pierre rosanvallon y javier fernández sebastían. entrevista

7/30/2019 Pierre Rosanvallon y Javier Fernndez Sebastan. Entrevista

1/14

Intellectual History and Democracy: An Interview with Pierre RosanvallonAuthor(s): Javier Fernndez Sebastn and Pierre RosanvallonSource: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 68, No. 4 (Oct., 2007), pp. 703-715Published by: University of Pennsylvania PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30136089 .

Accessed: 16/07/2013 17:01

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Journal of the History of Ideas.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.63.22.83 on Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:12 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upennhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/30136089?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/30136089?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upenn


2/14

IntellectualHistoryand Democracy:An Interviewwith PierreRosanvallonI

Javierernandezebastiin

1. J.F.S.: Over the course of nearlythree decades, you have developed animpressivebody of politicaland intellectualhistory,substantiallycontribut-ing to the conceptualizationof liberalismand democracy n France.You began analyzingsome of the key concepts of political modernityas far back as 1977 with the publicationof your book Pour une nouvelleculturepolitique [Fora New PoliticalCulture,a collaborationwith PatrickViveret, published by Editions du Seuil, Paris], focusing particularlyonFrenchpolitical life of the past two centuries. More recently, Le modelepolitique frangais [The French Political Model, Paris, Seuil, 2004, trans-lated as The Demands of Liberty,Cambridge,Mass., HarvardUniversityPress, 2007] along with the just-publishedLa contre-democratie Counter-Democracy,Paris,Seuil,2006] have continuedto dissecttopics such as thestate, liberalism,the people, citizenship, representation, overeignty,and soon. We would like to know whetheryour intellectual work has developedfollowing a preconceived plan, or whether you selected your principalthemes out of the need to clarify one or anotherpoint as the problems ofday to day politics unfolded, which might well have led you to privilegeanalysisof certainconcepts or aspectsover others. For instance,has it everhappenedthatyou modifiedyour researchagendain order to clarifya ques-tion that you perceived as pressing?And in that sense, to what specific1 The interview was conducted in Madrid on September28, 2006.

Copyright a by Journal of the History of Ideas, Volume 68, Number 4 (October 2007)703

This content downloaded from 200.63.22.83 on Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:12 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/14

JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF IDEAS + OCTOBER 2007

problematicdoes your new book respond,and how does it fit in the overallensemble of your oeuvre?P. R.: Let me begin by recalling how my intellectual career waslaunched. My first book, which I published in 1976, was titled L'age del'autogestion [TheAge of Self-Management].At that point, I was still partof the national leadershipof a union, the ConfederationFranqaiseDemo-cratique du Travail (CFDT),where I was in charge of economic analysis,and where I was also editor-in-chiefof the union's journalof criticalreflec-tion. So it was as a social and political participantthat I wrote this bookreflectingon one of the centralthemes of the period, the idea of self-man-agement,which was then beingusedto organizealternative deas about thenecessarytransformationsof representativedemocracy.Yet my considera-tions did not, for all that, veer in the direction of a completely utopia-likevision of democracy.In fact, the firststageof my intellectualwork consistedin recognizingthat it is preciselyon the basis of its difficultiesand materialproblems that life in democracy ought to be contemplated. While manypeople were content simplyto oppose directto representativedemocracy,Iwanted to understandwhat I called the questionof democraticentropyandhence the degradationof "democraticenergy."To do so, I startedto drawup, at about the same time that I was publishingL'age de l'autogestion,abook that was more of a political manifesto, Pour une nouvelle culturepolitique [Fora New PoliticalCulture].Fromthat momenton, I undertooka programof work to come to a sociological and historicalunderstandingof democracy'sdifficulties.To that end, I continued to revitalize all of therealist sociologists of democracyof the late nineteenthcentury. I contrib-uted to having Roberto Michels' famous book on political parties repub-lished in France, and I also directed an annotated edition of [Moisei]Ostrogorski's major book Democracy and the Organization of PoliticalParties,publishedby Editions du Seuilin 1979. It's also in that same frame-work that I affiliatedintellectuallywith Claude Lefort,who had just pub-lished Le travail de l'oeuvre Machiavel, a work written by a politicalphilosopher with a very realistic and relevant optic on the difficultiesofdemocracy n a society of dissensus.So that was what had in some way reorientedmy thinkingandpointedme from an idealisticto a realisticanalysisof politics. And from a certainpoint of view, I would say that in 1976-1977, my political engagementonbehalf of a Michel Rocard was not separate from this intellectualaim-Rocard seemed to be the politicianwho hoped to unite social critiqueanda concern forgovernabilitywith a realisticvision of politics. It's also at this

