Limit: "We are the generation Pope Francis"
- HOME FIGARO VOX VOX MEDIA
- By Alexandre Devecchio
- Update
- Published
FIGAROVOX / GREAT SERVICE - On the occasion of the release of the magazine Integral Ecology limit Gaultier returns Bes particular on declining concepts, conservative anarchism or border.
Gaultier Bes, 26, associate professor of modern letters, author of "Our limits: for integral ecology" (The Centurion, 2014, Axel and Marianne Rokvam Durano).It also handles the review limit dedicated to the integral ecology.
INTERVIEW BY ALEXANDER DEVECCHIOAlexDevecchio
Your new journal will limit claims of "integral ecology". That cover these two concepts?
I would say very simply to start as ecology, it is the love of life! And the integral ecology, ecology is well understood, that is to say, a way of understanding the ecology that neglects, forgets, excludes none of its founding dimensions. It is the writer-traveler Falk van Gaver, contributor and advisor to the drafting limit, which used the first this expression there about ten years. Integral Ecology begins with wonder at the beauty that is beyond us, and continued in a bitter struggle against all that disfigures!
Etymologically, ecology, it is the thought, the speech on the house, the fireplace; while the economy is the management, administration. The word was coined in 1866 by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel, who defined it as the science of interactions and conditions. Any ecology must therefore integrate all natural things, without exception nor hierarchy. It postulates the unity, solidarity of the living. As explained the biologist Jean-Marie Pelt, nature is beautiful and very dense network of interdependencies. Since the major industrial revolutions, human life may well have much artificialized, humanity still has a vital need of a living earth, a water and clean air. The destruction of bees from pesticides, soil destruction by intensive farming, pollution of the oceans, the acceleration of climate change, for us humans, it's suicide!
But ecology is not only an environmental issue, technical, scientific, melting ice, desertification, extinction of animal species, or renewable energy ... It is also inseparably a question social, moral, economic, political, philosophical.
Social question, first, because the poor are both the primary victims of environmental disasters and, often, the most inventive practitioners of happy sobriety, as shown by Joan Martinez Alier Barcelona University in the environmentalism poor. Moral issue, then, because it is our pride, our excess, as do these imbalances, and that the necessary ecological conversion will be done, not by laws or taxes, but by deeds and choices freely, conscientiously. Economic question, of course: we believe it is necessary to oppose an industrial and financial globalization based on the cult of growth at any cost relocation of our system of production and consumption that is efficient, respectful of human and natural resources. Political question, too, because the answer to tragedies like climate refugees can only be collective, concerted. Philosophical question, finally, because the face of major environmental and bioethical mutations (eugenics, transhumanism, neo-Malthusianism, etc.), we have to give up some stubborn idols, beginning with the superstition of a linear progress, and think about new fees the question of our place in nature.
Large program, would the other! Transversal and synthetic approach, in any case, that our political pages, social, and cultural, in addition to the record that I am responsible, and site run by Camille Dalmas, will try to clear up from one quarter!
What this review is she different from other eco journals?
Above all, I would say our debt to magazines such as Silence, The Ecologist, Kaizen, The Decay, Le Monde Diplo, or Fakir, who feed our own ecological thinking.
However, especially in the current circumstances, the line that we want to bring in the public debate seems rather original or unique. Today condemned with the same force FAM, GMOs and TAFTA? The acronym itself is fishy: behind the institutional aspect of frozen letters, we forget that there is the law of the strongest (that is to say, the richest), predators and victims. Whether the woman who rents his body, the child who tears that that brought, the small peasant subject to Monsanto poisoned consumer, the precarious worker or poor country that an arbitration tribunal condemns the benefit of a multinational, this is a very offensive to human dignity which carries the objective alliance of the machine and the market. This double imperialism Limit wants to fight him wherever he imposed his iron law.
Moreover, faced with the productivist and consumerist frenzy, we resolutely make the choice of the decrease, which is only one of the names of the happy sobriety dear to Pierre Rabhi. What we want to show is that the "croissantisme" is a fanaticism that sacrifices the most fragile, and that, far from being a resigned deprivation, suffered a recession, voluntary simplifying our lifestyles is both an environmental necessity and a source of social and moral harmony. As explained Herrmann Mahaut in the first issue: the current system of plunder, which causes so much misery, frustration, and insecurity, we must substitute a sharing system, a "circular economy" that promotes better distribution of resources and wealth.
