A R E W E LO S I N G O U R D E M O C R ACY ?
TALK
K AY G L A N S
TA LK S TO
Z YG M U N T B AU M A N A N D
DOM I N IQU E SCH NAPPE R.
T
alk is a series of conversations on issues that
concern us as capitalists and citizens. Talk is not a
periodical; it will be published if and when we
feel there is a need to try to shed some light on a
particular phenomenon or development that has
implications for business and society at large.
Daniel Sachs,
CEO Proventus,
Stockholm.
o
sing
we lo
Are
?
g
pin
evelo
c so c
est d
anisti
hum
the W
e
in
th
ies
and
crac
state
cra
emo
lfare
demo
old d
e we
e
hould
th
h
t
,
m
de
re
and s
n
te
r,
a
a
e
s
v
c
y
w
e
s
t
o
ow
ha
st
but h
y? W
ies. H
pitali
c
it
,
a
n
ra
c
ld
u
c
r
rt
e
o
ate
wo
f th
oppo
dem
ies th
f the
term
a cy o
equal
mpan
rts o
gitim
of the edom and
,by co
w pa g the le
ning
re
ordi
uced
e
a
c
tf
d
e
c
n
p
A
ro
e
m
.
p
o
in
c
t
s
n
dern
’t ac
sumers
ervice
racy e threate
e mo s that don
ed con
and s
r
moc
e
ign, cult
at is th
oods
be flaw
g de nds a
ds – des
y. Wh ide, by forc l buy the g
red to
or
c
e
ingin hese tre
w
id
r
ra
s
er
c
b
n
o
il
ts
oth
co
n g. T
u
w
y
m
o
o
o
e
re
an
h
a
d
m
t
m
n
w
f
fro
Like
tio asin cepts o
arke
ple
aganda.
n
oming ons of peo consumer m “democracy”?
atten ecre
mes prop
ti so the
t ofbility is d cts our co eivedas c
d
. It beco
a
or
on
v
lo
w
iti
ti
e
o
gn
a
th
e
s
co
rc
ing m acce
t aff
stand
ses l mo
n pe
beyond re
focue socia how tha are ofte t the chandgo not havee we to under
meaning
hing its
worlde tim e and cracy
bou se who. So, how ar
ks stretc
ttheren samllandscap to demo s to cacreesas. Thcova
es
ris
lu
s
s
e
rie
da
ti
ts
W
n
Twhheile laat nd socia cy. Threa have breaadsgoeanofdshuucmanis within its boun
ed
ra
a
e vity
politicme democ pitamlisptsloti,ostwn eitiss thcreati bition to be defin
e
u
as
a
am
s
h
c
tr
e
n
x
e
rneteereyd thcoat proving,
t catyonsocwecih orld-im
aissbAoreucsiegarded as w
aps
me g
inco
that
te
Wes
inthe
orld
rn w
are w
iden
ing
hnap
e Sc
b ou
per a
t the
g
chan
ing
erity,
prosp
on of
ti
u
ib
t is
redistr
ions.
e fac
nt Ba
ental
gmu
ut th
condit
ndam
etter
to Zy
rn, b
for fu
b
e
g
d
c
to
n
in
n
a
tion
dem
e co
petalk
aspira
ith its
trem
Euro
dless
cy, w
rism,
n ex
d in
om en
sume
velle
fr
mocra
em a
a
e
g
e
tr
d
s
in
f
s
to con
a
ult
lo
ty
s
ay
h
e
ie
re
d
s
m
c
ociety,
o
t
o
n
Gla
al m
ratic s
tmen
tion s
y ?It
g ide
dem o c
ppoin
, Kay
roduc
crac
f disa
passin
llybe a
map
ation
emo
o
a
o
c
m
c
d
fr
e
ti
li
o
g
s
c
b
r
re
n
ou
ovin
theo
s se
all-en
is pu
could
s us m
tinuou
or th
lmost
ansee
society
’s con
the a
ole. F
s and
kind of
t Baum
eople
calls
a wh
n
p
is
notation
r
u
s
th
e
m
m
,
a
p
g
y
o
Zy
tive con
rac
, fr
hnap
ciety
has posi
them.
dem o c
s well
a
e
at
n
ue Sc
n
o
th
e
fi
iq
p
e
u
id
rm
d
in
y ou
is a te
e ins
cting
Dom
ning. It
of h ow
om th
rces a
pass?
its mea
ned fr
ending
mic fo
ncom
ng.
is losing
e. Dep
econo
it
threate
m
acy e
e
its meani
la
at
e
b
th
th
b
d
to
an
use
re
be losing
tand
racy c
relessly
selvesa
seems to
unders
ca
m
at
e
th
so
to
th
t
d
em o c
s
a
al an
d concep
as they
s well
so gener
spect,
establishe
with a
become
ht on an
e no re
work
– it has
some lig
deserv
ty
y
ri
ed
e
sh
cu
th
to
w,
ent, se
attempt
this vie
evelopm
humble
ing to
nomic d
and our
ility, eco
mocracy
ab
de
n
ai
of
st
s
ange
ture, su
on the ch
ersation
is a conv
This TALK
a
uman
om
nd D
iniqu
T
he Western world focuses a lot of attention on bringing
democracy to new parts of the world, but how are the old
democracies in the West developing? Are we losing our democracy? It may seem an extreme concern, but the fact is that
income gaps in the Western world are widening while at the
same time social mobility is decreasing. These trends are
3
threatening the legitimacy of the capitalist system, the welfare
state and the humanistic society as a whole.
For this publication, Kay Glans has travelled in Europe talking to Zygmunt Bauman and Dominique Schnapper about the
changing political and social landscape and how that affects our
concepts of democracy. What is the modern meaning of the
term democracy? What can and should democracy encompass?
Dominique Schnapper calls the almost all-encompassing
ideal model of democracy, with its demand for fundamental
redistribution of prosperity, extreme democracy. Threats to
democracy are often perceived as coming from outside, by
forces that don’t accept freedom and equal opportunities.
However, democracy can be threatened from the inside as well,
from people’s continuous sense of disappointment resulting
from endless aspiration to better conditions.
As concerned capitalists, we have reasons to care about the
changing motivations of people who will buy the goods and
services produced by companies that we work with, as well as
to understand the economic forces acting upon them. Zygmunt
Bauman sees us moving from a production society to consumerism, a society where consumption is the badge of success.
Those who do not have access to the consumer market are considered to be flawed consumers. According to this view, they
deserve no respect, as they themselves are to blame.
Depending of how you define democracy, this kind of socie-
4
ty could theoretically be a democratic society, but a society that
has lost its creativity and humanistic values. So, how are we to
understand the word “democracy”? Like many other words –
design, culture, sustainability, economic development, security
– it has become so general and so carelessly used that it is losing
its meaning. It is a term that has positive connotations and is
regarded as world-improving, but the ambition to be defined
within its boundaries risks stretching its meaning beyond
recognition. It becomes propaganda.
This Talk is a conversation on the changes of democracy and
our humble attempt to shed some light on an established concept that seems to be losing its meaning.
Daniel Sachs
5
Kay Glans,
writer and editor,
Stockholm.
eht
saw
ohw
,eltta
ba
ro ra
wa
saw
. wef
ereh
t ne
,elbis dna ,y
hw ,
nops rutne
emit
er er c tsa
a no
a set l eh
pu e
anidr t fo s
obus tnem
cnO
ruoy evom
.lortn
– ecn nair
taht d
oc f
eniat
o yt
eicsn atilat
niam
ud e
o
o
c rae t eht
eh hc
ht fo
lc a e htob
i
h
dir t
w
v
f
ah uoo ecn
.noitaesu ni ,)9
eg o
y ,lla eirep
rebaicl esb 891(
t tna
evobxe dn
a –smde g tsuac
w ye
A .sn ah-t
tsnyashfc oloH e
hT .l
o
s
o
s
i
r
h
a
t
i
n
i
dnocf sah
ohituycloa t dna
akes
ortn
eht sa
r
y
s
oc n
esoherofe
sciodmset tinred
an m
,etuor
t
i det
i
d
r
rednehut e
gfnoidaue oM ht
Baum
t
elddim emas eht
n
s
i
a
H
e
u
w
dlipepha
rega.n86
retn ygm
d to
ekat
suo
t,mwoshin ecneidu
i .rZ
am91ani
idere
rfoedéom a lan
.ycarc repsorp eh dna ,ekil k
ebdnoat lo n state egnol o re cons
sop-txseop oitanr
omed T .ytir
ool ot
a
P
n
ia
g
y e
for m
e
arn t
ni tser onim
etni na a emo sah worrom lacfoirotetshihportnpi na ot n a totalit iyfeslitnaIrasamqe,uthe raasurmewan,
a a sw
ot
deniag dcaeeb wo
in roamB edumnnt B optoyrry
m
rooptsenI .nd evah fo ymene e gsntoigsweiabnrdaemh uoanBk tlolewstaey
Zyg aigreerp e his a
ht foentif yeht
.snoitid
serdoeorps etatse mohvtintaht gninvs h,ayvreartbaihl tehcnioameloamcgeisbt ts ence in thtaseinhucmhdmcouw
noc we
i r la
rr
ae
ot
o
wehyectaanrecvoeimcsoeishAmehetricot ilJeebwdisnha sse naiseaetofrfneofecseifondasmd umaoBre to
a ,nevhittiw tca
k
in
d
n
t
niL
agen nretni d
deha ih .r
he ,hy g shk-n
th
eht dna
eeb sana rets
on’t ecause t the tPrueooplirsohrTp .atyiauhcltaptrroaspitioeg toolonicgauMstlavres tdtnuaBe.desroormoroe
d
elbisso hcniar yturebv,t
I
i
h
.