704



4/14

Sebastian + Interview with Pierre Rosanvallon

moment that I made up my mindfor the life of an intellectual,againstwhatcould have seemed like the naturaldirection for me to take at that time-the career in politics that certain people like Michel Rocard would havewished me to undertake.At the time, I was also quite close with JacquesDelors, since when I left the CFDTin 1978, he and I had created a researchcenterfor economics and sociology of labor at the Universityof Paris-Dau-phine.At the CFDT,manypeople likewise wanted to see me play a politicalrole-indeed all the starswere alignedto open a politicalcareerto me! But,there being more to life than reasonablechoices, I felt that I preferredtogive it more originality,and to pass from political to intellectual life. It'sduringthis periodthat I met FranqoisFuret,who encouragedme along thispath. At the same time, my concern with considering politics in a realisticfashion had led me to write Le capitalisme utopique [Utopian Capitalism,Seuil, 1979], a work of historical and philosophicalreflection on the uto-pias of transparency.It is precisely a certain naive vision of politics thatappearedto me to be one of the matricesof totalitarianism,a regimemadepossiblepreciselybecauseit didn'thave a realisticvision of politicalmecha-nisms. I wrote this thirdbook, Le capitalismeutopique, to explore the ori-gins of political idealism and of visions of social transparency. t was at thistime that I beganto devote myself to the study of the originsof liberalism,in order to grasp how liberalism had emergedas a form of the denial ofpolitics, and how Adam Smithhad establishedhimself as a majoropponentof Rousseau. Most basically, Adam Smith appearedto be someone whowanted to discoverhow to do without politics;he believed that thereweremeans of organizing society and finding harmony without the trouble ofthe social contract. He thus wrote books focusedon the opposition betweenthe notion of the contract and that of the market.In 1979, when I publishedmy book, Le capitalismeutopique, FranqoisFuret,as chance would haveit, publishedsome highly laudatoryremarksabout my work in the NouvelObservateur.He also invited me to come to the Ecole des Hautes Ltudes,which confirmedmy decision in favor of intellectual ife.In 1981, as the left came into power, I received some new offers. Mysocialist friendswould ask me, "Don't you regretnot being in politics withus?" It was then that I definitivelyconfirmedmy intellectualchoice. Onecan say that the dominantelement in my intellectuallife is the idea that inorder for contemporarysocieties to enrich their democracy,they must ar-rive at a more realisticgraspof its difficulties.Besides,you have to respondto life's incitements. As a former member of the national leadershipof theCFDT,I was always veryattentiveto economic and social questions, and I

705



5/14

JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF IDEAS + OCTOBER2007

continued to be interested n these same problems,as well as in questionsconcerningthe establishmentof the social contract.So I appliedmyself tothe study of questions relating to the welfare state. My first book on thetopic, La crise de l'Etat-providence The Crisisof the WelfareState], waspublishedin 1981; I returned o the theme in 1995 with La nouvelle ques-tion sociale [The New Social Question: Rethinking the WelfareState].These works were essential for me because I think that any reflectionondemocracy s inseparable rom a reflectionon the materialconditions of thesocial contract, conditions that in contemporarysocieties imply an agree-ment regardingsocial redistribution,and a compromise on problems ofsolidarity.

