A Literature From Below

8/11/2019 A Literature From Below

1/5

July 3, 2000 The Nation. 25

B O O K S & T H E A R T S

The role of the public intellectualand the moral onus, assuming that one exists

seems ever to thread the Scylla of celebrity and the Charybdis of marginality. In a con-

versation printed in part simultaneously in the French daily Le Monde and Germanweekly Die Zeit, sociologist Pierre Bourdieu and Nobel laureate Gnter Grass dis-cussed the role of intellectuals in society, stylistic practices in sociology and litera-

ture, neoliberal economics, the emerging world order and other topics. The following

is adapted from a translation from the French by Deborah Treisman. Bourdieu is a

professor of philosophy at the Collge de France, was founder in 1975 of the journal

Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, and is author of, among other works: The

State Nobility (1996), The Rules of Art (1996), On Television (1998), The Weight ofthe World (1999) and Pascalian Meditations (2000). Grass, a native of Danzig (nowGdansk), defines himself as a citizen writer and won the Nobel Prize for Literature

in 1999. Among his works are The Tin Drum (1959), From the Diary of a Snail (1972),The Rat (1987), Dog Years (1989), The Flounder(1989) and My Century (1999).

A Literature From BelowGNTER GRASS A N D PIERRE BOURDIEU

Grass: To tell the truth, most intellectuals

today swallow everything, and it gives themnothing but ulcers.

Pierre Bourdieu: You have spokensomewhere of the European or Germantraditionwhich is also, by the way, aFrench traditionof opening your bigmouth. I am delighted that you receivedthe Nobel Prize, and I am also delightedthat you havent been transformed by re-

ceiving the Nobel, that you are as inclinedas you ever were to open your big mouth.I am hoping that we can open our bigmouths together.

Gnter Grass: It is relatively rare for asociologist and a writer to meet in a Germansetting. In my country, it is more commonfor philosophers to gather in one corner ofthe room, the sociologists in another cornerand the writers, all giving each other thecold shoulder, in the back. A communica-tion of the kind we are undertaking now isthe exception to the rule. When I think ofyour book The Weight of the Worldor of my

last book,My Century, I see that our workshave something in common: We are tryingto retell History, as seen from below. Wedo not talk over societys head; we do notspeak as conquerors of History; rather, inkeeping with the nature of our profession,we are notoriously on the side of the losers,of those who are marginalized or excludedfrom society. In The Weight of the World,you and your collaborators were able to putyour individuality aside and to base yourwork on pure understanding, without claim-ing always to know better: The result was

a snapshot of social conditions and thestate of French society that could easily

be superimposed on other countries. I amtempted, writer that I am, to mine yourstories for raw material. For example, the

study of the young woman who came fromthe country to Paris in order to sort mail atnight. The description of her job makesone understand the social problems with-out harping on them in an ostentatiousmanner. I was very pleased by that. I wishthat there were such a book about the so-cial conditions in every country.

The only question that struck me comes,perhaps, from the sociological domain:

There is no humor in this genre of writing.It lacks the comedy of failure, which playssuch an important role in my stories, the ab-surdity inherent in certain confrontations.

Bourdieu: You have written magnifi-cently about a certain number of the ex-

periences we evoke. But the person whohears these stories directly from the onewho experienced them is often wiped out

by them or overwhelmed, and it isnt al-ways possible to maintain ones distancefrom them. We felt, for example, that wehad to exclude a certain number of narra-


2/5

26 The Nation. July 3, 2000

Bourdieu: A conservative revolution is a very

strange thing: Its a revolution that restores

the past and yet presents itself as progressive.

tives from the book because they were toopoignant or too pathetic, too painful.

Grass: When I speak of comedy, Idont mean to imply that tragedy and com-edy are mutually exclusive, that the bound-aries between the two dont fluctuate.

Bourdieu: Absolutely. Thatstrue. In fact, what we aim to do is tomake our readers see that raw absurdity,without any special effects. One of ourrules was that there would be no turning ofthe stories into literature. This may seemshocking to you, but there is atemptation, when one is deal-ing with dramas like these, towrite well. The rule here wasto be as brutally pragmatic as

possible, to allow these storiesto retain their extraordinary, and almostunbearable, violence. There were two rea-sons for this: scientific reasons and, also, Ithink, literary ones, because we chose not

to be literary precisely in order to be literaryin another sense. There are also politicalreasons. We felt that the violence being per-

petrated at the moment by the neoliberalpolitics established in Europe and LatinAmerica and in many other countriesthatthe violence of the system is so vast onecannot explain it through purely conceptualanalysis. Our critical resources are no matchfor the effects of this political system.