g
u
c
c
c
o
H
e
tce bepip awvi
raf er aots
to
.B
pe hti omeeral n
p si eta enheTm.eravo
ts laico lumcityrarapno esot sthnreoitat sticlaaeyllreotunni delb ocracy o has a s menonw. Tehlpdofeop gIen.yidtinroitajaalimsmn.lhlIteatsonffi egrsnidlsiui
s eht ta nei teclarateehr a er w bolg tfademin sihn als
o
scoahptfitrcstireodenhut de
t
a
hhtt ethvei wootntohnmsoar w ion o ht saruemda swolelarn phen
to
e
voc o ruomoroht fal td h
lebtht’eno efifnitemti otachut B isnomcod ohw ,r 990thseisr cthlose
dluow ro
tl doef dw ar
is d d
a n
e 1
Bt s
lly fig
op rieht
nehlst ,ueslbua . Now it s and reI ,nhoisitatosrilyabsosaehentstisiaselladyhitp,mseevamamufraoBomm.etiethsrmeginegsoracer nret A great dea netoxliet
.P
ua eaetinpdsohni aytion rn from fore e lg fo sno duocntiwsoisinelahsict oySb la ed gnih l tootalsp. fo dn
t
c
e
renhotoitariticasinim
ikn ephroperty onal
pnirottaidtino
tell
t th form revleear there
ar. In si eldf a trans le to eawndyeht ,dnahehmrisee ainrghuisme c readmnoUn.gsethr e cnaN rotdnyiabhwyceiredaxneteaosneostoionfelyilewtitthubpe,rstsigol
tnrwworehNtb ruo
i
st w battlefie iolntntheeceisdphocsishibwinteueoring,
n
h
s
o
e
t
a
th
e
e
o
n
s
la
l
y
e
it
rg
u
h
d
r
u
t
a
i
o
e
e
te
.lseneof ietsaleccnebe
th
he ons r itni te eng htiw s cbeenctr
endop,fI .tpuerkisnown be assohcit aot gnid
roc
fight ying t flectisi nhoeithtiseo sociagl ot tpmettthe. riTllheer,ulav latnem dly need
on anb. oW
ratherptooilepP
it secaemmseh
ually ccup e’s re ing w art ofp ro ytireplosthgoice alilk a I snoitalato a baadnuf owrigtahnetgratoeserdeirectio g dluow yisehcat se
hT ?ecnsae id; in th dna meht otimteesweu dishanarev
ls us h was tao king ofonr knonwt of the ecanmaelerath2b.0odor rp otaghivt esmriussesahaonltirisrgehtrutsoroh, sptheyelch
a
r
b
a
r
e
e
t
is
d
t
s
e
w
e
is
ix
cy
it
restayl rgoenrideneowohsicons foerquisiteems e varia is dweodrktoisPo ouatlindnesif aolst tlwucereiffimdpeoyrsclbraoindcey in Erad enoow-on ch
is the samdemoceramoc dlu
tsoildnmorelcan,ehht gnirudl dcoenntrerolpml. At
h
e
ta r
r
its
hwlitnicai ,yteiaresdeecfinneitiuaontuoofba seirever the p
They r? Thveesral reettaer apsrheat ntceexptrxethIinedkrnthisA au.tmpguraludwnerp the at hed. Ffoirrstethquearelity. De revolutioncneai stsi ti dna d,tccailfnnoevcadniecipo
xnA fo egqAes l.aLo
atlacig
secivletesy.mTh
o
b w
ht ne ne rehsttoate. Th
egvning
e
an
ly
ityna bnriok
ile
e
jor
t
so
ob
u
e
n
ma
h
m
id
t
d
d
is
n
i
al
e
flu
v
nte
i
winreenhatrueldnsoehnaeeveeJbewesvatsh porohitb, abbut rathxercise oftapnintlythreteadhstetrufituthfgoogeleddso
h
f
t sdrawWoealth
etcinio
ra 0e1w
the y are the conte tub ,yrassecen il eim
ertoa hthe
a aieWn ,in.ybutirtuthe
Thlee sheorfoofsthtsicsionolocga,isrewsrituhocwoffosthn,eaereratepnsothareuwrEecernaorpnethostnsataEit enesoedhTs .eelpoforruEponlitpi icadul eacrFtiodnn.umgtiSgnstitvntooemtmnoeaicrnttod
toBso.
ssf siDay
uldlecla
stI dnacneositsasseill dna sserem
otlyladipo
behtr what he did
.nwd oat ne
wvillevrehtar a ”msisirung
icffolitiics“ca
tno
em
oismut aecoensc idehfoT un
ptheeopmaudrditionoatl dsIisota.hpTpt heyeraimrbh,aielgitr,sebes
c
y
u
l
l
r
e
a
s
e
e
i
b
e
e
h
r
t
i
few
e
v
f
o
’
i
n
y
C
h
a
c
on
m
u
m s,osbunet ever
eabminlycrocea
the
nutmgyZ ni noitasr is prob
tr es nsterdayrimxvieinledatgeeesitd do s as yeBt tno
b tonkosoabh seureohmt arfafsoiohsS,nk.Ins.ir semoc modalle
eb sah dna sisirc n ual relation
evco
osiyttspaewwill
Moowreer doofch
ssbe
asex
nomc es
pfiexts, and ha
do
bru lairtsudni lacip
egno
ceedrisuse
t
cla
e
w
his
y
e
h
l
e
t
t
t
o
onhioge
le
f
o
ou
th
n
e
g
dd
p
ran
ab
a
–
t
mi
e
mig
h
is
s
e
lied
n
t
y
e,
hi
y
o
n
nt
t netsil dna mlohk
y m co
mshorfsoc
kcaialb dstat
? Is
cracy.dThsocial rightremembers how Clinto
nfeerepmsmroatowiotecrancticfro
state
cllib
ePodas
ecnonuothe
yht alavi
cvisi
otchoice
elpomore
Son,otaever
b spoisoned
awelf
isirinprde
h has
moattac
etnmo
kind
,yare
adnot
this
uan
ot by
oy.y organization,
tmake,
people
will cry .for
control,
for
in social
life.
the
egak Ilittle
ofneyou
sEve
ti fryo
ll done
ial pro
o dne
leepstagnke
pupil
alntel
eniardforsi more
socWhatever
hwlikeare
hs Bauma
ic,gmore
yrtnuotransparency
hig
ylnaoalways
lite ara
c aerenethe
y seeandanyou
I feel
hw reledconv
reall
si tI .who
part,
aisirritatio
s sver
you
n’s
i tiy;ntion.
, po
relpmis tib elettwil ea
Do
sep
s
y
poor have litt
a
al
e
on
h
en
s
,
ry
t
n
a
ersa
t
r
o
tak
on
p
ve
m
Wh
i
y
e
r
t.
a
amiab
rs
g
n
the
an
i
ntr
g
tex
n
g
o
l
e
b
arouse
dna erutluc seloP su roF .dnaloP
up durin
an tocon
toda
seem
– peempirical object
onene cecou
built
ope
rather
in
ions
Eur
have
r
h
ge
the
whic
to
s
lon
My
.
y
ction
this
qu
an
lasting
for choice in
sferrefle
sestat
somet
s and
ctiontran
objecan
thohing
development but wanted to remove pluralism and overwhelming opportunities
ofisethe
ersumodernity,
eBhtouttefoth
som
acman
res.
ojyaneed
mYouewhich
htlimits?
700accepted
go
2 nAre
i wolimits
N technical
:yaneeded
alternative
s ylbaband
otorp democracy?
Does
democracy
France!
deconomic
luow eh yadLet
ot eusrehtravel
gnittifrom
s eremulticultural
w eh fi ,tuB .rBritain
effus etolporepublican
ep hcihw morf selbuort lacigolohcysp lla fo e
yllaer reven era uoy os dna ,eno siht naht retteb neve era taht seciohc reh.troeleprmewis etirbehetltstipl aherebpotadhltrothwgueohht
at
te th
r sta
rothe
B
ig
aB
g.
ad to
inatin
ht le
f dom
, mig
o
m
y
a
is
ror
dw
t ter
sts to
tdate
ains
ociali
ry ou
ht ag
d ve
nal S
ig
f
o
n
ti
a
e
a
th
it we
stly
eN
with
a co
m th
ry. In
g fro
ation
at is
centu
h
in
in
T
p
th
b
a
0
l.
esc
e2
com
ntro
of th
ed in
o co
gy in
part
ceed
nts t
nolo
latter
, suc
e wa
tech
e
d
n
n
n
th
o
r
la
e
o
Po
to
ent in
mo d
er; n
25 in
elped
lopm
inist
that
in 19
deve
esis h
adm
ears
tical
he th
born
s to
li
T
t
o
the f
s
.
n
y
p
a
f
a
m
o
nd
ris
ocrac
rk
He w
ne w
barba
tual a
t wo
w dem
eds.
