[by Xavier-Laurent Salvador]
In just two months, as is the case every time that colleagues who work in this direction-which-we-promise-we-swear-has-nothing-to-do-with-American-studies are undermined by current events, here is that sometimes the New York Times and now Angela Davis rush to the aid of a "University threatened" by an odious Republic that is characterized in the dying media as the equal of a racist and oppressive dictatorship that is in no way separated from the former USSR or Hungary.
That's to say how serious it is.
It is that in this small country that clearly does not understand anything about anything, a small village still resists the empire by making a sound of the bell heard a little different from the one that the senators of the new-world-where-everything-is-fine are no longer used to hearing. Words that bore them deeply: universalism (this word which we still hear a little confusedly at the bottom of that of “University”), culture, secularism and all sorts of things of that ilk that we would like to see relegated once and for all to the limbo of dark hours. We are the red peril and the world of unbridled free capitalism trembles before the universal solidarity of peoples that breaks down the barriers of race and gender. It is unexpected to say the least, but not new: the Republic is a fragile little thing.
These people define themselves in their own text themselves as “international activist researchers”. QED, we agree – this is what we have been saying from the beginning, and we are pleased to see a consensus established from which we will finally be able to develop together a constructive discussion for the future of our Institutions:
- Where is the activism of this research expressed?
In publication media, journals without disciplinary control, outside of all international standards; in conferences, in calls for projects financed at municipal, regional, national and European level. - Why does he say this?
Due to the balkanization of research which leads to the creation of clans united by an objective rather than by a method. - Who is carrying these speeches?
The institutions that make them possible. - What is the link with social and political issues?
The speeches are legitimized by the "research" side: on the one hand, social and political agitation on the ground structured in associations; and on the other, a peaceful and qualified side, present in the autonomous decision-making bodies relaying the demands of the former. The speech thus constructed, adorned with the sophist ornaments of science, is taken up by the politician who thus saves himself the time for reflection that is provided to him turnkey in order to devote himself to communication. - Finally, why are Americans so present in the debate?
That's an excellent question.
In a remarkable article published recently, François Rastier examines the question of “mental race” and the link that this notion maintains with the decolonialism. You have to read it:
"Race has been spiritualized, it has become political and corresponds to a vision of the world [...] Also, far from opposing biological racism, ideological racism can become its complement, even its ideal crowning glory. Each racial identity would thus correspond to a mentality which takes precedence over any biological criterion, which has become secondary."
François Rastier, Race and Decolonialism, 2021