Grass: We are both, the sociologist andthe writer, children of the European En-lightenment, of a tradition that has now

been thrown into question everywhereor,

at least, in France and Germanyas if theEuropean movement towardAufklrung,toward Enlightenment, had failed. Manyof its early aspectswe need only think ofMontaignehave been lost over the courseof the centuries. Humor is one of them.VoltairesCandide and DiderotsJacquesle fataliste, for example, are books in whichthe social conditions described are equallyhorrifying. Yet, even in pain and in failure,the human capacity for comedy and, there-fore, victory, comes through.

Bourdieu: Yes, but our sense of havinglost the tradition of the Enlightenment is

tied to the complete reversal of our visionof the world that has been imposed by theneoliberal vision that dominates today. Ithink (and here, in Germany, I can makethis comparison), I think that the currentneoliberal revolution is a conservative revo-lutionin the sense that one spoke of aconservative revolution in Germany in thethirtiesand a conservative revolution isa very strange thing: Its a revolution thatrestores the past and yet presents itself as

progressive, a revolution that transformsregression into progressto the extent that

questions, it seems to me, in the politicalarena, is to know how, on an internationalscale, to create a position that is to the leftof the Social Democratic governments and

that is capable of having a real influence onthem. But I think that any attempt to createa European social movement at the momentwould be very unlikely to succeed; and thequestion I ask myself is the following: Whatcan we, as intellectuals, do to contribute tothat movement, which is indispensable, be-cause, despite what neoliberalism holds to

be the case, all social victories have beenwon through battle? If we want to createa social Europe, as they say, we mustcreate a European social movement. AndI thinkit is my impressionthat intel-lectuals bear a great deal of the responsi-

bility for the creation of such a movement,because the nature of political dominationis not only economic but also intellectual;it lies also on the side of belief. And thatis why, I believe, we must open our bigmouths and try to restore our utopia; be-cause one of the defining qualities of theseneoliberal governments is that they do awaywith utopias.

Grass: The Socialist and Social Demo-cratic parties also believed somewhat in thatidea, when they claimed that the downfallof Communism would also wipe socialismoff the globe, and they lost confidence in the

European workers movement that had ex-isted, mind you, much longer than Commu-nism had. If one abandons ones own tradi-tions, one abandons oneself. In Germany,there have only been a few timid attemptsto organize the unemployed. For years, Ihave been trying to tell the unions: Youcannot content yourselves with supervisingonly the workers who have jobsand who,as soon as they lose them, fall into a bottom-less abyss. You must found a union for theunemployed citizens of Europe. We com-

plain that the construction of Europe is tak-

the idea. We are told: Youre not funny. Butthe era is really not funny! Honestly, thereis nothing to laugh about.

Grass: I have never claimed that we

were living in an amusing era. But the in-fernal laughter triggered by literary meansis also a form of protest against our socialconditions. What is peddled today as neo-liberalism is a return to the methods ofthe Manchester liberalism of the nineteenthcentury. In the seventies, in most of Eu-rope, there was a relatively successful effortto civilize capitalism. If you believe in the

principle that both socialism and capitalismare the charmingly spoiled children of theEnlightenment, then you also have to admitthat they have had a certain way of keep-ing each other in check. Even capitalism has

been subject to certain responsibilities. InGermany, we call this the social economyof the market, and there was a general con-sensus, which included the conservative

party, that the conditions of the WeimarRepublic should never be reproduced. Thisconsensus broke down in the early eighties.Since the Communist hierarchies fell apart,capitalism has come to believe that it can doanything, that it has escaped all control. Its

polar opposite has defaulted. The rare re-maining responsible capitalists who call for

prudence do so because they realize thatthey have lost their sense of direction, that

the neoliberal system is now repeating theerrors of Communism by creating its owndogma, its own certificate of infallibility.

Bourdieu: Yes, but the strength of thisneoliberalism is that it has been applied, atleast in Europe, by people who call them-selves Socialists. Whether its [Gerhard]Schrder or [Tony] Blair or [Lionel] Jospin,these are people who invoke socialism inorder to further neoliberalism.

Grass: It is a capitulation to economics.Bourdieu: At the same time, it has be-

come extremely difficult to create a critical

position to the left of the Social Democraticgovernments. In France, there was the greatstrike of 1995 that mobilized a large portionof the populationlaborers, office work-ers, etc., and also intellectuals. Then therewere a whole series of protests. There wasthe unemployed workers demonstration,the European march to protest unemploy-ment, the illegal immigrants protest andso on. There was a kind of continuous ag-itation that obliged the Social Democrats in

power to pretend, at least, to be participat-

those who oppose this regression seemthemselves to be regressing. Those whooppose terror come to seem like terrorists.Its something that we have both experi-enced: We voluntarily classify ourselves asarchaicin French, we are called ringards(old-timers), arrirs (outdated).