But beginningin the 1980s, my work moved in a differentdirection,becauseI felt that to proceed in my realist understandingof democracy,Ihad to better understand ts history. So I decided to commit myself to anold-fashioned these d'Etat, whence originatedmy Guizot book. Indeed, Ineeded to more fully come to grips with liberal culture. And I wasn't theonly one doing this at that verymoment,as both FranqoisFuretand MichelFoucaulthad similarconcerns;between 1978 and 1980 Foucault was giv-ing his courseon the historyof liberalism,and notably on GermanOrdoli-beralism,at the Collkgede France.I thus discovered that if I trulywantedto carryout an in-depthintellectualundertaking, needed to bringa certainhistorical and theoretical "depth perception"to the analysis of politics. Ithereforechose to researchcomprehensively he founding tensions of de-mocracy,while concentratingon the French case. It was to turn out thatthe approachof the French Revolution's bicentennialsparkedwidespreadinterest in Frenchpolitical culture, and I wanted to participatein this de-bate. I consequently focused on three principal themes in my considera-tions. I began by writing a book on citizenship-since citizenship isn'tmerelya form of belonging, it's a form of social power. The definitionsofdemocracyare very broad, and at the heart of these definitionsis the ques-tion of knowingwhetherdemocracy s a regimeof political participationorsimply a regime of equality in dignity. I also deepened my reflectionsonquestionsof representationand sovereignty,which led to the publicationofmy trilogy: Le sacre du citoyen: Histoire du suffrageuniverselen France(1992), Le peuple introuvable:Histoire de la representationdemocratiqueen France(1998), La democratieinachevie: Histoire de la souverainetedupeuple en France (2000).1I Parts of all three of these books appear in English in Pierre Rosanvallon, DemocracyPast and Future, ed. Samuel Moyn (New York: Columbia University Press, 2006).

706



6/14

Sebastian+ InterviewwithPierreRosanvallon

In the meantime,I also studiedthe Frenchstate for severalyears.Thustwenty yearspassedbetweenthe publicationof Le moment Guizot in 1985,and that of Le moddlepolitique frangaisin 2004 (although other works,like La monarchieimpossible : Histoire des chartesde 1814 et 1830, hadled up to the conclusion of this reflection on the Frenchpolitical model). Iattemptedto incorporatea comparativeapproachwhen writing on Frenchdemocracy,notably in referring o Americanand Englishhistory.From thatpoint on, I had built up a sufficient sort of capital to return to my originalquestion. The book that I published very recently,La contre-democratie:La politique a l'dge de la ddfiance,likewise resumes the direction of mywork in the seventies. Better armed both intellectuallyand historically, Ihope to go back to the differentquestions that I had been asking myselfthen. I'm also startinga new trilogy on the transformationsof democraticactivity. Currently, am preparinga work on the transformationsof legiti-macy in contemporarysocieties. Another volume, on which I'm likewiseworking at the moment, will deal with the territoryof democracy, n orderto understandwhy the dimensions of democracies are reduced in today'sworld. The goal is to construct a political theoryof secessions and separat-ism, not from the point of view of national ideas, but rather via a moreradical reflectionon the social dimensionof the territoryof democracy.2. J.F.S.:It seems to me that at this lateststage in your work, you haveadopted a far broaderperspectivethat transcends the hexagonal cadre ofFrance, engaging instead in a more and more comparative and transna-tional approach. . . . Moreover, your specific methodological approach,which situatesyourwork at the disciplinarycrossroadsamong history, phi-losophy, sociology, and political science, is likely to interest a wide varietyof scholars, political actors, and specialists in the social sciences. Tell me,after all these years,where in this rangeof disciplineswould you prefertobe situated? Or betteryet, where would you situateyourself?Do you con-sideryourself firstand foremost a historian,or a political theorist who un-derstandshistory,as you like to say,in the sense of "thelaboratory n whichour presentwas produced"?P. R.: I would say that I had the good fortune to work with a group ofpeople who hoped preciselyto transcendoverly narrow approaches.Twoof these people, who were in a sense my collaborators, influenced me di-rectly. The first of these was FranqoisFuret, who believed as a professorand a historian that to advance in history it was necessaryto be closer topolitical theory. The second was Claude Lefort, who was a philosopherconcerned with problemsof contemporarypolitics, and at the same time, a