No o
tellec
shor
rchaic
sk ho er
of Le
in
a
ted.
a
a
y
e
to
to
e
it
f
th
aft
ds:
de
ivers
pse in
k of
een
to Lee one Friday
e Un
gboo
a rela
ve b
travel
te
in th
with
f a lo
o ha
that I ersation la
than
ctive
ing o
n
a
o
th
ty
s
v
e
s
a
ie
r
n
soc
is re
r co
som
e
y yea
rk is
y to th ng ou
odern
xercis
man
mostl dly duri
is wo
f the e
l of m
as. H
form o
tentia
t. -It isto. Repeate
r
o
n
e
p
ie
th
o
s
e
of ide
n
tran rent
ly a
uctiv
tter
is mere
opmthe destr
ht and indiffe
s a ma
ile, lig y or be
ative –
e it wa
with etnoc
, mob ired b
long tim
.
nti-norm
ty
a
a
ri
r
l,
u
eshi ttIh. eemhTb–eddaend be insp
c
fo
a
ic
and
rial se
ierarch
,tsidwtlisu ne .cre
al rights t to basic mate
liquid hicnshoeiortceh tcara
– anti-h
person
gh
isrgoiontniviwrts irft genciuwadosohrlicberiraehtit ng
nteeing idual has a ri
ra
a
p
c
u
r
g
e
d
e
g
remtfeAhtdteretal ns of
til sa psushptspdilanuade
ry indiv
fo hennaa tnems
hts: eve
s a.5mel ; a y
hgas bregnadmtuaaeBlonmpeepidolalefinvrsoeittdaar f wit4h91ssoenvci lliaenlasilcmiridegar
rtant
necliveirmprhets deverg a hsWi bu?t alsfoom,sev lreBhtefvoa
most impo
r h c
rhaps the control by falling
tisciael sriihgcoolitcdeicnbualsearihhgt h,sdtse, ereshettatarohpt amviceitiarcrra=n etare of eeltrteaacch
naeildnkiaret n. But pe
ses can influence
B
ci
t
er
p
n
o
h
c
n
r
m
i
e
m
ex
d
g
f
h
d
ow
g
u
a
e
n
f
h
i
rdo
rf eht
he ge its rellhatfoy t ,oedlpefhan
la
t tedL itsit eldoes not feel it
neirhgtay I rtasnco
nehW laritcnoibeserfineowga eatetxinwif by
se e .s
oritntt roael,mcaoaus
releeveedllituics
icos l al state which.dnisefed esdthi geihrs,Tla.iha
ar –s xeuqroinfehtanid
ponee s,cidbe
t s evvad
efer
yt intecfreeoLsstdninnehaWthghinwo yncOar.cytialatwnemspi,olcnaleiitctrdarnpoabkus rieshh opping malls, they pr
anihrie
elifnthi e soacciiripme laci ossseladckboointunggda
n
evoeSdinlarthe
emos
.siRhtyrb h omeerdfo off
o t
.glnaicoriedtiwlosopp unhadessrcscralas
l
c
o
on si n
evah with wh
f stoatebsuisdeon
indivi
an
ersietriliu
itpircnsienohwottioitaypmNt rAot srewo
otnsoner
i Po
l
r
d
w
a
e
o
ire
t
f
c
qu
t
.
c
ac
a
u
ed
a
a
p
o
e
a
m
muaBmparing theoy fi
c owrbtmeepspahed ehf tla:hcdtiotrdsireiF ede matter. He transferred it to the
hpqt cltanhowt s
edeseefcinru
lu
co ?s
itanNioht.stesrdonan
y iraamw ,tsarhw istuonoboeatspailhahrfed
s eracl
o
cifteiylpodsepade sssi timil deen yc fgninaem wellfa
lfare sta
p sae,eeeysturaBw.h eeerasrgiw’lmoato-Psttsiexohptyledalg yeh
reircar
w setaonstSesr ofetathe
lumwe
e,
t
e
m
a
i
y
u
car
l
r
,
l
h
o
r
c
g
ial
n
c
o
h
n
t
isi
n
c
T
a
c
s
n
t
n
n
o
c
d
r
ov
soc
o
a yti
f uimyrtosvisa ion
e
amuauoBsp seaht saohMdi ehrewtfiod no .ega
pr
s, m
wtlaogs itauqlic,
n
irbared
loedi ffo t tinU revo lloat de
icnam,rmewodopeenrf ed seod roe,ra sthgir
t socdeialtappro
it is very much in
naiurutadthis
molcla
edneigmtuss
e nee i slaiuodhivwid tsixe y laciti y not.ddisc
nraosekale alambut
es ac US
f eldpeobtha
reldanvheut,hsdcraiinhhentwiapub
c ot aw
erputrsoidonpu na
ylis.aHe
carYou
oP .yt
lahtex in nthe
nisoi erati
sah tthis
ee
comlma
sinaetfadotethcecjdeonsrraeplam,iuetointlcotpnturns
ocinsiralaseesta
scdnona
-la t’ od y from it,,
eht nhetihwt m tellb you
eipreple.
i
e
r
e
d
e
e
w
s
a
p
aef tpnpaatsentioeycHrar.stneoticb-edhntunotisuq hcihw ,eciorke
o
class
s
d
x
d
r
le
i
will
e
o
g
i
,
s
n
s
u
e
midd
l
s
ral
ed elb sewelf
algiacouocdse aezwlbldetetrintiopyaimrneawa
qil rp? And if the
es
wl f u.m
ma hct libe
dna soahcthesOre.n.ei rEve
o modeeruhotresneedgivodrnpalehdefe
ycastate
agrethe
utsahucltanhowiatcrJoeedgneoai rnnraoMc
ivreidhentbfind
orSco.hmsceeuoddDes.syetislisbwheth
d ochcIare
i ytirguunccieekryssaestpulesoerfodfannfacoal
ti tsaivhat lndin
o ylomidd
can
inf fthe
e means to get
-telsloef hoon
isedhlruTaoawhncbalanc
mroton
hcnasion
reetva satyiwsnand
htiw mamyoadudition
m, and
afreedo
rpos
sayisecuri
ft hntisibl
f eepuoxsopesmiohdwernaeone
oeBtrfinto
we see
a
c
l
o
that
i
e
W
d
d,
e
m
t
.
e
on
t
m
roun
n
s
e
t
s
e
d
g
way
d
i
e
n
i
r
c
discus
t
e
i
t
n
s
k
a
n
r
e
t
i
o
s
e
othe
r
w
t
a
o
t
e
;
l
f
r
t’entoadcilyepedoenpthgil .snsoedsn0a9i,v9roe1SneTaehcht
eorowmgnfly.ouoeBut
we drift yreviraclscnsasicimeondooyna ssertsehethmt ots eno faI ht sei
ewthe
case
itanot
stheir
,drawork
any
in
y
a
,
t
k
n
rnoafmproper
a
a
r
g
s
i
m
g
e
m
zitic class
s
h
n
wopt ni
i
r
homew
h
.
h
l
a
t
i
e
t
r
o
s
s
i
p
i
,
r
a
l
oseNrf .tuithis
gthere
of ychoices
fof shsoesniwyou
t essieusvaoiThe
hyt middle
eare
hoethtatbimone,
ton ewere
rehht tare
mehi thcreally
tatsnever
tirucesoPrthat
oonaeven
y
perhaps
other
better
than
and
satisfied.
o
r
t
u
a
k
b
a
c
o
e
e
i
h
p
w
W
l
d
s
fo
t
i
I
t
c
e
u
,
d
y
ithought
.
o
uq eganthat
m
d
t
o
e
y
e
s
e
i
t
i
u
e
L
r
f
l
i
a
h
u
l
e
l
g
l
a
b
u
e
t
v
cnsetui lsfthe
nowm rdee attempts tonshoctdraw
am o
sBI ;?.ms la hr t eegsniottkind,
a evah ewlae;sdsdeoog a pu evag ael sIeererodcfnemodernity
ven ,smees sdeedLnep ism
intcyi idvnlenoitorstscnio
eb ot dlrow eht t,stnsealehtrereligious
iorteothtathpoeWnugeigght.u,entaeboand
behtaiwtprdsatetalsnabrnaoowitimt a I i;dtssiliulolnoapowmon
rgorp fo ofenan
yeht taht tcuafoeterodeidemhentoeiltrcspfofnoysiselitththis
alternative
features
has
today
?
s
fundamental
,
e
y
i
c
l
n
i
nruter osociety.