Grass:DinosauriaBourdieu: Dinosaursexactly. That is

the great strength of conservative revolu-tions, or progressive restorations. Evenwhat youre saying, I believe, illustrates

ing in some sort of socialistdiscourse. But in practice thiscritical movement is still veryweak, for the most part becauseit is limited to a national level.One of the most important


3/5

July 3, 2000 The Nation. 27

resent a unanimity of voices. In order tofight it effectively, we must insure that thecriticisms reach the public. We are con-stantly invaded and assaulted by the dom-inant discourse. A vast majority of jour-nalists are often unconsciously complicitin the process, and it is incredibly difficultto break down that illusion of unanimity.First, because, in the case of France, it isdifficult for anyone who is not very estab-lished and very well-known to get accessto the public. When I said, at the beginningof this conversation, that I hoped you weregoing to open your big mouth, it was be-cause I think that established public figures

are the only ones, in a sense, who can breakthe circle. But, unfortunately, they areoften established precisely because theyare unquestioning and soft-spoken and be-cause we want to keep them that way, andthere are very few who make use of thesymbolic capital their position gives themto speak out, to speak frankly and to makesure that the voices of those who cannotspeak for themselves are heard. InMy Cen-tury, you evoke a series of historical eventsand a certain number of them touched mevery muchI am thinking of the story ofthe little boy who goes to the Liebknechtdemonstration and pees on his fathers

ing place on a purely economic level, butthe unions themselves have made no effortto find a form of organization and actionthat goes beyond the national frameworkand has an impact across borders. We mustcreate a counterweight to this worldwideneoliberalism. But, to tell the truth, mostintellectuals today swallow everything, andit gives them nothing but ulcers. Which iswhy I doubt that we can count exclusivelyon intellectuals. In France, it seems to me,one speaks always, without hesitation, ofthe intellectuals, but my experiences inGermany have shown me that its a mistaketo believe that all intellectuals are on the left.You can find proof to the contrary through-out the history of the twentieth century, the

Nazi era included: A man like Goebbelswas an intellectual. For me, being an intel-lectual is not a proof of quality. Your bookThe Weight of the Worldshows how thosewho come from the working world, who are

union members, often have more experi-ence in the social domain than intellectualsdo. Those people are now unemployed orretired and no one seems to need them any-more. Their potential is lying fallow.

Bourdieu: Let me go back for one sec-ond to the book The Weight of the World.It is an attempt to attribute a much moremodest and, I believe, more useful functionthan one usually does to the efforts of theintellectual: the function of public writer.The public writerand Ive witnessed thisin the countries of North Africais some-one who knows how to write and who lends

his talent to others so that they can expressthe things they know, on one level, farbetter than the person who writes themdown. Sociologists are in a position that isunique. They are not like other intellec-tuals; they are primarilythough not al-wayspeople who know how to listen,how to decipher what they hear and howto transcribe and transmit it.

Grass: But that means that we mustalso call on the intellectuals who situatethemselves in the proximity of neoliberal-ism. There are those among them who arestarting to ask themselves whether this

circulation of money around the globe,which eludes all control, whether this formof madness that follows in the wake ofcapitalism might not be about to collidewith some kind of opposition. Mergers,for example, without purpose or reason,that cause the redundancy of 2,000,5,000, 10,000 people. All that counts forstock-market valuations is the maximiza-tion of profit.

Bourdieu: Yes, unfortunately, it is notsimply a matter of opposing and thwartingthe dominant discourse that claims to rep-


4/5

28 The Nation. July 3, 2000

Second-Wave SoundingsROSALYN BAXANDALL AN D LINDA GORDON

THE WORLD SPLIT OPEN: How the Modern Womens Movement Changed America.By Ruth Rosen. Viking. 446 pp. $34.95.

IN OUR TIME: Memoir of a Revolution.

By Susan Brownmiller. Dial Press. 360 pp. $24.95.

The womens liberation movement, as it was called in the sixties and seventies,

was the largest social movement in the history of the United Statesand

probably in the world. Its impact has been felt in every home, school and

workplace, in every form of art, entertainment and sport, in all aspects of

personal and public life in the United States.Like a river overflowing its banks and seek-ing a new course, it permanently altered thelandscape.

In fact, contrary to the punditry, whichclaims that the womens movement is deadand that the public has turned against it,

public-opinion research shows the oppo-site. In 1998 a Time/CNN poll found that51 percent of Americans believe that fem-inists have been helpful to women; 53 per-cent of women that feminists are in touchwith the average American woman. A sep-arate poll among blacks found that 65 per-cent think black feminists help the blackcommunity.