707



7/14


great readerof history.Both likewise thought that the social sciences, andespecially political sociology, ought to be taken into consideration.Fromacertain point of view, what I'm trying to do is cross differentapproaches,and to strive-as an ideal-to find a way to write the kind of book thatcould go beyondthe usualdisciplinarydivisions,to be read and considerednot only by historians,but also by political philosophersand sociologists.If I considerthe categorizationsof internationalpolitical science,one couldsay that I'm working in the domain of political theory.But my work is infact broader.I'mtryingto create the sort of political theorythat would notbe a simple amalgam, but rather a hybridthat would transcend differentdisciplinaryapproaches.3. J.F.S.:Inmy opinion, one of the majorcontributionsof yourceuvre,and especiallyof the trilogy comprisedof Le sacre du citoyen, Le peupleintrouvable and La democratie inachevie, is to have given prominencetothe enormous difficulties, internal tensions, and even aporias necessarilyimpliedby democracy n our societies-as actuallypracticedas opposed toin the disincarnatedpictureof ideal theory.If this is so, does it seem thatinrecent years partial solutions have been found to some of these structuralproblems, such as the alternativebetween number and reason, the incom-patible choice between the representationof similarityand eminence,andthe divide betweenpopulismand elitism,etc.? Or do you think that, on thecontrary,the tensions haveworsened?P.R.: In developing my research as a historian, I've constantly beenstruckby the extent to which the questions and contradictions of democ-racy recurthroughout its entire history.So it really is impossible to studythe historyof the Frenchor AmericanRevolutions,or of revolutionsin theLatinAmericanworld, without seeingto what extent (to cite justone exam-ple) the question of representationhas always been both a problemand asolution. One could likewise note how definitions of citizenship have al-ways been at the center of struggles,controversies,and confusions. Whatinterestedme was locatingandanalyzingthe contradictionsandstructuringtensions of democracy,and seeinghow its historycould be understoodas ahistory of attemptedresponses to these contradictions,resultingfrom theexperienceof confrontingthem;hence the idea of a historythat would beboth intellectual and practical.The point is to explore the differencesandsimilaritiesof thesetensions, in order to compare experiencesof democracy.4. J.F.S.: In a recent interviewwith Quentin Skinner,I made a shortobservationcomparingtwo ways of practicingpolitico-intellectualhistory,yours and his own. It seemsthat the two perspectivesproposed by yourself

708



8/14

Sebastian+ Interviewwith PierreRosanvallon

and Skinner are at odds with each other, although of course they couldalso appearcomplementary or that veryreason.Whereasyourown criticalanalysesof the Frenchpolitical model seek to reflect on your country'sre-publicantraditionand perhapsto correct certain traits of this statist modelby strengthening he intermediarybodies of Frenchsociety (andso in short,one could say that you've adopted a pro-liberalor socialist-liberalposi-tion), the work of Skinner and many of his colleagues at Cambridgecriti-cizes some of the basic notions of the political liberalism dominant in theEnglish-speakingworld, while highlightingand emphasizingolder, lost re-publican traditions. As far as you are concerned,what main criticisms oradmonitionswould you offer regarding he performanceof liberal democ-racies in the West? And most importantly,would you say a few wordsabout the prescriptivelyuseful lessons that Europeancitizens might drawfrom the studyof the historyof democracy n the last two hundredyears?P.R.: I'd say that today, democracy'ssituation seems to be character-ized preciselyby the addition of a completely original sort of dilemma tothe older concernsof structural ensionsin problemsof citizenshipor repre-sentation and sovereignty.Now, theseproblemshave beencompounded bythe transformationof the landscapeof what I've identifiedas the "counter-democratic"universe,that is to say, the universecomposed of the variousmanifestationsof the citizens'distrustof the authorities.The chiefproblemsof contemporarydemocracythus lead to a new cycle of questions.