t
a
g
v
w
h
r
h
e
n
l
t
u
u
i
g
d
b
l
n
w
t stnaw Even
l
p
c
i
h
n
n tmodern
m
a
sselehatr,egvneilniatfudbnlalegwnidseolottes sah na a ro srac eciloP .sd rts a evah t’notdsi nemowmd’nI a,meelmboetotincexsi seitgtoaenetnshOstmiho.ntoacsmevitaenhitptpaeohryehctMtsni
hc tnatsnomc ofowehrusiloP gnuoy eeheTL.motentisdyasoyrtierhut n ew ycarcomednem yrprasruoepoeimreoem erafpleIuw.uyeateeBhigcseoynsaas ,n esruo
st
ce
sserp siht fo derit
t
era elpoeP .ssoeilytaibliicbdoseseshatptigonlpidxlneaucooitsiltosopnnef,orkisryorhwontatio,swonecitohtsifntureoaiqhatepttsilmrbntiBaueIttIots–or.tern.oseoltuanmaitacrlaeocingedcelobheobleitmosvedsha-bonccthpsayfosopp
issop fo noitarefilo
ac ne feormowmeoshhitgrneehletemwh e
uac rojam eht ,duerF syas ,si taht dnA .ytiruces erom
te
r
tfnoorctfceuturdobomr,pstranoifasyri trescnfi,lnolliucdwfvyoencrlaopstommoifdreobf
neahwt ydbnade,gnnoisliaofp dsnya wglnaiseoroahucotyna,etsknaomc ufooyereucsiosehrcpresivhettgafohoWtdree.reditfrioel rlanaiicemolpsoodneeiPeyr.csfneleaitruialdibpivissindsanoript refuorooynmofoitraotrfoel,fnialooiprtpauzeeinhvatiggmruooYer.osmffor-poefde,ahlorttrm
orf tub ,stniartsnoc ynam oot morf reffu.s
Zygmunt Bauman,
professor emeritus of sociology,
Leeds.
‘‘
T
hey say generals usually fight the
last war. Intellectuals usually fight the latest
threats. I don’t think we are moving towards a
totalitarian state.”
Zygmunt Bauman makes short work of the
fears that modern technology in combination
with the fight against terrorism, might lead
to a Big Brother state that controls its citizens.
The individual who fears that has not realised
that power and techniques of dominance have
radically altered their character.
– The contemporary powers are no longer
interested in control. They want to get rid of
the duty of control. Once upon a time, when
there was a war or a battle, who was the winner? The side which was occupying the battlefield at the end. Now it is the other way
round. Because the Americans have to stay in
Iraq, they are considered to have been defeated. No one wants to administer; no one wants
to control. That is a costly and very outdated
8
way of dominating. Managers don’t want to
manage. They gladly cede powers to their
subordinates. Let them take care of themselves; let them produce the results. It is
much cheaper and more satisfying to be a
manager under those conditions. Above all,
you have a clear conscience – your subordinates are responsible, not you.
There are several reasons for taking one’s
reflections on the transformations and redefinition of democracy to the Polish-Jewish sociologist Zygmunt Bauman, for many years
active in the University of Leeds. He was born
in 1925 in Poland, succeeded in escaping
from the National Socialists to the Sovietoccupied zone, and as a soldier in the Polish
First Army took part in, for example, the
Battle for Berlin in 1945. After growing friction with the communist regime Bauman left
Poland in 1968. He therefore has first-hand
experience of both the totalitarian movements
of the last century, and few people should have
better prerequisites for knowing whether it is
possible to learn from history.
But Bauman also has a special position as a
reference in the history of ideas. His work is
something of a logbook of the intellectual and
political development in the latter part of the
20th century. In it we can follow the intellectual reckoning with Marxism’s historical faith
in development – a distrust of all great narratives, of rationalism and the striving for order.
Bauman first became well known to an inter-
THE CONTEMPORARY POWERS ARE NO LONGER
INTERESTED IN CONTROL. THEY WANT TO GET RI
D OF THE DUTY OF CONTROL.
DEMOCRACY IN EUROPE CHANGES DIRECTION. WE
ASSOCIATE IT NOT ONLY WITH PERSONAL AND POL
ITICAL RIGHTS, BUT ALSO WITH SOCIAL RIGHTS.
national audience with Modernity and the Holocaust (1989), in which he maintained that the
murder of the Jews was an extreme variant of the
art of social engineering, and therefore essentially a modern phenomenon. The Holocaust
had more to do with the destructive potential
of modern society than with a relapse into
archaic barbarism.
The thesis helped to corrode the moralpolitical equation of the post-war period:
National Socialism was reactionary therefore
= criticism of development is suspect or
worse. But this does not mean that Bauman is
a prophet of post-modernism, applauding its
dissolution of systems as liberation. Power
does not disappear with it, but rather is
upgraded to Power 2.0 or the like. The central
theme in his production from the 1990s is
that capitalism has become liquid, disembedded, mobile, light and transient. It is mostly
to this reason that I travel to Leeds: to ask how
democracy is influenced by this lightness and
mobility. Does liquid democracy exist, or does
democracy need limits?
Bauman is no classical empirical sociologist, but the kind of pattern recogniser, who
allows his nimble intellect to register and
interact with new conditions. More traditional
sociologists probably think that his work is a
methodological thriller, because his argumentation is sometimes rather close to fiction. It
offers a vision which one can be inspired by or
be indifferent to. Repeatedly during our conversation late one Friday afternoon in January
it becomes clear that we do not agree about
the description of reality. On one level I agree
with him that there is a great danger of building intellectual Maginot Lines and believing
that the enemy of tomorrow has to look like,
and take the same route, as the enemy of yesterday. The image of the exercise of power
that he outlines also gives rise to a badly needed purge among the critical tools. A great deal
of what has been applauded as liberating –
anti-hierarchical, anti-normative – is merely
another form of the exercise of power, and
should be recognised and evaluated as such.
But what happens to democracy when
everything fixed evaporates? When Bauman
has lit his pipe and served coffee in the library,
he begins a historical exposé of how the idea
of democracy has changed – because democracy is not fixed either, but is rather constantly
redefined. First there were personal rights, the
right to one’s own body and by extension
property. Political rights developed first as a
means of guaranteeing personal rights and for
a long time it was a matter of course that they
would only cover people who possessed property. Political rights are only meaningful if
you have something to defend.
When the franchise is extended to cover
those people without property, democracy is
redefined. Instead of protecting the privileged, it becomes a weapon in the struggle for
equality. Democracy in Europe changes direction. We associate it not only with personal
and political rights, but also with social
rights: every individual has a right to basic
material security. The social state was a project which, during the post-war years, was
embraced both by Right and Left. The idea of
social rights has become central to our understanding of democracy. Through this even the
poorest of the poor gained an interest in
democracy.
But this sequence – personal, political and
social rights – becomes increasingly difficult
to maintain in the fluid society. The redefinition of democracy is redefined. Power has
crossed boundaries, has evaded control, and
itself exercises control by falling back. Above
all in the 1990s onwards the social state is
undermined. Bauman sees primarily two
causes for this. When social rights were introduced, the underprivileged formed the majority. In large part thanks to the social state they
have now become a minority. The prosperous
middle class which now dominates does not
consider that it needs the social state. The revolution eats its own children, it is said; in this
case it seems rather to be the social state
which is being eaten by its own children.
But perhaps the most important cause is that
power has evaporated from the nation state up
to the global sphere, which implies that it to a
11
BUT PERHAPS THE MOST IMPORTANT CAUSE IS
THAT POWER HAS EVAPORATED FROM THE NAT
ION STATE UP TO THE GLOBAL SPHERE.
considerable degree has been emancipated
from politics. National political power influences our belief to a diminishing degree.
Bauman considers that globalisation so far has
been negative, a liberation from contexts, and
has as yet not found a new level for political
action. Wealth is mobile and can evade political control. At the same time we have
acquired an underclass lacking any interest in
politics, because it does not feel it can influence its own situation.
– People are less interested in politics
because they don’t expect much. So much less
depends on who is in power, so much less
depends on what the state is doing. People
feel thrown one way or another by the waves,
tides that come from nowhere in particular.
The very rich and the very poor have little
stake in democracy. The middle class is probably the only political class today, but they are
the contented majority. Looking at the provisions of the welfare state and comparing them
with what is on offer in the shopping malls,
they prefer the malls – more choice, more
amusement, more fun, more temptation,
more excitement. What they really wish from
the state is that it provides them with an
undisturbed ability to accumulate resources
and use them according to their desires.
Under conditions of globalisation, I don’t
believe that the social state is possible any
longer in one country taken separately.
Everyone remembers how Clinton lied about
his sexual relations, but very few remember
what he did to the social state in the US. He
declared that social provisions, social care,
welfare care, is not a federal matter. He transferred it to the individual states, and then a
negative competition started among the
states. If one state was very lavish and generous, then the poor people from all over the
United States would come to them and they
would go bankrupt. If, on the other hand,
they were very inhospitable, then their poor
would go to other states. You can transfer this
to the European context. Where there is very
high social provision, a very lavish social state,
migrants will use all possible means to get
there. Every market liberal will tell you this is
rationale. You may not discuss this in public,
but it is very much in the mind of the legislator. It is quite a serious problem, I’m not
inclined to underestimate it.
