English translation of the French transcript, made with AI and not yet proofread — click a paragraph to jump to it. Show the French original
Question and problem 0:00 Security, is it conservatism or revolution? It's as simple as that. But if we really had to choose a set of questions for high school seniors or undergraduates or even agrégation candidates, since philosophy teachers, at whatever level, always say that the most important thing at the start of an essay is to pose a problem. That is, to end the introduction with a question mark, roughly, informally speaking. But watch out, not every question is a problem. What time is it? There's a question mark. That's not a problem, it's a question. What's your name? That's a question.
0:46 It's only a problem for Parsifal, who never knows what name he has. I say that because he answers the old man who was asking him: at least tell us your name. I've had many, but I don't remember any of them. There you go. Since that lasts five hours, I'll stop there. But here, we clearly see the difference. Daniel isn't just asking a question, he's truly posing a problem.
1:20 Intensely philosophical. Why? I'll answer you first formally. What distinguishes a plain question from a problematic question is that with a problematic question, you can't answer immediately with yes or no. That doesn't mean I'm going to answer evasively, in the Norman way — sorry to the Normans. That is, maybe yes, maybe no. I don't know. Yes, in one sense, it's conservation; in another sense, it's revolution. No, no. It's conservatism.
Security is not a reactionary term 1:53 In another sense, it's revolution. No, no. I'll answer in a more committed, more engaged way. But I'd like to say here that security is an extremely rich term. Alright, let me dive into the content now. In today's societal debates, one might think that security is on the side, let's put it simply, of the right, of conservatism.
2:23 You only have to see how the need for security keeps recurring among all reactionaries, doesn't it? Does that mean security is a reactionary term? That would be an incredible insult, and above all a contempt and cynicism toward those thousands — and here it's hundreds of thousands — of poor wretches who, with entire families, cross the desert and then the Mediterranean, don't they? And face the most terrible insecurity, don't they?
2:55 That of those boats which are, at the very least, hazardous — sorry for the euphemism, it's more tragic than that. Who is going to lecture those people about facing danger? That would be obscene, wouldn't it? So that's where we see the richness — the Hegelian conception of the moment — there is a moment of security which is vital.
3:25 And it's not — for those who say that freedom comes above security, it's easy to answer, and here it doesn't matter whether the answer comes from a man of the right or the left, because this answer is well-founded: the first of freedoms is security. When a gazelle faces a panther about to pounce on it, fleeing is its first freedom. That is, the pursuit of security through flight, fleeing danger.
Social justice and elementary securities 3:57 That's exactly it — the pursuit of security is fleeing danger. That's the best way, for the moment, to exercise what freedom it has left, as long as it has any. I can reassure you, moreover, very often, isn't it, it shakes off the predator. The predator has to try several times. So, Daniel's question is all the more interesting since one can even reverse it, contradict those who make reactionary use of security, and say that if we insist on the necessity of social justice and social progress, it's precisely to ensure security for millions of people who don't have it — who have neither food security, nor health security, neither for themselves nor for their children, for their loved ones. It's quite staggering that in the 21st century, in the fifth richest power in the world, our hospitals are in the state they're currently in.
5:00 So when the medical profession — the people I salute, the admirable hospital workers, whoever they are, whether great professors, great department heads, or what are called cleaning technicians, thank goodness they're there, in any case — or what used to be called ward maids, who deserve special tribute, who do their job in their place — they come to provide the most basic security, and that security is a liberation for the one to whom it is granted, to whom it is given.
5:52 So, thank you very much Daniel. One can make reactionary use of the notion of security, that is, reduce the collective, the general will, the State — I know that irritates the anarchists, well, I'm not talking here about a state apparatus at the service of private interests, which characterizes the bourgeois state, the capitalist state, a state apparatus serving that enemy of the State which is the private sector — and that's where anarchists and the MEDEF [French employers' federation] share a certain complicity, in their relentlessness, isn't it, against the general interest.
6:31 Not all of them — there is an anarchist tradition, a companion of the working class, whom I salute and with whom I fraternize. But there's a right-wing anarchism that's flourishing right now. So I'll take the opportunity, through Daniel's question, to stress that we must not let true security be monopolized by them — true security, which is inseparable precisely from social justice and therefore from equality.
Against the priority of freedom over equality 7:07 I've spaced out my appearances at the Tropiques bookshop a bit because — I'll say it — I like very much, I respect Professor Bernard Bourgeois, who was my research supervisor, so I always have a little reflex of deference toward someone who has produced excellent publications. But still, I was a bit tired of hearing it endlessly repeated that equality is all well and good, but freedom comes first.
7:42 When one knows dialectics as well as Mr. Bernard Bourgeois does, one cannot, one should not allow oneself to flout it. It's the most elementary dialectic that shows that freedom becomes an empty, abstract form. The freedom of the void, an unreality, when it is not conjoined with the progress of social justice and therefore with equality. That's my answer to Daniel Arias.
8:12 No, no, I haven't forgotten security within equality and justice. On the contrary, I insist and I repeat, and I'll end on this, in answer to this question: the demand for social justice is in itself a demand for security extended not just to a few, to a handful of privileged people, but to the whole social body — at least the basic securities I listed earlier. Thank you.