J.F.S.: Speakingof Skinner-with whom I thinkyou sharesome impor-tant views after all, such as the perceptionthat ideas can only be graspedvia a scrutinyof ordinary political strugglesand contingencies,as well asyour common aim of encouraginga greaterrapprochementbetween politi-cal and intellectualhistory-you know that he has sometimes been criti-cized for a sort of "antiquarianism," hat is for his professed desire torecuperatelost intellectual worlds. Nevertheless, perhaps in part as a re-sponse to those who accusehim of sterile eruditionand historicism,Skinnerhas lately, or so it seems to me, adopted more engaged political positions.I've sometimes read criticismson your account that on the contraryrebukeyou for a certain "presentism," nsofar as your explicit goal might be to"reconstruct he long genealogyof contemporarypoliticalquestions."Con-fronted with Skinner'sarcheology and its excavation of hidden treasures,"Rosanvallonian"genealogy aspiresrather to shed light on the present bymeans of the past,2 f you will permitme this simplification.Would you be2 Nevertheless,he question s morecomplexsince,as Rosanvallonhimselfrecognizes,"History nters heprojectnot onlyout of the interest n recognizingheweightof tradi-tion, in order o providebanal"enlightenment"f the present hrough he studyof the

709



9/14


so kind as to explain to our readers how you succeed in reconcilingyourhistoricalanalyseswith yourcivicconcerns,while at the same timeavoidinganachronisticinterpretations i.e., not attributingideas or preoccupationsof our times to historicalagents who could not be familiarwith these no-tions, consideringtheirconceptualframework).P.R.: My conception of history is neitherantiquariannor presentist.Ihaven'tattemptedto find the originsof our problems n history.I didn't tryto write a genealogy of the present.I don't think that the present is solelythe outcome of an evolution whose secret mechanismcould be discoveredby the historianin consideringthe past as the matrix of development. Myinterestin historicalwork on politics is verydifferent.What interestsme isrestoringto the past the presentistcharacter t had in its time. What inter-ests me is understanding he political experienceof the past all over again,making it come alive once more-and that would be impossiblewere I toconceive of it in a genealogical fashion. The past has to be envisioned onthe basis of the experienceof those who participated n it, and the systemsof actions, representations,and contradictions hat they held ... Therefore,the point is to re-invest the past with its dimension of indeterminacy.Whereas a genealogical historyhas an opposing role: it always follows thethread of some necessity. Conversely,I want to restoreto the past its one-time present.To me, the historian's role consists in giving the past back itspresent,so that this presentof the past helpsus to considerour own presentmore effectively, nstead of merely expoundingwhat mightbe the necessityof this present.6. J.F.S.:Therewas anothergreathistorian from whose teachingsandhumanitywe were lucky enough to benefit a little over a year ago, duringhis stay in Spain. Unfortunately,he disappeared ast winter-I'm speakingof ReinhartKoselleck. Could you tell me whetherKoselleck'srichtheoreti-cal reflectionon temporalityand historicalsemantics,and the methodologyof the Begriffsgeschichten general,was suggestiveor useful to you whenyou were contemplatingyour own way of practicingand theorizing the"conceptual historyof politics" (histoireconceptuelledu politique),as youdid twenty years ago in Revuede Synthbse,and morerecently n your inau-gural lecture at the Collkgede Francein March of 2002? For in this lasttext I notice several reflections that are all indicativeof positions that thepast. Rather, the point is to make the succession of presents live again as trials of experi-ence that can inform our own." (Leqon inaugurale faite le jeudi 28 mars 2002, Paris,Collkge de France, Chaire d'Histoire moderne et contemporaine, 2002, p. 14; in Englishin Democracy Past and Future, p. 38).