No one can criticise Bauman for speaking
in sound-bites. He exhales in 10 minute verbal sequences and during the considerably
shorter inhalations I attempt to get in some of
the many objections and reflections which
have built up during the conversation. Do you
really see an attack of this kind on the welfare
state? Is it not the other way round, that we
see a coalition in the middle defending the
welfare state? And if the middle class turns
away from it, can this possibly be because the
welfare state is not living up to its promise? I
also doubt that anyone is contented today and
feels secure. On the contrary it appears we are
living in an Age of Anxiety, in which almost
no-one dares to assume that prosperity or
position is something lasting. My empirical
objections rather seem to arouse an amiable
irritation on Bauman’s part, and I feel a little
like a pupil who has not done their homework
properly. But in any case we drift into a discussion on security and freedom, and on
whether one can find a balance between them.
My conviction is that this is a delicate issue
for democracy. If we experience individual
freedom as trying, it is easy for this to acquire
for political implications. New research into
National Socialism emphasises that it was not
a reactionary movement, but an alternative
modernity, which accepted technical and economic development but wanted to remove
pluralism and overwhelming opportunities
for choice in modern society.
Even religious fundamentalism today has
features of an alternative modernity of this
kind, and attempts to draw on the feeling of
unhappiness in post-modern society. Is this
not what we begin to see the outlines of, the
stress and melancholy of freedom of choice,
which quite easily can set off ideological
reveries about a simpler existence?
There are two fundamental values without
which decent life is not possible, says
13
Bauman. One is security, the other is freedom;
security without freedom is slavery; freedom
without security is chaos and constant fear.
Both are necessary, but find themselves in
conflict, and it is incredibly difficult to find a
balance between them.
– In the history of political democracy we
don’t have a straight line of progress; we have
a pendulum. We are not going forward, we
are going sideways. In his famous book
Civilisation and Its Discontents Sigmund Freud
pointed out that civilized life is a product of
trade-offs. You give up a lot of your individual
freedom in order to get more security. And
that is, says Freud, the major cause of all psychological troubles from which people suffer.
But, if he were sitting here today he would
probably say: Now in 2007 the major cause of
the psychological trouble of contemporary
men and women is the fact that they gave up a
good deal of their security for the sake of more
freedom. With freedom comes risk, so there is
less and less security. We are moving towards
the other end of the pendulum. And I expect
that sooner or later people will cry for more
control, for more organization, for more transparency in social life. Whatever choice you
make, you are always poisoned by the thought
that perhaps there were other choices that are
even better than this one, and so you are never
really satisfied. The middle class today does
14
not suffer from too many constraints, but
from the proliferation of possibilities. People
are tired of this pressure of constant choosing
and failing, and want the world to be a little
bit simpler.
It is only when I get home to Stockholm
and listen to the tape of the conversation in
Zygmunt Bauman’s library that I discover
how often cars with sirens sounding passed by
on the road into Leeds. Police cars or ambulances? Leeds seems, nevertheless, to manage
quite well today, has bounced back from a
typical industrial urban crisis and has become
a rather lively town. The centre, of course,
consists of shopping malls; I am warned about
getting lost there. Before I leave Leeds, I
speak to another Polish immigrant, a young
woman working in the hotel reception. So far
there has not been so much of the feared
“social tourism” in Europe. Those Eastern
Europeans who have been on the move have
come to Britain to work, not to exploit the
social security system. The young Polish
woman has settled well but nevertheless
wants to return to Poland. For us Poles culture and belonging are important, she says; it
is sad when a country is drained of its young,
enterprising people. Does democracy need
limits? Are limits needed to democracy? Let
us travel from multicultural Britain to republican France!
THERE ARE TWO FUNDAMENTAL VALUES WITHOUT WHICH DECENT LIFE
IS NOT POSSIBLE, SAYS BAUMAN. ONE IS SECURITY, THE OTHER IS FRE
EDOM. BOTH ARE NECESSARY, BUT FIND THEMSELVES IN CONFLICT, AN
D IT IS INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT TO FIND A BALANCE BETWEEN THEM.
,ycn
ega
gni
tce
torp
a
Kay Glans,
writer and editor,
Stockholm.
eb
,lac ot etat
irot
se
sih
h
si y t ksa
car
y
com lno d
n
ed
dna a tcejo
rp l
noit
a
an
yca
nee citilop
rcom
w
teb eht d
e
d ta
laic
knil
n
os e
ht y
laitn
ehT a ytre
dulc
lem
ediv
an ,
– .e bil la
ni o
orP
t
s
tats citi
u
yc
oire
:noi
noit lop t
s er
tals arcom
u
an
nart
e
om
eht oba t
hcu
hsilg d fo no
tuo egro
mg
itini
nE ,
htiw f ll
f
n
2
e
i
d
002
htem
sah
yca iw sn
( en er eht
ycar
rco ezi
os s
iaro
o
me tic
com
i sy
pme t raluc
d a tah
ed h
as r
tnoc itrap
enig t ks
cihw
epp
é
n
am ir lae
a
t
n
i
i
nhc
lage
,elba
ihtiw
seil
i na r a
S
p
silae
’l ru
p
krow
c e si
t
a
a
h
s
rnu
s ia
no ere
W.
ihT
e
m
s
y
reh ht
t
a
llaic
sE . .llew
i tp
rf eh
enO
teh dnA
n
e
e
anif
lleit
.yteic
t sa
cca
noit
w r .e
n
y
deno
os o
ediv cnu
ton
lerem
eh fil l
n ev
f
o
ksa aic
itcnu
od h
rp e ot r
ton
ah y
I .n os n
e
f sa
itarc dro
cihw
emo
lpmi
oita i d
h
o
ceb
s eti
yllac
méd ni st
sec
n d nam
anoit
u
y
q ew
imil
eht
irots
rof
a
na ed
ar ta
L
,
y
g
i
tsae sde
sdno
h no
yca uo
b tu
nihc
erg o
e
l
b
i
rco y er
aerohti
tan
ton n yc
wt da
no m
me om
r
e
w
a
dna arco
moc
ht :t
h tI .
f oo
d la eh
hgis
ertê’d
gnor
)89 me morf
t em
reb t ,y
d
d
t
9
n
s
o
1 sn spa ene
nosia
i reh
ceb
il ne tila
tuoh
t
r
t
e
h
y
tiw e
ona
sti ts
eht
ewt uqe
zitiC reP aerh
ni gtcn
s
f
yb d
ol sa
eb cita
uace
I .sth
ailretesfbal
fo y .sno t sa
no rc
h
e
b
anoity
gir e
cnal
tinu itan yca
tcejo
,
s
e
l
alnerehm
p
m
a
s
rp na
eht rcom itcenonm
icnir
eht
b eb
m
T
o
t
p
e
o
o
d
f
.
C :n liub ed
poru
tsilas o noi
won
tsrubt tahw e nnoit,ayntineum
E
e
o
revin snap
itals ot s es ew Swe
eht y
uo luf es el
nac
u
x
hw s
rewop poep ht mfooacedciinh
nart eiru kno w y
neila
i taht fo ts no sdliu e eht o
t
ln
ehtte dna
dna wtsoM
h to n
eht
ed
b ts
e
kniht oc eh
fo n bettesr ilgnEecs, kdooomt in
adnu n a.tscdarratwsboa tnenvanintoaihtida
I dna t ta d hcihw yttimil os
oist uis
ha 4991atIl
f a ro
r
t
s
t
t
l
o
e
i
g
l
l
a
I
e
e
t
a
–
c
n
i
t
p
r
c
s
c
.
a
ivh
r(
x e
o ir
eurt itiroi
o s
f dna
ton s rp e s a otnpiahrheilpdren se heithdna nch cultu
med oTm.ssei ithecicihw ruE soatswiht no d
eht ot
c t
i e
i b
sti ht
o
resolc
iw ,yc os reethatboed dlo esuacsaebb osla s hcihwo–t sah edish etargaenutybnic–a de as Fren itan ehto
nward
hti na
ep i c
ymwse in d ntni
ar
s
dna y
ion t
tilaer ah tfeL eht : comed em w flesruylolaer si soruE niilbgunpeR ghcas S enwemhicoitnehmohstenmeluohastnstiaandmaptat , born
in
e
y
d
i
er
neew
teb p esrever nee ertxe ,lae erapmhoTc .”evitsesaeocrrhts tshientieidrteFaehte tEanligvahhceiwhwtkinnd ocf hnaarpgpibme omt iathtio
a
h
u
p
b
e
d
a
h
a
t
g
evah s i na s satm’nod ander“ sa oBf .thg t yneepdt uheot mSnom intern :t
gniwo
eht hto
noitiso tahetuB ine,uoy lism ecnats uoahctc minoiqt ,e miosorsceenr
rg a s
b senim
pe e .tar
tohc oen seru pi mg
i ereh
rstuab
rednu
tt
hav hl tdyorcutnnihnCived ,ytei and thannDerF oe cnoamht oc fo , ni iehh0tet0
dna efi
l fo ser ashhtouslduoivobfficia d the uec htn0ea2daiseihhdetlin–gI cibsoles ruhot nhas b ht ssirmegsoind,osrtinstcluec2iffi
w
ehpesy fo en’s o asridteI
ig
a
f
o
S
e
R
or or hetrhacputssa,aelht reicerbfut als yllahucsuupmpse
h
geeamhtts ro
b. T werdebmureg .nihg–nare m m. T
isa
a josm is Santicism nrgnnFirsteanteocdrcanyi ivpileeriaralisew
acad gdnlriorunwioDreen.hhnhcoaiirtsndee
e
v
im
a
li
ha ra om
le ntis ch na otni sdflnyuceanrticaolm
U t noarsebbil esvn
eht sa noo
in apxe t edeeSoviet
si ytilisb sA .tcejo ish andulticulturman R eaoncsiatol scieally Fren
n
a
mromtcoa
m
I
o
th
rely
nommoc aom eht Stawrhpedcritea. rMcom.eGde ratFeemw s specific
and .reppaenrhtxceSsstrihuct a c e wor
t me
tuohwtiw ;pstheeyi asticotis inehtetlegfso. tranpot
war,
con ssyatqsfuoit,feelerthust
o c s taicninhtsei nTtaoeheint d sm, si hcihwper is no
king
to
a
n
e
k
m
a
ianmer a
p
m
li
m
w
f
w
li
.
