Read more On April 13, the Minister of National Education, Pap Ndiaye, appointed five new members to the Council of Elders of Secularism and the Values of the Republic (plus a sixth, shortly after). The intention, clearly, was to diversify points of view on an issue that lends itself to a strong interpretative plurality. Who, from a democratic point of view, could regret it? It was, therefore, difficult to imagine the upheaval that, for the most part, my appointment caused. Beyond my person, the determination to transform my positions in order to better condemn them is worrying about the state of public debate. It cannot, of course, be denied that my conception of secularism is significantly different from that of the majority of the members of the council, installed in 2018 by Jean-Michel Blanquer, then Minister of National Education. However, in my mind, this difference falls under what is usually called "reasonable disagreements", those which concern not the principles, but the hierarchy, revisable according to the circumstances, of these. This is not at all how a certain press, not very attentive to the concern for complexity, as well as some intellectuals have presented my theoretical commitments. You really have to not read the texts (or not understand them: I do not know what the most serious intellectual vice is) to affirm that Minister Pap Ndiaye, who is the real target of this reactionary offensive, wanted an anti-universalist, favorable to multiculturalism, even to communitarianism, and to the so-called secularism of cooperation, as it is practiced in Anglo-Saxon countries, to sit in the said body. However, unless you imagine that my works do not express my real intentions, I do not correspond on any point to this malicious portrait. Alternative "truths" I have been a universalist since the beginning of my intellectual life. I would not be able to orient myself in thought without this compass. From my earliest works, even before teaching at the university, I undertook to research what could constitute the universal concepts applicable to all individuals of the same species, in other words the universals. A substantial universalism must, in my opinion, be based on the fact that there are transcendent thought structures common to all cultures. It is then difficult to instruct a trial in anti-universalism! However, it is undoubtedly on the basis of the title of a book, Universalism on Trial (Le Bord de l'eau, 2021), which has not been read, that my detractors do not hesitate to state such a counter-truth, sometimes going so far as to make four of the new members co-accused. These hurried "readers" therefore allow themselves to expose alternative "truths". You have 52.21% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
LThe Minister of National Education, Pap Ndiaye, appointed on April 13, five new members to the Council of Elders of Secularism and Values of the Republic (plus a sixth, shortly after). The intention, clearly, was to diversify points of view on an issue that lends itself to a strong interpretative plurality.
Who, from a democratic point of view, could regret it? It was therefore difficult to imagine the upheaval that, for the most part, my nomination has caused. Beyond my person, the determination to transform my positions in order to better condemn them is worrying about the state of public debate.
It cannot, of course, be denied that my conception of secularism is significantly different from that of the majority of members of the council, installed in 2018 by Jean-Michel Blanquer, then Minister of National Education. Nevertheless, in my mind, this difference falls under what is usually called "reasonable disagreements", those which concern not the principles, but the hierarchy, revisable according to the circumstances, of these.
This is not at all how a certain press, not very attentive to the concern for complexity, as well as some intellectuals have presented my theoretical commitments. One must really not read the texts (or not understand them: I do not know which is the most serious intellectual vice) to affirm that Minister Pap Ndiaye, who is the real target of this reactionary offensive, wanted an anti-universalist, favorable to multiculturalism, even to communitarianism, and to the so-called cooperative secularism, as it is practiced in Anglo-Saxon countries, to sit in the said body. However, unless one imagines that my works do not express my real intentions, I do not correspond on any point to this malicious portrait.
Alternative “truths”
I have been a universalist since the beginning of my intellectual life. In fact, I could not orient myself in thought without this compass. From my earliest works, even before teaching at the university, I undertook to research what could constitute universal concepts applicable to all individuals of the same species, in other words universals. A substantial universalism must, in my opinion, be based on the fact that there are transcendent thought structures common to all cultures.
It is difficult then to initiate a trial in anti-universalism! However, it is, doubtless on the basis of the title of a book, Universalism on trial (Le Bord de l'eau, 2021), which has not been read, that my detractors do not hesitate to state such a falsehood, sometimes going so far as to make four of the new members co-accused. These hurried "readers" therefore allow themselves to expose alternative "truths".
You have 52.21% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.
"This post is a summary of information from our information monitoring"