The movements impact cannot be eas-ily encapsulated. Its judicial and legislativevictories include the legalization of abortion

in 1973, federal guidelines against coercivesterilization, rape-shield laws that encour-age more women to prosecute their attack-ers, affirmative action programs that aim tocorrect past discriminationalthough notthe Equal Rights Amendment, which failedin 1982, just three states short of the re-quired two-thirds.

But the most salient accomplishmentsoccurred not in law but in the economy andthe society, involving an accumulation ofchanges in the way people live, dress, dreamof their future and make a living. Feministsturned violence against women, previously

a well-kept secret, into a public politicalissue; made rape, incest, battering and sex-ual harassment understood as crimes; andgot public funding for shelters for batteredwomen. Because of feminist pressure,changes in education have been substantial:Curriculums and textbooks have been re-

written to promote equal opportunity forgirls, in the universities and professionalschools more women are admitted andfunded, and a new and rich feminist scholar-ship has, in some disciplines, overcomeopposition and won recognition. Title IX,

passed in 1972 to mandate equal access toeducational programs, has worked a vir-tual revolution in sports. As regards health,for example, many physicians and hospi-tals have made major improvements inthe treatment of women; about 50 percentof medical students are women; womensuccessfully fought their exclusion frommedical research; and diseases affectingwomen, such as breast cancer, now receive

better funding thanks to womens efforts.In supporting families, feminists organizeddaycare centers, demanded daycare funding

from government and private employers,developed standards and curriculums forearly childhood education, fought for therights of mothers and for a decent welfaresystem.

Feminists have also struggled for betteremployment conditions for women.They won greater access to traditionallymale occupations, from construction tothe professions and business. They en-

tered and changed the unions and have beensuccessful at organizing previously non-union workers such as secretaries, wait-

resses, hospital workers and flight attend-ants. As the great majority of Americanwomen increasingly need to work for wagesthroughout their lives, the feminist move-ment tried to educate men to share in house-work and childrearing. Although womenstill do the bulk of the housework and child-rearing, it is also commonplace today to seemen in the playgrounds, the supermarkets,PTA meetings.

Considering the enormity of these seachanges, astonishingly little has been pub-lished about this now thirty-five-year-old

Rosalyn Baxandall and Linda Gordon are the

editors of Dear Sisters: Dispatches From theWomens Liberation Movement, a collectionof primary documents, forthcoming from Basic

Books in September.

back. I dont know if it is based on a per-sonal memory, but in any case it shows avery original way of learning about social-ism. I also very much liked what you saidabout Jnger and Remarque: you say, be-tween the lines, many things about the roleof intellectuals and their complicity intragic eventseven in those they appear tocriticize. I also liked what you said aboutHeidegger. Thats one more thing we havein common. I have done a whole analysisof Heideggers rhetoric, which has had aterrible effect in France almost to the pres-ent day.

Grass: What is important for me in thatstory about Liebknecht is that you have,on one hand, Liebknecht, the agitator ofyoutha progressive movement in thename of socialism is just beginningand,on the other hand, the father who, in hisenthusiasm, doesnt realize that his son,who is sitting on his shoulders, wants to

get down. When the little boy pees on hisfathers neck, his father gives him a fiercespanking. This type of authoritarian be-havior later causes the boy to enlist vol-untarily when troops are being mobilizedfor the First World Warin other words, todo exactly the opposite of what Liebknechtwas hoping to inspire young people to do.InMy Century, I describe a professor whoreflects, during a Wednesday seminar, onhis reactions in 1966, 67 and 68. At thetime, his point of departure was a philos-ophy of high ideas. And he has come backto it in the end. In between, he had several

spurts of radicalism, and he was one ofthose who publicly tore Adorno to piecesfrom the podium. It is a very typical biog-raphy of the era. In the sixties, I was caughtup in events. The student protests werenecessary and they set more things in mo-tion than the spokespeople of the pseudo-revolution of 68 wanted to admit. That isto say, the revolution didnt take place, ithad no basis, but society did change. In

From the Diary of a Snail, I describe howthe students yelled when I told them: Prog-ress is a snail. Very few wanted to believeit. We are both now at an age where we

can, I agree, be sure to continue to openour big mouths, for as long as we retainour health; but our time is limited. I dontknow what its like in FranceI dont thinkits any betterbut I believe that the young-er generation of German literature has

proven to have little inclination or interestin perpetuating the traditions of the En-lightenment, the tradition of opening your

big mouth and interfering. If there is norenewal of that, no changing of the guard,then this aspect of the good European tra-dition will also be lost.


5/5

Documents

A Literature From Below