Latin American economies will grow by 4.7 per cent in 2012) of these governments, a campaign of hatred and
disinformation has been taking place throughout our Western media in order to
discredit these achievements.
Perhaps, as Oliver Stone pointed out in his brilliant documentary South of the Border,
this campaign is a symptom of fear that citizens in the West might also begin
to demand similar policies. After all, while in Europe we are cutting social services
following the European Central Bank demands, Latin American states are increasing them, just as so many western protesters
("indignados", Occupy Wall Street, and other courageous movements)
demand.
These Latin American countries are not calling philosophers to obtain
from them rational justifications or hoping that some of us write propaganda
articles for their policies. Rather, they are showing their awareness that
history has not ended. I'm referring here to Francis Fukuyama's famous theory
of "the end of history" ("liberal democracy is the only
legitimate form of government broadly accepted"), which has now been assimilated,
if not completely incorporated, by our capitalist culture.
But history in Latin America has neither ended nor started anew. It's
simply proceeding as an alternate to our capitalist logic of economic
enrichment, technological progress and cultural superiority. The Latin American
countries do not aim to dominate others, but simply to evoke those whom Walter
Benjamin called the "losers of history", that is, the ones who have
not succeeded within our neoliberal democratic system. These unsuccessful
"shareholders" are represented not only by underprivileged citizens,
but also by underdeveloped nations and continents. In this condition,
philosophy is called upon to think historically - that is, to maintain living
history. But how?
As an interpretative discipline determined to question the (cultural,
scientific or political) foundations of thought, philosophy is obligated to
remain unsatisfied, that is, to always search for alternative models,
possibilities and histories. These alternatives are what keep history alive,
that is, maintain the possibilities of greater freedom, wider democracy and
alternative systems. In order to achieve this, the organisers of the forum
decided to follow the hermeneutic principle of dialogue, that is, the
conversation where truth becomes a constant exchange of different views: In a
sincere dialogue, none of the interlocutors know beforehand the definitive
truth or where the discussion will lead; instead, they are led by the
conversation.
Thus, the 50 participants of the forum were divided into separate
groups, and the different themes of the conference were discussed openly from
each philosophical position. A statement resulted from each group, and these
are now been delivered to the governors of Venezuela in order to encourage them
to continue and improve the social progress they've already achieved. I'm sure
not all our propositions and analysis will be welcome or applied, but the fact
that national political leaders requested such gatherings for over a decade now
indicates the significance they attribute to philosophy for the well-being of
the state.
Despite the fact we were all invited to this forum because of our
sympathies for contemporary Latin American policies, the organisers knew very
well that our different philosophical positions would enrich rather than damage
the discussion. In sum, Latin America calls philosophers, as the late Richard
Rorty used to say, "to continue the conversation" because its
politicians are honest enough to recognise that history has not ended with their
socialist democratic form of government.
Santiago
Zabala is ICREA Research Professor at the University of Barcelona. His books
include The Hermeneutic Nature of Analytic Philosophy (2008), The
Remains of Being (2009), and most recently, Hermeneutic Communism (2011,
co-authored with Gianni Vattimo), all published by Columbia University Press.
His webpage is www.santiagozabala.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment