Anti-intellectualism as a reaction against the rise of minority politics – An interview with Éric Fassin
Date published: 25.05.2021
The walls are closing in on civil society in Europe and globally. Human rights violations are part of the day-to-day life of many citizens. These regressions of fundamental rights and attacks on civil society increasingly diminish the democratic space for activism and threaten the safety of its defenders. In this interview series, Hafiza Merkezi Berlin wants to highlight the struggles for human rights and against the shrinking civic space by interviewing the people on the frontlines. In these national and transnational cases, we find patterns of attacks, but also examples of local, national, and transnational solidarity that empower and equip civil society in the struggle.
___________________________________
In France, a new social movement struggling against systematic racism and police violence has been met with reactionary politics and policies by the government. The anti-intellectualism obsessed with critical concepts such as gender, race, and intersectionality is rising, shockingly even fueled by the political elites.
Hande Gülen spoke with Éric Fassin, professor of sociology in the Department of Gender Studies and the Department of Political Science, Paris 8 University, and a founding member of the Laboratory of Gender and Sexuality Studies, for Hafiza Merkezi Berlin about how the shifting narratives of the extreme-right influence politics in France, the way anti-intellectualism turns into tangible threats against individuals, and the discussions of exile, that become more frequent while the community anticipates the presidential elections in 2022.
Frédérique Vidal, the Minister of Higher Education and Research, has asked the CNRS for an investigation on the ‘militancy’ linked to ‘islamo-leftism’ in academic research to carry out ‘an assessment of all the research’ taking place in France, causing a new polemic within the academic community. Six hundred academics have already called for the resignation of the Minister of Higher Education, following her remarks on ‘islamo-leftism’. What would you say about the current debates on Islam and relational terms about it? How would you evaluate the reflections of these discussions on daily life?
Éric Fassin (EF): The attacks on “Islamo-leftism” are not just about Islam. The old extreme-right National Front of Jean-Marie Le Pen used to target Arabs; the new, updated National Rally of his daughter Marine Le Pen now prefers to attack Islam. The rhetoric of “laïcité” (eng.: secularism) thus gives racist ideologies a democratic front; but it is still about immigration, that is, about “race” – migrants and their children, and their children’s children. But today, there is more. Surfing on fears of terrorism has become a pretext to attack academia. This first started with President Sarkozy, who denounced sociological explanation as a form of justification of social problems. Socialist Prime Minister Manuel Valls soon repeated the same argument.
In the last decade, however, anti-intellectualism has reached a new level. Critical thought is accused, not only of excusing, but also of causing social problems. The mobilizations against “same-sex marriage” incriminated the so-called “theory of gender”. Indeed, the denunciation of the “ideology of gender” is not specific to France: it has spread throughout Europe and South America, from Hungary to Brazil, for example. It is not solely about women and sexual minorities. It is simultaneously aimed at gender studies, held responsible for the evolution of sexual norms. Hence, the 2017 burning in effigy of Judith Butler in São Paulo.
What has become clear recently is that gender is but one dimension of this multidimensional attack on critical thought. “Islamo-leftism” is thus an umbrella term that can include any discussion of islamophobia, but also of racism in general. And this anti-intellectualism accounts for the obsession with critical concepts, from gender to race and intersectionality, but also postcolonial and decolonial theories. The minister does not know what she is talking about – but who cares? Who needs intellectual rigor in an anti-intellectual perspective?
Just like attacks on gender, attacks on race are not just about minorities: critical race studies are a target. This campaign is also about language: there is a renewed attempt to ban the word “race” from the Constitution (in the phrase: “without any distinction of race”). The minister of Education, Jean-Michel Blanquer, was hailed as a Republican hero, even by the far-right, when he announced in 2017 that he was going to sue a union for organizing a discussion about “State racism”. For years, the word “islamophobia” has been disputed, under the suspicion that it played into the hands of islamists.
"This anti-intellectualism accounts for the obsession with critical concepts, from gender to race and intersectionality, but also postcolonial and decolonial theories. The minister does not know what she is talking about – but who cares? Who needs intellectual rigor in an anti-intellectual perspective?"
A few days after the murder of Samuel Paty, The Minister of National Education, Jean-Michel Blanquer, accused academics, particularly working on race, gender, post-colonialism with the intersectional perspectives, of ‘intellectual complicity with terrorism.’ In those days, you had also received death threats on social media. Broadly speaking, how does that affect academics, intellectuals, and activists acting in the field of human rights?
EF: In France, today, we have the minister of the Interior Gérald Darmanin joining a demonstration of policemen in front of the National Assembly, on May 19, who protest against court decisions considered too lenient on crime; he claims to be on their side “by definition”. By contrast, it would be unthinkable to have the minister of Education demonstrate alongside teachers, or the minister of Higher Education with academics. They are not on our side. They are against us. We know the priorities of our government.
This is not just an ideological battle about gender, race, Islam, etc. It must be understood in the context of neoliberal reforms of education – in particular higher education. Frédérique Vidal’s thinly veiled threats came after months of mobilizations of academics against a reform that undermines the economic foundations of academic life. We first had a huge increase of enrollment fees for students coming from outside Europe; this is probably a prelude to generalizing this measure to all students. And then we have just had a reform that keeps reducing jobs in academia, despite the influx of students, in particular tenured jobs, thus diminishing the political autonomy of academics and their capacity to resist.
More and more, academics are trapped in the neoliberal logic of “projects”: we need to spend time and energy looking for funding based on research projects – not just to conduct our work, but also to prove our “excellence”. As a consequence, we have to adapt to institutional demands. This undermines critical thinking, which is less likely to be funded, and thus at risk of being marginalized. It also reinforces the capacity of the State to exert political pressure: another minister, Marlène Schiappa, has thus explained that her colleague’s investigation would show whether critical studies receive too much funding.
"This is not just an ideological battle about gender, race, Islam, etc. It must be understood in the context of neoliberal reforms of education – in particular higher education. Frédérique Vidal’s thinly veiled threats came after months of mobilizations of academics against a reform that undermines the economic foundations of academic life."
On the one hand, this is a climate of intimidation. “Intellectual complicity with terrorism”? The minister of Education thus legitimizes the vicious attacks of the far-right that have turned upside down the history of World War Two by claiming that they embody today’s “Resistance” against alleged “collaborators”, as if France were “occupied” by today’s equivalent of nazis: “islamo-fascists”. This support from the government has encouraged online harassment, but also slandering in print magazines or on television; CNews, for example, is now the French equivalent of Fox News.
There is a climate of virulent hatred that is indeed intimidating. On Twitter, I was threatened with decapitation by a former neo-Nazi the day after Samuel Paty was beheaded. I am not the only one. I think of my colleague Anne-Laure Amilhat-Szary: after a controversy erupted in Grenoble about anonymous accusations of islamophobia, her name has been exposed publicly, and she has received many insults and threats – but no support from the ministry (neither have I), on the contrary: an “investigation” ordered by Frédérique Vidal tries to put the blame on her. Others choose not to publicize these threats. More and more, I hear colleagues talking about the possibility of exile – especially in the light of next year’s presidential election.
This also has real consequences on our working conditions. For example, soon after the Minister’s announcement of an investigation, an academic institution (UPEC) erased any reference to intersectionality in the official job description of a position it had just advertised. Students hesitate to enter a field that would hurt their career. Gender studies had finally started receiving some institutional support. But we start wondering: what will happen tomorrow?
On the other hand, within academia at least, many understand what is going on and try to resist – including the national research center (CNRS), and the presidents of universities, that have reacted very strongly against the minister’s infringement on academic liberties. And within the profession, the 600 signatures in a day quickly became 23,000. This mobilization is all the more impressive since there is real exhaustion in the context of the pandemic and profound discouragement in the face of neoliberal reforms.
Mass demonstrations against police violence, the wave of Black Lives Matter protests have challenged the dismissal of race and systemic or institutional racism (racisme d’État). Given the prominent movements as decolonial feminist networks, queer and transfeminist revolts, advocacy for the rights of undocumented migrants, grassroots initiatives struggling against racism, impunity, and state violence, what would you say about human rights activism in France in recent years?
EF: So far, I have talked mostly about the reactionary politics and policies of our government, and more generally of our political and media elites. For example, most left-wing parties leaders joined the recent police demonstration, without any regard for the separation of powers – executive, judicial, and legislative. The Socialist leader Olivier Faure went so far as to declare that the police had been “dispossessed” of sentencing, and that they should “have their say” about court decisions! Jean-Luc Mélenchon did talk of a “seditious” demonstration. But the leader of La France insoumise is isolated, even on the left.
However, these elements have to be understood, precisely, as a reaction. A reaction against new social movements. For example, president Macron first accused academics of “breaking up the Republic” because they talk about the role of the police in racial discrimination in June 2020; this was in reaction against the very successful mobilization of youths under the aegis of the Comité Adama Traoré, led by Assa Traoré whose brother died in 2016 in the hands of gendarmes (the military branch of the police). Indeed, what has happened is truly remarkable. Police violence against non-White, working-class youths is not new, alas. But until recently it failed to mobilize beyond the banlieues where racial profiling is an everyday experience.
Police violence seemed to be about “others” – including of course refugees, from Calais to Porte de la Chapelle in Paris. But 2016 was a turning point: the powerful mobilization against the Labor law reform was met with systematic police brutality against unionized workers and students. The new police techniques are meant to scare demonstrators. People started realizing that the banlieues and the migrants had been a testing ground. The racial violence became openly political violence. This was confirmed most visibly against the Yellow Vests. Hundreds of these mostly White, working-class protestors were maimed or blinded by police brutality. The banlieues turned out to be a laboratory for the new authoritarian logic of the regime.
Conversely, this created the possibility of intersectional alliances between different movements. The suburbs now rallied in Paris. Paradoxically, this is when talking about race comes under attack for fueling so-called “identity politics” – “separatism” becomes the code word in a new law that threatens fundamental liberties. In fact, the political panic results from the fact that, on the contrary, we are witnessing the possible convergence of various mobilizations that transcend “identities” of any kind.
In fact, this is not just about race and class. It is also about gender and sexuality. The #MeToo movement has resonated very powerfully in France. It says something about elites – cultural elites (see the feminist denunciation by actress Adèle Haenel of the César prize attributed to Polanski), but also political elites: Gérald Darmanin was appointed Minister of the Interior just as accusations of rape against him resurfaced. Supporting the police against the judiciary takes on a particular meaning in this context.
"The new police techniques are meant to scare demonstrators. People started realizing that the banlieues and the migrants had been a testing ground. The racial violence became openly political violence. This was confirmed most visibly against the Yellow Vests. Hundreds of these mostly White, working-class protestors were maimed or blinded by police brutality. The banlieues turned out to be a laboratory for the new authoritarian logic of the regime."
Following your concept of ‘precarious democracy’, and your book, Populisme: le grand ressentiment [Populism and deep resentment], what would you say about the current political role of populism today, particularly in pandemic times? What challenges or possibilities do you think human rights activism will face in new fields by considering the precarious conditions?
EF: My argument is twofold. First, democracy is precarious by nature – which means, conversely, that no society is democratic by nature: France is not immune to fascism. Second, we live in a moment of authoritarian neoliberalism: this is the “actualité” of precarious democracy. I have been reluctant to use the word populism: after all, representing the people is what representative democracy is supposed to be about. But speaking in the name of the people can be dangerous for democracy: it may justify stifling dissent, and repressing minorities. The word “populism” sounds like a euphemism. I prefer to speak of “neofascism”, which avoids the left-wing temptation to idealize “populism” in the name of “the people”.
What strikes me today is that we live in an intersectional moment. First, the pandemic needs to be read in intersectional terms, combining gender, race, and class, if we are to understand the social logic both of the epidemiology and of carework. Second, neofascism plays on intersectional rhetorics – articulating class politics with sexism and racism. Think of Trump and Bolsonaro. Third, today’s social movements tend to be intersectional: France is a case in point. Neoliberal and neofascist politics converge, just as movements of resistance to both converge. Paradoxically, this intersectional moment thus explains why today we are confronted with such virulent attacks on “gender”, “race”, and “intersectionality”, with French variations on “islamo-leftism”, “post-colonialism” and “decoloniality”. Minority politics are now a crucial battleground for democracy.
Éric Fassin is a professor of sociology in the Department of Gender Studies and the Department of Political Science, Paris 8 University, and a founding member of the Laboratory of Gender and Sexuality Studies (LEGS, CNRS – Paris 8 – Paris Ouest). His work areas include gender, sexuality, and race, with a focus on intersectionality, as well as on minority politics and populisms. He has combined contemporary sexual and racial politics with a framework called “precarious democracy” in Precarious Democracy: Chronicles of State Unreason (2012). He is also the author of numerous books, i.e., The Left: The Future of a Disillusion (2014), The Roma and the Locals: Municipal Politics of Race (2014). He is frequently involved in public debates on intersectionality, gender and sexual politics, and immigration issues in Europe. He has taken part in various international networks dealing with human rights issues and supporting academics at risk. Twitter: @EricFassin
Hande Gülen is a sociologist and researcher at Paris 8 University, focusing on the urban commons, queer geographies, and new embodiment practices in the city. She has previously worked as a teaching and research assistant in universities and taken part in local and international feminist, queer, and scholar activist networks.