w
–
,
t
n
e to pub Ro tionn, d periamebehyttnininou.jmSomct honca yadynro’teisthninetk ao si ti knih it takes ctiy, that it
ue Sch
ld b the t and tegsraatioal im
o tlu on ve
att u ra
w,onuot tinenmen dyfogrloinrbnacliultur l’intégrati ues ancdiffdid eromngahnoewtaseisrcothuot dredmoroyocn,ciittsnimitlkpotoeDraomu iniq
m
atatropmi yleroy fdi –to nsuoich
s saimidoacbeb s
s
e
hehere nligh denmeadnWbeste
is
u
y
to
t
r
q
s
d
t
to
e
s
r
i eti atsakhe
fo p E
k f
ism lem ton eraci
t-ce ns discu
t his hill
ing ate s the in wtheealks o
ho
Qu’es
a lliw tnel.tnBouct wstohan Churc n that I hav gt thsnatgisnatosiolanale
in
eat Winsid lacitirloreaso
stthtehbperivtween,enaslriooeuangdhy it ta w book, the Germ
raallyererehTlativoelf ythe
v
el
e
fe
le
a
b
l
ic
p
a
the taht was d
on Wh
sion.htl
in ethn
and
a ne
the in te tdioim,nalth
nve
a nnaatitional. . This is anldo War II therepoh esot ha
a ,maroisdeneerefr. The expan yoaeuwa
t
eidne,nhteitydebliaticpcoauwllteaurcres gives me e French
a
d
ra
e
y
e
b up
or
at
c
th
napp dna y selitcey.n Ifc gre
Swe’se – t ordoplyroitay
she
houaldl or s emocra ut after W
welfare st
Now
ys Schr economic eqtisua
n ofimon
reteinounrop opssesumfrein rview rmy. praocrktic, eres gsionifferenart etovedry old. B cidence that the ve goals, sa
the directio
ask fo
in
eyltaivaut E eegsiscarad r inte Red A
c ew em innatd ions
olleuaclitti y, theyrn wwoillrld is moving indominant focus, dem
c
h
n is probably no co
Icaf nrtohculiugciehsliow.feTahstehr . After ou stop the demneowcrafrtiamakeusrothpea
lis
eq
b
stpoalitictalin the Weste rights become the
e
a
E
m
t
It
tnphtiuccbipvle 006) and to
a
to
d
n
or
h
y.
n
ve
aj
ic
th
ur
belicgi velopmen . When social
n in polit
2
a
r
sltittoyolpedfio; pallel, thweh mthe 20th cent
pethope lereparuic dede
mon participatio
Rompmrinocracyaking wa niso dnifetuficcetyriuses
cracy
on
of
ilitycieceo-ocafecllsonexom
treme mo democracy, namely the com
nensde,ththethatatae,bso
De stop m dhethreeiatisgtithmt ecentan litheinlatter part
ai
pl
tim
sh
ex
of
e
s
ion
ed
sa
thrieenta
remateinto wh
: to hisagpse
lutio
thlity
the real ambit
. Atna
vong
their positio
ice,aveal.naT orcliarenacteris of stthille restmo
lesan
ocramecy risk is that this destroys
nity ofss imp
e, isthe de erodcra
oots locchreahates ch eofouwet, alini
larngto the old nobi
ortur-cla
Frkennce
simirovi
emtic
oppuppe
an ed
hasnalis
ref onthngcom
ryonenatio
t eveinter
rigbtauhtift salswhirevodiini
tremn life. And the
utitsbrioelfokn by
A new
diblee. tha
. Exmo
sttio
crefutur
ngribndim
e
of
lu
w
the
wer
in
ns
o
it
rm
ce
l
if
sio
n
suffi
de
ta
Re
en
ate
not
un
d
en
tim
ably
ch
isen
d as legi
Frm
nceprob
eriewill
state
ervening in all
here anin the nationmig
int
ht .beButexpthis
ing crac
the
inbehap
stea
s greksat differences
let off
al wg.mell-Per
iduhin
divinis
indim
ate
e st
at th
s th
ld
o
h
h up
whic
is
sm,
she
li
a
r
u
hat
es t
icult
s
lt
li
u
a
er re
as m
app
wn
chn
kno
ue S
nce
e
a
iq
t
s
of th
al
omin
ion
litic
s, D
posit
e po
nce
e
e
h
h
r
t
t
e
as
for
diff
is w
ime
eate
e th
no t
o cr
g tim
le as
has
ea t
n
r
id
lo
e
peop
ss
pp
ra
ther
sine
hna
o
t. Fo
u
c
x
e
b
S
e
t
fin
n
od
ue
at de
al co
iniq
a go
tific
toric
ns th
Dom
mes
scien
e his
ulatio
eco
gist
u
sive
p
b
o
n
o
l
iq
e
p
it
o
n
h
u
y
e
ci
r
at
it
o
r
p
ir
h
s
t
e
jo
m
a
r and
h
co
isk
of th
mixe
renc
the m
as a
he r
basis
tory’s
he h
he F
ils t
erely
is
e
S
T
a
h
t
h
.
m
t
”
.
n
n
t
ed
on
no
se
unio
ted in
gnis
titie
and
It is
and
agita
ms.
iden
reco
tion
ithin
eing
nts
roble , integra
ural
tly b
mw
e
p
n
lt
o
r
r
r
u
ta
f
a
meet.
e
s
c
rp
ow
tion
or
con
t we
ood
you
wn p
ort f
y, na
r tha
t are
erst
its o mocrac
upp
y of
men
und
ensie
s
n
it
s
tp
e
t
te
e
n
c
b
t
n
h
o
e
M
rea
ide
ubli
nd
t they
Enlig
only
ue de
es, c betwee
at p
the
g, bu
and
could
y th
renc
s
ism
il in R
ave
feelin
diffe tionship
ounc
antic
to h hen I sa cultures
pean
C
e
m
ro
n
g
o
e
u
a
E
a
R
th
of
the
d h th
cour
x rela poles of
that
e. W
ffices
l than
edgisndonam debat plained
to en mple
atura
the o
if the
r e
tive, he co
ore n
is in
d ttshedhtuoy, and ex
m
erna ion on t t. It is as
It
e
o
lt
.
t
n
il
a
a
n m lismot sero
e
s
x
e
ounc
y are
moeCria tniom t. But th discus al conte
had th
– the
nal C
a
e
n
tural
and it
titutio
.imemp .sthgl contepxshnrTetn.yetr in
natio
level,
be na
Cons
l
a
to
h
oitait gtniona ir fo a pa zitiCilau n to the
n
c
o
e
m
n
ee
na ol be n
Fre
ly th
tifoqe
a nati
and s
e on
the n93ed4,etnaoreekat osissnattpen o ytcinimu o nnel, the
bsolute
so old
n don
it is a
1
mn tio
d le x
h are
state:
ly bee
n einewte nd paysomlliewéti t e ehtCsonstimtuoocCe la
n
ic
n
o
o
h
ti
s
w
a
a
a
di ubeil a
koe gs
en
st b
it h
onali knil gno the Co’nl sru–s e,slbi hcumonal orfebmesilia’rnlc
being be said to th
ier mla
e
time
on
n s ti s
ofr
directi
nicmeotsheme ber ts ehT give uepysoontpaicmi a etats prpoanedvhi. For the , could also
ferent
r
.
g
e
s
c
s
s
s
d
c
e
h
edi ti ralacicti S ltl form
e a dif
01ev, a ilntEroefshhrteould w citilop
m quit
o
detay can béetkupnainhut ollosthehet othiswaeerhlttiao
oashs ew why dnri osto
fr
ts
si tI.i Seor w
nioyr crac nim
of amtmnoCs neta fNc.istar social righ
aae er re oerfch
.