710



10/14

Sebastidn + Interview with Pierre Rosanvallon

recentlydepartedprofessorwould no doubt have shared-a wish to avoidthe traditionalhistoryof ideas, an insistence on the inexorablenecessityofa historical and "empirical"approachto politicalconcepts, and an empha-sis on the structuringcharacterof collective representations,as well as onthe inevitablyconflictual characterof political languageand on the perma-nent crisisof meanings.P.R.: I knew Koselleckwell personally.We met on severaloccasions;some of his studies, translatedinto French in the series of the Pcole desHautes Etudesen Sciences Sociales [whereRosanvallonhas taught] by theEdition de Minuit, became touchstones for my generation.His Begriffsge-schichte was likewise a very important asset to me. But I wanted to gofurther,beyond a contextual and philological history of ideas, in order todevelop an understandingof the rationalityof political actors. I've neverwanted to separatea renewedhistory of ideas from a strictly political his-tory. You ask me whether there is a connection to Koselleck's so-callednormative approach. In fact, there I'm thinking in this regard mainly ofthose who have a purely normative approach to politics, of theoreticianslike Rawls and Habermas. I'm not interestedin rejectingthe normativeconcern-political philosophy ought to include this dimension. Neverthe-less, the normativeapproachshould be redefined.We can't be satisfiedwitha normative approach that yields merely an ideal version of politics anddemocracy.The normativeapproach must be redefinedin order to elimi-nate the existing gap between history and theory. Thus, this approachshould follow from renovation of historical and sociological understand-ing, not throughdisassociation from it. Such is my goal.7. J.F.S.: In any case, aware as you are of the generaloutline of thetask that some of us have undertaken, hat is the developmentof dictionar-ies of comparativepolitico-conceptual history, startingvia an examinationof the evolution and "functioning"of ten or so fundamentalpolitical con-cepts in severalEuropeanand LatinAmericancountries (theIberconceptosresearchproject),we'd like to have your opinion on our approach.As it israthersyncretic,we haven't hesitated to borrow all that seems most inter-estingand appropriate or the aimsof our studyfrom variousmethodologi-cal schools (so that we don't shy away from combiningthe perspectivesofthe Begriffsgeschichteand of the Cambridgeschool with your own reflec-tions and those of other French academics like LucienJaume or JacquesGuilhaumou).

P.R.: I don't think that there is a necessarygap between political his-toryandpolitical philosophy.I think that thereare some interestsandsensi-

711



11/14


bilities that have different modes of implementation,and that they mustalways be in debate. The differences of sensibilityand approach also de-pend greatly on the backgroundand origins of one's work. Working in1970s Germany,one doesn't have the same preoccupationsas someoneworking in England n the sameperiod.Trueintellectualdiscussionconsistsin comparingthe resultsof differentapproaches.I'm fond of the ideal, butthere's also the practical, i.e., what to ask, what to grasp. There are evensome histories of ideas that have, let's say, a traditionalapproach. For in-stance, you mention someone like Jacques Guilhaumou,who's written ahistory of certainconcepts duringthe Revolution. It's a very episodic his-tory, but I findthat it can also be quite useful.8. J.F.S.:In your recentworks you haveemphasizedthe exhaustionofcertain concepts that have structuredmodernpolitics. In the Frenchcase,you have additionallyargued for the existence of a "singular relationshipbetweendiscourse and reality,"of a growing"discrepancyof factsand rep-resentations,"which mainly affects the problematicrelations between thestate and civil society. Naturally, you aren't the only one to point out theobsolescence of numerous political concepts, the same concepts that twocenturies ago significantlyanticipated reality and in that sense appearedimbued with the future.(Koselleckusedto say that their"horizon of expec-tations" widely surpassedtheir "space of experience.")Today, however,they appear worn out and wavering, incapableof adequately accountingfor the emergingnew realities.Now I'd like to link this question with thefamous"eclipseof the intellectuals,"and also with thecrisisof the left. Youhave at times suggestedthat a fair partof the problemsof intelligibility ntoday's politics derives from this categoricalsclerosis, from this analyticaldeficit, from this exhaustion of politicalconcepts (includingsome conceptsdear to the left, like republicor socialism, which seem to have lost theirprojective capacities). What might happen is that the likely lack of suffi-ciently new or flexible categories to adequately conceptualizenew experi-ences, and in that sense the resultingknowledge and theory deficit wouldtranslateinto a crisis of expectations. Political forces, includingthe social-ists, constantly repeatthe old ideologicalcliches, brandishinga handful ofterms converted into slogans, like neoliberalism, la pensee unique, andother termsdesignedto stigmatizetheir opponents ratherthan establishatrue discussion. In this day and age when so much is being said about thedecline of the intellectuals,don't you thinkthatone of their tasksas profes-sionals of thought mightconsist in abandoningthe beatenpath in order to"discover,"put forth,and discuss the new conceptswe so desperatelyneed?

