[by Xavier-Laurent Salvador]

We are reprinting a previous article here published in the columns of Marianne the January 25.

On January 7 and 8, the conference organized by the Observatory of Decolonialism jointly with the Collège de Philosophie and entitled "What to rebuild after deconstruction" proposed to take stock of the situation, as nuanced as possible, and to consider how to preserve within the school and university world, the conditions of an enlightened pluralism. "We were about sixty researchers gathered for two days, coming from different disciplines: linguistics, philosophy, political science, history, literature, economics, art history, agronomy and biotechnologies..., all faced with the same observation: deconstruction is a fact; all driven by the same desire: to rebuild the disciplines. 

Proving that deconstruction is only a myth: this has not failed to arouse controversy. It was to be expected: How? That some researchers have the ambition to defend the university disciplines in the Sorbonne by opposing the deconstructionist ideal, this is a scandal that has not failed to revolt the great minds who have made themselves heard after the scientific demonstration; and very surprisingly: a lot before that it does not take place. What have we not read in the columns of an evening daily under the pen of the most ardent defenders of deconstruction, treating us with all the names reserved for blasphemers! Deconstruct, yes; but not Bourdieu or Derrida: sacred icons of their modernity.

This is due to the powerful predictive capacity of our adversaries, who had already anticipated what we would do, say and conclude even before we had published the final programme. And this is understandable, since, having no other way of measuring the intelligence of others, they were content to imagine what they would have done in our place. And their conclusion was obviously that they would have given in to the pleasures of what they call "name and shame": denouncing, listing, overwhelming. This is their culture, their mode of action and their way of being. They were also convinced that the conference would be an opportunity for us to name and overwhelm colleagues, whose betrayals we would not have failed to point out. This is how they would have done it; they were convinced that this is what we would do. Some small groups had therefore asked in advance from the Institution of which they had now become the devoted zealots for a guarantee of functional protection for the crowd of colleagues preparing to be humiliated: "Madam President, protect us from the monsters who dare to consider the reconstruction of disciplines!" they proclaimed in chorus through the press and leaflets under the approving gaze of a disoriented University. 

All those who attended the conference, and all those who still listen to the recordings today, know that of course this was not the case and that this conference was like all conferences: a succession, certainly impressive, of calm and sourced speeches establishing an observation, humbly laying out leads for 48 hours and without dawdling. The threat was, however, barely veiled: threats of lawsuits, complaints and threats of cancellation. Especially since the President of the Sorbonne did not fail to reassure our denouncers by promising them her great gods that she would demand our heads at the first escapade, so obvious was it to these good people that we were both the Plague and the Cholera: "Also, rest assured - she wrote in a letter dated January 6 - that I will continue […] to report to the public prosecutor in the event of a slanderous denunciation." Citing sources in a conference therefore becomes, on the basis of a denunciation, a suspicion of slander… I remember a colleague who had badly reported one of my works. I wonder if it is still time to attack him?

The issue was a symbol: the Sorbonne. A place loaded with history where it had to be clearly stated and repeated by them that "people like us" - that is: agrégés, normaliens, researchers in love with knowledge (academics, in short) - we were not in our place. No, from now on in the Sorbonne, the geographers who strip off completely in front of their audience proclaiming that the anus is a "laboratory of democratic practices" are in their place. Philosophy, philology, history have not only gone out of fashion; but claiming them has become a reactionary, fascist and far-right militant gesture. 

These pathetic complaints actually follow another attempt at censorship. When our Observatory was declared born, the magazine Le Point published a photo of some of us in the Grand Amphitheater on the very spot where the Suppliants had been cancelled. The photo had been made public after being duly authorised by the Administration. It was then that a letter dated 4 June 2021 and signed by around twenty Sorbonnagres – the same ones who spread imprecations on social networks or in columns in the press – was sent to the Rector of Paris, not to protest against the authorisation that had been granted to us; not to express disagreement on the issues at stake in the Observatory; but rather to obtain from his authority the removal of the press photo six months after its publication, which was described as “abusive use”.

In what country do academics demonstrate to demand the removal of a press photo on the grounds that the symbolism it conveys does not support their representation of the facts? Isn't that precisely what is called here? cancel culture ? Do they have to think so highly of themselves to believe that the image of the great amphitheater is so much theirs and to demand accountability from the State on its use? Finally, must our presence at the Sorbonne be so disturbing as to provoke so many threats, anger and violence?

So ladies and gentlemen censors, at the Sorbonne: we are at home.