eseaiereymdtit .rehehtoot nteahthuttB h.eere derasmstisoseacheehexceopdtiroanW
is history
enhesdisltaere wryolenmpooitruEwith th n ceirhaw
dlro ses thLr eo,)n2fu9shtui9t hcih otomlelad
l
ow that
h
c
,
a
t
s
m
n
p
f
e
i
n
n
g
o
s
o
s
r
e
o
s
i
i
d
t
amenlta
lic ovetlrnaoNimc?osy ,tsol etsneoWn e pimroilbinleacmilaWti dnoc 1er(eshétwr–ssaliofeonhaltnoyisitm. But n
d
b
n
u
fu
p
e
g
h
l
s
g
y
n lhpose of
rasisdeew i ceys isehsgt ni lekibupe eS e er of inmleatvmc el lapmec ause th d cultura
cceraS le w l tso r hcendanhtgo
eil sneddim nroxoten beec social an
ipt
rswtefon rm
th
M
t
of
a
s,
e
meofiocrfoysaywnaeehnttinal Demo n yelseotuhglTnosih.ttheegsmlttmesnued
l
y
h
d
u
g
b
o realitieeepeofep elehin taht h
n id m i
ba tikelooesd ,orl otdnynmeprA.eyhatp roFt fooneosvnmike
taicitdcatoe th ruorEuteEfh’Lo ect dtniwa ,no
In Proovititepmtoondyoroots el)ninogigwas wea
n danratnesirltpdoetofRtaehbe
t ,) nere ,noiitar ry early
c tfe il
esucaresrus ercenht oteilin
rt tnes r ne
afptepfroetr.ot nn
su
sera seretcem
tmsboac h tlnaoagaemwiclbsoi stie;rspehrwlahi co tcia19tiz
rapasci ythcae nationalhgusoihrhnt I .sner lla isytrlan
y9 . Ve
a
sf
l
a
is
r
u
t
to
e
r
o
e
so
a
o th
nt ’ mrofatdnreepuale t ca1enrf(fcindoonminteetgliafnoc ?
c
horrors, tnemtonmioepundp itiedmesde;ortthwne,lpwbmuilltaitxidenrooc re n dna( seru bs stai hhyoclaiuhwo’cancdn’eridestlheebe
tWienno. edenilffenarihnt a,dexplos
earhive
gt ermlixa
t
e
x
m
l
u
f
en
E
u
t
a
w
m
s
e
l
t
u
c
o
,
nd
d
s
.
m
e
co
sl id ehT timil on tuonohbttiroinf depe lanoitaividpnolyruEandyasososcicrealehrlyiSehsetidnehie d eetdtaneair’al sseeacwitilop s,
us
s
tnnoenc eo
a
h
n
eomaitrog
e
te
w
v
e
s
al
e
c dtTileecirredu
n
oremmstaoC .roottnoisne
.ht;guifo you earvah el mnorita not a politic taihet hdta rof pispyalan.esneSmsa.eyhhtce
ot tie
a
lf
t
p
s
e
h
–
f
rvi
r
n
e
h
a
i
o
g cinh snd
nagcSse hcitdnnoss,eiredotthe
afos aon
w
i een e ertf met – eisp thehatet ripusas s
n .yecnhahrt lliw
irelpamsrudin
fo sedrespeelydncitizens’ correydtnsp
mtaoecdrtcunoaohla
not indepete nwrtheohatsT’–earn.soeeeeno
srtilaannolgainn,yiilfmeeehneerrenFiplearuharowutctannlutriecFcfootamhyLottisedaht d The logic of the
e
ar
u
b
the
o
yo
n
u
t
d
g
e
q
n
ns
uooiesnled
p eh taneref ttlnanni oymwo
-tson’asgoctenilddlibbolon
ht orerah eat expectatio
eoh .na
aoecrcemtuocebdheaebtsiefhisdtuomamce
arreiepo
eugpnh,mictan
be support
i do,eitstaramn ould
ir reve tuyblissaeoeiretcon
nelly the
c ap e aeraugrstpoecsi ferhueersndgOhsni.gs
.sGro
finantcia
fb n nrinoswue
t the right to
eacter gulfs themsehtot tbe
nthe
eg ab
pnc,paroteposxl’eauneqoroefohyWtit.yte ucooecvhdftoasd,etahkfehtaLteaewhmtetbmshnyicuserutlioretdmnioldteopnhwleetSblbatnyer
si y could nibnsaueycmotltin
ot ou
e
itc
npepmatn mgnditnaaneercdicitounsa ot tshname hhctesi;tuyhlagtspiohpesuiwsfo,r b edfefiwdacy
fidlfaylregn state has stopped, but if eno dna ,
mocranacyotswrefer ot eb ot s tlucifwe
h
o
g
n
p denhsandtim enivi rteuton
ir mehtThinhowoapctmyibas
lamro
iocpSpoat erom ghbntainrnegly,
es ygetartsisaercni si t
eoenszitiihainrgo iegmnoiec
ongsiri yeRtsribiosilhactleastuiticotnptiehsinosuoielegi
n si
ansion ofmethe
sigdnfidoesr lessiwlikenuronyoellnthe
rieht raf oSi taht os
laico qEdqlrofsftahuaoitn.dnEstttIfthe
tical life. The exp
bocondcninmead,srehtOb
aohed.enleseknrbroa
r dnabecom
gomethe
eoscncea ,n lityhtoon
ive. If all ofhcithis
,enour
.tuobafav
ect
part
v
coll
l
a
i
b
the
h
s
o
k
nabi
s
m
e
d
a
erf eban amesucouyca s a f sluso’nwosfel ngetoasiptheemapwrweeuafaraekceboBhrhiroettawcWdlualeudnkoahitsan
and
s still iht dlueomhsocyeect
s
lysi
oritie
ana
auth
l
the
fina
for
a
o
b
the
oT .ev nitnrcoocme sisa resptie evthaeltsctatnfhoeumv–oaarhp
of resp dodtneatislenoeht t
tion in
kind
ribu
a
be
dist
to
l
qua
used
e
une
a
Ther
t
a
d
itisophrti gnihtem
b n s me r
tha
y’s society.
on, and
eht dec os si sihTh od yeht siht denmaertxE lacitilo o dneAehrtt.agnghfoalyWeftZnwtsanrvow
ah ni pac llabes
ility lacks legitimacy .indntoda
rofnier .yteicos ttashi w ,detn.deg p dn ytira adhat
ab htiw dnats to
latinpahct lareioppnaahc a ci dilo
evah se
n od elpoeP .en
m s
r b
tile cim
og sah taht yad
ono ehtairl ,reosfidsessraairhaksooinsoc
oT .secnereffid f
o ecnarelot a de ce-oicos ehTvah t’noedlpooelitPruceo
taerc hcihw yte .snoitat yeht –
icos fo caetaprxtse
Dominique Schnapper,
professor of sociology and
member of the French
Constitutional Council,
Paris.
16
I
‘‘
f they are in Sweden, the best thing for
them would be to know Swedish and have
a job. They should have the same teaching
as Swedish children. It is better to know
Swedish than to have the identity of your parents recognised.”
The French sociologist Dominique
Schnapper has no time for the political stance
known as multiculturalism, which upholds
that the state should recognize and support
immigrants’ cultural identity. She is an influential representative of French republicanism,
which has its roots in the Enlightenment:
immigrants should integrate into a society
which builds on universalist principles,
because without strong common bonds we
quite simply have no society. One can cultivate one’s identity in the private sphere, not in
the public sphere.
Multiculturalism is Sweden’s official doctrine, and the idea which in any case hitherto
18
has dominated the debate. When I say that
public support for cultural identities entails
the risk that it becomes a good business idea
to create differences, Dominique Schnapper
realises that she is being interviewed by a
Swedish republican in the French sense. She
could neither conceal her surprise nor delight.
Those Swedish sociologists she meets usually
dismiss the French stance as “repressive”.
This is really an old debate which is moving towards a new and powerful outburst
throughout Europe – the debate between the
Enlightenment and Romanticism. German
Romanticism regarded the universalism of
the Enlightenment as French cultural imperialism, and explained that cultures could only
be understood from within and on the basis of
their unique historical context. For a long
time this was the position of the national and
nationalistic Right; the Left advocated internationalism and said that national cultures
(and naturally all religion) stood in the way of
people’s liberation. During the last part of the
20th century the positions have been reversed:
the Left has drawn closer to the Romantic
view as regards minority cultures, although it
talks of Western cultural imperialism, not
specifically French imperialism. The Right
has become more internationalist and pays
less attention to the national context.
It is as if the poles of Romanticism and
Enlightenment are constantly being agitated
in history’s mixer and come out in different
ONE CAN CULTIVATE ONE’S IDENTITY IN THE P
RIVATE SPHERE, NOT IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE.
THE RIGTH TO AN IDENTITY OF ONE’S OWN CA
N EASILY BECOME COMPULSION TO CREATE O
NE’S OWN ETHNIC GHETTO.
blends. One seldom encounters them in their
refined forms; it is more that the pendulum
swings in one direction or the other. It is
difficult, of course, to deny that the French
Republic is also based on historical tradition
and an ethnic community, not merely on
abstract principles.