Finally, limit is a review of "integral ecology", that is to say, we will look at all aspects (to) life: the question of the family, technology, gender, the money, identity, migration, agriculture, language, history, education, etc. And that on these issues we will have a practical approach (how concretely, every day, better respect the "common house"?), But also spiritual, cultural and philosophical. With contributors like Fabrice Hadjadj, Olivier Rey, Paul Colrat, Fabien Revol or Marianne Durano (and others to discover soon), there should be food for thought!
Pope Francis uses the expression "integral ecology" and advocates "some form of decline" in his encyclical If Laudato. What is your relationship to Christianity?
Limit is a magazine of Christian inspiration, founded by young lay people irrespective of religious authority, and publishes contributors from all backgrounds. This, in a spirit of openness to the "peripheries", as Francis would say.
We consider also in the double wake of immediately (Sébastien Lapaque, Luc Richard Falk van Gaver ...) and Cahiers de Saint-Lambert (held by Dominique Lang and Fabrice Nicolino, Charlie Hebdo), which ceased publication, but we have worked well before the meeting of Christianity and radical ecology. We also owe a lot to the work of Patrice de Plunkett, who through his site attracted the awakening of a generation of "Christians outraged" that launch bridges with zadistes and anti-globalization circles.
To clarify our project, I would say that we want to try to make a synthesis of several Christian traditions or sensitivities, "social" Christianity (which Paul Piccarreta, director of the magazine, devotes a folder in our first issue, with among others a beautiful tribute to Madeleine Delbrêl); movements committed to the defense of life and family; Franciscan Ecology Hélène and Jean Bastaire (which our contributor Fabien Revol is the direct heir);but also a certain evangelical anarchism, illustrated by authors like Proudhon, Peguy, Simone Weil, Lanza del Vasto, Dorothy Day, or Ivan Illich.
In short, we are the "generation Pope Francis"! But if our anchor is Christian, our influences are many.
You claim the "conservative anarchist". Specifically, are you right or left?
In the editorial of writing, we define this "conservative anarchist" like choosing an inalienable sobriety, independent of all temporal power, but respectful of the limits, and anxious to preserve "our dignity as well as our planet." We want to try to break some of the most indéboulonnables idols of our times through a triple opposition.
Opposition to the sacred state, first, that manifests itself in the form of the "coldest of cold monsters" who lies by claiming to embody the people (Nietzsche), or under that, perhaps more contemporary, a despotism "absolute, detailed, regular, provident and mild" that "little by little robs each citizen to use himself" (Tocqueville). It is the latter denounced Philip Blond, promoter of the "Big Society" against "Big Brother" in his fascinating interview with Eugenie Bastié.
Opposition to the religion of technology, the "Systems Engineer" denounced by Ellul, which leads to a manipulation of increasingly deep of the living, to the transhumanist project tycoons (manic?) From Silicon Valley who claim to "transcend our current biological limits "to produce a cyborg, half human half-robot (see 2002 Transhumanist Declaration).
Opposition finally to the market without law, the commodification of everything that was free and open, now subject of a trade negotiation. When everything becomes source of exchange and profit, when all that is most beautiful and sacred - time, faith, water, love, pleasure, family ... - finds himself "in the icy water of egotistical calculation" (Marx), when the stock market itself has become life, it's time to find some "common decency" chasing the merchants from the temple.
As for these categories, historically constructed, and whose humanity is very well for centuries - "right," "left" - we must stop absolutize them. In fact, they seem made us largely obsolete, ineffective, by the way of the world, and have little interest. Especially as our personal and ideological courses are quite varied, and it's not that kind of positioning that brings us together. This binary partition illuminates indeed nothing complexity decisive political issues: the acceptance or rejection of limits, the meaning and definition of human life, sustainable production and distribution of wealth, the European construction, preservation of natural areas, education, technical report, etc.
On these various issues, impossible to distinguish two homogeneous sides. And we have no partisanship. Writers like Thoreau, Chesterton, Orwell, Camus, or Bernanos, invite us not just leave us locked into a camp chapel or whatever. Furthermore, we are a review of "cultural struggle", that is to say that we want to bring out new ideas, encourage meetings, federate, by freeing us from all sectarianism.