712



12/14

Sebastian+ Interviewwith PierreRosanvallon

In what way could historicaldisciplinescontribute to the elaborationand"invention"of these new concepts and tools of analysis necessaryto fix thepolitical agendaof the immediate future?P.R. For me, the role of intellectualshas always been a pivotal ques-tion, regardlessof their academicfunctions. The academic function is pro-ducing researchwork. But what I call the intellectual function is the rolethat this researchwork plays in society. In France,the dominant model hasbeen that of the individual who commits his academic legitimacy or hisown academicprojectsin the public arena in order to take a stand. It's avision that I've nevershared.I don't see what special legitimacyan individ-ual would have to interfere n a domain that is not his own. Granted,it'sacceptable in a society where the access to public speech is very limited.When Voltairespoke out about a judicialaffair in the eighteenthcentury,the number of voices that could be heard in that society was very limited;so his involvementmade sense. And even at the time of the DreyfusAffairin France,it was necessaryfor the voice of someone like Zola to be heard.Today, that is no longer as necessary.There are many other voices bettercapableof speakingabout theirproblems; he public spaceis veryopen, thepublic space is plural, there's no longer any function the intellectualcancarryout in such archaic fashion.And as far as fame is concerned,the typeof renown exemplified by all of these intellectualsof the past, like Sartre,Camus, or before that, Voltaire,has largely disappeared-just look at to-day's media scene. Effective media images these days are those of greatsportsmen,filmactors,and artistsof all sorts.The mediacapitalof an intel-lectual is now far weaker. The role of the intellectual,however,can be plot-ted out by his work itself.Not that his work should be markedby a politicalbias-absolutely not-but ratherbecause his work has and ought to havethe function of renderingcontemporarysociety's difficultiesmore intelligi-ble. For me, an intellectualis someone who makes Condorcet'swager. Amore lucid society that better understands its questions will perhaps bemore rational,will be a society in which political deliberationwill be ableto be strongerand more active.Hence, I'vedefined the intellectualas some-one who firstand foremost possesses tools of comprehension,tools whichmay also become instrumentsof action.9. J.F.S.: Since we're speakingof the future,and as you've often em-phasized the importanceof temporalityin politics and the prospectof thistype of time (or times) management,how do you see the middle-termout-look of the EuropeanUnion, after the Frenchand Dutch "no" to the consti-tutional treaty?And leavingaside the motivationsfor this refusal(a refusal

713



13/14


that could perhapsbe interpretedas an especiallyunfortunateexample ofthe phenomenon you call "counter-democracy"),don't you think that asan expression of various social fears, this refusal could be, apart from amajor setback, a real turning point in the process of Europeanconstruc-tion?