There is assuredly a power dimension in
the demand for integration. To integrate
means to learn French – or Swedish – and to
accept a kind of adaptation to the national
context. But the alternative, to encourage differences, creates its own power problems. It is
not merely the majority populations that
define other people as Others, minorities do
this too. The right to an identity of one’s own
can easily become compulsion to create one’s
own ethnic ghetto. Common ties are not
merely important in order to create an everyday community between ethnicities; without
a common public life the scope for political
action, already weakened by globalisation,
dwindles.
Few social scientists today are more eligible than Dominique Schnapper, born in 1934,
to be a partner in a discussion on the complex
relationships between democracy, nation,
integration and union. She has a comprehensive scientific production behind her, with
titles such as La France de l’integration (1991),
L’Europe des immigrés (1992), La Communauté
des citoyens, sur l’ idée moderne de nation (1994,
English translation: Community of Citizens 1998)
and not least La démocratie providentielle. Essai
sur l’ egalité contemporaine (2002, English translation: Providential Democracy 2006). After our
interview she gives me a new book, Qu’est-ce
que l’intégration. Schnapper is not merely an
influential academic but also, since 2001, a
member of the Conseil Constitutionnel, the
French Constitutional Council. It is in the
offices of the Council in Rue de Montpensier
that we meet.
– We created Europe because we had a
common enemy, Schnapper says. We didn’t
want the Red Army to settle in the West of
Europe. But now we have the impression that
we have no enemy – which is not true – and I
think that is why the European project has
lost its raison d’être. It had two great rationales: to stop making war and to stop the Red
Army. Now the French and the Germans discuss issues and don’t think of making war, and
the Soviet Union has disappeared. So why
should we give up national feelings which are
so old and seem to be natural – they are no
more natural than the European feeling, but
they have the weight of history which makes
the national feeling natural – for a Europe
which is so abstract and not absolutely necessary? National identity is much stronger than
one thought. But it is strong in Europe
because it was Europe that invented the idea
of the nation. The national feeling in France is
seven or eight centuries old; all the major
European nations are very old. But after the
Second World War there was a feeling that
nationalism led to such horrors, so the national feeling was weakened by the danger of
nationalism. But now that is history.
What has happened quite simply is that
the post-war period has ended, that epoch
when reactions to the Second World War
dominated politics. The strong link between
the nation and exclusion of the alien can now
be balanced by another insight: the nation
historically has functioned as the framework
within which democracy has taken shape, and
that it is difficult to find a new framework,
regional or supranational. What Winston
Churchill said about democracy, that it was
quite the worst form of government with the
exception of all the other forms, could also be
said to the nation state: it is absolutely the
worst framework for a sense of belonging and
the will to political configuration, with the
exception of all others. Not least Schnapper’s
book Community of Citizens points to the strong
connection between liberal democracy and
nation. I ask her whether one can imagine a
democracy without the nation state.
– The link between nation and democracy
is historical, if not logical. There is no necessity that democratic practices should be at a
national level. But what history shows is that
it takes time to construct a common public
21
THE LINK BETWEEN NATION AND DEMOCRACY
IS HISTORICAL, IF NOT LOGICAL.
sphere where democracy can be practiced. For
the time being it has only been done on a
national level, and it had the advantage of the
whole national history before democracy. To
create democracy at the European level – there
is no reason to think it is impossible – but it
will take a long time. It took centuries to
build the nations.
Perhaps democracy needs limits in order to
function well. This applies in particular to the
redefinition of democracy to include social
rights which has characterised the latter part
of the 20th century. It is probably no coincidence that the welfare states have arisen in
ethnically relatively homogeneous communities; the will to transfer seems to be linked to
the feeling of social and cultural solidarity.
And one person’s social right means, of course,
in the final analysis someone else’s obligation to
pay. Most likely limits are necessary in order
for the social right to be maintained – but
perhaps also limits to the expansion of these
rights. If they become too far-reaching, they
become not merely financially unrealisable,
but also create a client mentality in people,
which makes them indifferent to democracy.
This is another reason that I have asked to
talk to Dominique Schnapper. In Providential
Democracy she problematises the future of
social rights from quite a different direction
than Zygmunt Bauman. It is not so much the
ability of the elites and the indifference of the
middle class which threaten the social state as
much as the expansion of rights. Commonly we
see democracy as threatened from without by
forces which do not accept it. What Schnapper
says is something much more serious, namely
that democracy is undermining itself by refining the democratic mentality into what she
calls extreme democracy. When social rights
become the dominant focus, democracy
switches to be about the right to be supported,
and the citizens’ corresponding services, their
duties, take a backseat. Equality is no longer
about creating equal opportunities but about
creating equal outcomes.
– There is a tension or even contradiction –
if you are optimistic, you think it is a tension
– which is part of the democratic project. As
soon as the French Revolution broke out, one
of the revolutionaries explained that, once
people are given political equality, they will
ask for economic equality. If you are poor you
are not independent; if you are not independent you can’t be a real citizen. Very early on
the cleverest of these people understood that
there was a real tension, and that normally the
democratic faith will drive or claim real economic equality. The more you demand democratic equality, the more you demand in social
life. And there is a real risk that citizens will
forget about political liberty and the political
project and only ask the state to be a protecting agency, intervening in all dimensions of
common life. And the risk is that this destroys
the real ambition of democracy, namely the
common participation in political life. The
expansion of the welfare state has stopped, but
if they could continue financially they would
go on. The logic of the welfare state itself
would have gone on with more and more
expansion because the needs of the people
have no limit.
Extreme democracy cannot reform itself,
says Schnapper. It expands into an increasing
number of spheres of life and undermines
both the economic and political basis of a
smoothly running society. When the prosperity of the individual has become central,
something else is lost, namely that there is
something in common which sometimes has
to be prioritised at the cost of individual wellbeing here and now. Extreme democracy
threatens the ability of the republic to establish collective goals, says Schnapper.
The expansion of the welfare state has
slowed down, but this is as a result of economic realities, not because the fundamental outlook has changed. Extreme democracy can,
according to Schnapper, only be modified by
pressure from without, for example through
competition from new actors on the world
stage, such as India and China. But as an
ideal, extreme democracy, with its demand for
a fundamental redistribution of wealth, is still
strong. At the same time, the socio-economic
23
DEMOCRACY IS UNDERMINING ITSELF BY REFI
NING THE DEMOCRATIC MENTALITY INTO WHAT
SCHNAPPER CALLS EXTREME DEMOCRACY.
AS SOON AS THE FRENCH REVOLUTION BROKE OUT, ONE OF THE
REVOLUTIONARIES EXPLAINED THAT, ONCE PEOPLE ARE GIVEN P
OLITICAL EQUALITY, THEY WILL ASK FOR ECONOMIC EQUALITY.
development in the Western world is moving
in the direction of greater gulfs. Great expectations that are not met – is that not a politically and socially explosive mix?
– People are disappointed, and this continuous sense of disappointment comes from this
endless aspiration for better conditions. In
history not many societies have been richer or
freer than our society, but you don’t compare
yourself with other societies. That is abstract.
Most people see what they don’t have, rather
than what they do have. To be free and rich is
normal, and one is never rich enough and free
enough. The disappointment is part of the
nature of this extreme democracy we are living in.
It is obvious that there is a growing gap
between reality and expectations. The socioeconomic elites have reinforced their positions
and become mobile, so that it is increasingly
difficult to get them to share their wealth.
There are also signs that it is becoming more
difficult to join them, that is to say that the
26
mobility is diminishing. Perhaps great differences might be experienced as legitimate if it
were credible that everyone has an opportunity of improving their position, and that
unequal distribution in the final analysis still
favours the collective. If all of this becomes
less likely, then a basic legitimacy crisis arises
for liberal capitalist society.
This is something that the elite today
should think about. So far their strategy
seems to be to refer to an economic necessity
and freedom, and to hope that political discontent will let off steam in the cracks in the
nation state. But this will probably not suffice
in the future. A new internationalised upperclass similar to the old nobility lacks legitimacy in today’s society. There used to be a
kind of respect for the authorities and an
amenability on the part of the broad strata of
society which created a tolerance of differences. Today that has gone. People do not
stand with baseball cap in hand.
EXTREME DEMOCRACY CAN, ACCORDING TO SCHNAPPER,
ONLY BE MODIFIED BY PRESSURE FROM WITHOUT, FOR EX
AMPLE THROUGH COMPETITION FROM NEW ACTORS ON TH
E WORLD STAGE SUCH AS INDIA AND CHINA.
If you have a deeper interest in Proventus,
our projects and activities, there is
always up-to-date information on www.proventus.se.
The aim of this site is to show our wide range of engagements,
convey our values, release news about our projects and
function as a node for the Proventus group.
KATARINAVÄGEN 15
P O BOX 1719
SE-111 87 STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN
PHONE +46 (0)8 723 31 00
FAX +46 (0)8 20 57 25
WWW.PROVENTUS.SE
PRODUCED BY VOICE THE BRAND LIBERATION COMPANY, STOCKHOLM.
PRINTED SPRING 2007 BY GÖTEBORGSTRYCKERIET, GÖTEBORG.
PROVENTUS