Thus, we believe that the issue of artificial reproductive technology, people a priori as different as the activists of the demonstration for all feminists CORP (Marie-Jo Bonnet, Sylviane Agacinski, or Alice Ferney) or anarchists Neo-Luddites Parts and labor have more in common than they think and would benefit from working together. I want proof that the best book written on this issue is the artificial reproduction of the human Alexis Escudero, published in 2014 in a libertarian publishing house, The world upside down.
In fact, when the Invisible Committee, praising the "places of movement", writes: "What is at stake in contemporary insurgencies, is the question of what is a desirable form of life and not the nature of institutions that overlook "(To our friends, La Fabrique Editions, 2014), how that I am the watcher (" ultraconservative "according Libe ...) does not approve it? And basically, I think that, yes, we would be surprised to find ourselves so close ...
Do not you fear to destabilize your audience?
"A review is alive if it displeased whenever a good fifth of its subscribers," said Peguy who knew whereof he spoke. "Justice is only that these are not always the same, that are in the fifth, he explained. Otherwise, I mean when it applies to annoy someone, you fall in the system of these enormous magazines that are losing millions, or who earn, to say nothing. Or rather to say nothing "and he added in this same text Money, published in 1913 in the Cahiers de la Quinzaine." This is how our notebooks were gradually formed as a common place for all those who do not cheat. Here we are Catholics who do not cheat; Jews who do not cheat; freethinkers who do not cheat. "
That, I could not agree more that we would like to limit be and do.
The limit is also the border. What is your view on the current crisis of migrants?
We think much to this question at this time, since the number 2 record (forthcoming January 4) will address the issue of migration in the broad sense. Our contributor Jova Pierre returned from a stay in Serbia and Hungary, where he was able to exchange with refugees from Iraq, Syria or Eritrea, and better understand what they lived. That it is necessary to define the borders and regulate a home compared to elsewhere, it seems human good. Especially as the borders are not walls but thresholds that sometimes open and sometimes closed. Regis Debray wrote a beautiful Praise borders in which he recalled that it was the fence that distinguishes and protects the prey of predators, and that the border is not a sealed wall but a strainer to filter precisely that.
In this case, deal with the arrival of tens of thousands of refugees, I doubt that there is a simple and definitive answer. It seems that those who call for the full opening of borders and unconditional acceptance of all who present themselves show the same inconsistency as those that evoke an "invasion" and think it is enough to erect barbed mountains to retain these people.
That is why our approach must be both more modest and more global. More modest because no one has the solution, and we can not pretend that this disaster was a specific problem that could be solved with slogans strength, clips and goodwill. Indeed, it is not in itself a "crisis" in which one could, with some effort, remedy, but a disaster in itself irremediable. Catastrophe of those countries ravaged by war, these uprooted people, condemned to exile, these innocent drowned, suffocated, for whom it is too late ... We can and must do all we can to alleviate that suffering but we can not remove them. It is also easy to accuse others of selfishness and xenophobia when you have no self, because we live in an exclusive area, to take the sometimes sensitive daily consequences of this immigration ... Easy also make great speeches about universal home without bothering to concretely share or think about the long-term requirements of such a home ...
This modest approach, because prudent and moderate, without bombast or Manichaeism, must also be more comprehensive. In this area too, ecology, geopolitics, economy, "everything is connected". As explained Pablo Servigne (co-author with Raphael Stevens How everything can collapse. Small collapsologie manual for use by present generations, Seuil, 2015), in an article published by Reporterre, Syrian refugees are also climate refugees (who are already in the millions). Indeed, among the causes of the war in Syria (and therefore of emigration), there is climate change. "From 2007 to 2010 - or the four years preceding the" Syrian Spring "of 2011 - Syria has suffered the worst drought ever recorded in the region, causing major agricultural disasters and forcing 1.5 million people to migrate to the cities, "says Pablo Servigne. We see that in fact the political problems always have an ecological dimension, often neglected although decisive.
In the same way, we can not consider the issue of migration without considering the fact that they are, through the "business" of smugglers, one of the most lucrative criminal activities with arms trafficking and the drug. Trafficking in human beings, which is often combined with sexual slavery and exploitation in underpaid jobs, is a central factor of this tragedy that has little chance of disappearing himself.
Again, every man to do his best, but recognizes its limits take responsibility ...
Contenus sponsorisés
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please leave a comment-- or suggestions, particularly of topics and places you'd like to see covered