P.R.: Certainly.It's obvious that a sort of deconstructionof Europeistaking place. There's a tension between a kind of historical utopia thatdreamed of a new type of political construction,of a new type of relationsbetween states, and the real historical function of Europe. Europehas hadtwo essential historical functions: on the one hand, overcoming the divi-sions of WorldWarII,and on the otherregistering he consequencesof thedismantlingof communism. There had been two ways of reconcilingthepolitical utopia of Europewith its historical function on the eve of WorldWarII. But the projectthat could have led to a new kind of federalismwaseffectivelypushedasidebythe new imperativeof expansionthatestablisheditself in the seventies, with the end of dictatorshipsin Portugal, Greece,and Spain.The same imperativewas redoubled afterthe decompositionofcommunism in the late eighties. It's the historical function that effectivelygained the upperhand, eclipsingwhat could have been a political project.Besides,the question has neverreally been clearly formulated,whence theimpressionof a movementthat took place without ever being justified.Be-cause Europeas a political and constitutionalsubjectis somethingthat Eu-ropeans never really successfully understood in its entirety. They havecontinued to regard Europe according to the political and constitutionalschema inheritedeither from the constructionof the nation-state,or fromthe construction of the internationalorder. They haven't sufficientlyre-flected precisely upon the originalityof this Europe,which was in a waydeconstructing he organizingconcepts of traditionalconstitutional visionsas well as of ideas of regulation.Europehas run out of steam, the reasonbeingthat we haven'tprovedcapableof providinga satisfactory rameworkfor understanding his construction.10. J.F.S.: Finally, considering that this interview will probably bepublished in Latin America, I'd like to ask you a question regardingthebicentenariesthat will soon be celebrated.A long and ample cycle com-memoratingthe birth of new Ibero-American epublicswill begin in 2010with the ArgentineanBicentenaryof the May Revolution,followed by simi-lar celebrationsin Mexico, Chile, Venezuela, Colombia, and so on. Theseclosely linked Hispanic revolutions erupted following the generalcrisis ofthe Spanish monarchy-a crisis beginningon the peninsulawith the war

714



14/14

Sebastian + Interview with Pierre Rosanvallon

against Napoleon and the liberal Revolution symbolized by the Constitu-tion of Cadiz of 1812-and profoundlyaffected several million people onboth sides of the Atlantic. Many of us historians think that our culturalmilieuaside, historiographyhas definitelypaid insufficientattention to thismajor revolutionarycycle. We would like to see the bicentenarysplendorsserve to definitivelyestablishHispanicRevolutionsas the thirdmajorrevo-lutionarywave in the eyes of our colleagues from all over the world, thusbeing acknowledged, along with the North Americanand the Frenchrevo-lutions, as markingthe passage from the old to the new regimeat the endof the eighteenthand beginningof the nineteenth centuries. Yet this goalwill not be obtained unless the celebrations are accompanied by a truemethodological renewal. As you know, some Frenchacademics, and I'mthinking specificallyof Franqois-XavierGuerra,have played and still playa fundamentalrole in this processof renewingthe politicaland intellectualhistory of the region. My question is very simple and quite direct: can wecount on PierreRosanvallon'ssupport in the coming years in encouragingthis insertion and comparativevision of the cycle of Hispanic revolutionsin the Euro-American ontext?

P.R.: Indeed, readingFrancois-XavierGuerra sensitized me to the in-terest of the Hispanic revolutions. His book about Mexico absolutelyen-thralled me, and I then concluded that the comparison of the English,American,and Frenchrevolutionsbeingdone, the terrainof Hispanicrevo-lutions needed to be considered-not only becausethey made up the thirdrevolutionarycycle in the early nineteenthcentury, but also because theexamination of Hispanic revolutions brings attention and a new light toan entire set of questions that appear less directly comprehensiblein theframework of the American and Frenchrevolutions. I am fully persuadedof the intellectual importance of reintegratingthe Hispanic revolutionsinto the field of our studies, beyond a simple comparative perspectiveofthe period. The study of Hispanic revolutions opens the door to compre-hendinga new ensemble of problems:the question of the size and the de-marcation of nations, the connection between the old and the new, therelationshipbetweenold social forms and liberal constitutionalismand be-tween citizen and community,and the problemsof constitutingthe polity.For these reasons, I am a reader of historical works on Latino-Americanpolitics and the ordeal of independencein the nineteenthcentury-I amquite interestedand eagerto discuss them.

JavierFernandezSebastian,Universidaddel Pais Vasco.PierreRosanvallon,Collkgede France.715

pierre rosanvallon y javier fernández sebastían. entrevista

Documents