Philosopher Remy Bragues's recent article in Le Figaro was not about the merits and demerits of the soon-to-be French law but about whether it represents an 'advance' in any way, and in general, what its proponents mean by 'advance'. Mr. Bragues's language - and logic - is refreshingly simple and clear...
Homosexual 'marriage':
Is this an advance?
by Remy Bragues
Translated from
January 25, 2013
One hears from the most authoritative voices, i.e., presidential, that the proposed law authorizing homosexual 'marriage', with its consequences such as allowing adoption by same-sex couples, will be an 'advance'. I don't intend to comment here on the value of this statement.
I would simply like to use the opportunity to question the recurrent use of this formula, or similar formulas of this kind, in various contexts.
First, the use of the word 'advance' is interesting in itself. It replaces a more classic word, 'progress', which itself has become too common. To the point that one loses sight of the prefix 'pro-' in the word, which means, rightly, that one goes forward.
So to use the word 'advance' instead of 'progress' is meant to refresh the idea of progress by evoking the image that it contains. It has another advantage. (It overcomes) the fact not just that the word 'progress' is passe, but that the very idea of Progress itself, with a capital P, has been dealt a blow. Especially with respect to all the crimes committed in its name in the 20th century, which could appear to future generations, if there will be any, as the nadir of history.
Now, to speak of 'an advance' allows the isolation of a positive novelty, without having to convoke a greater view of the human adventure. One thus appears to be modest and sober, someone who chooses not to judge the totality but merely wants to add a drop of oil to the gears of society.
But if I may say so, that's not the same as taking a step forward. Two questions must be asked, both of which require a larger perspective.
On the one hand, and to start with the more obvious, one can only isolate an advance, or a presumed advance, in an abstract and artificial way, in any context. Economic, social, moral, and juridical systems make up organic totalities in which all the parties involved act and react on each other, producing effects that are not always predictable.
A seemingly slight modification, discreetly introduced, could lead to immense upheavals. Switch two medical tubings, and the patient will never revive. A bad calculation, and the economy can collapse.
On the other hand, and more important, it is impossible to speak of an advance, if one does not deceive oneself about the meaning of words, without presuming that the step is in the right direction. But are we sure this particular step is?
One remembers the old joke in which an orator declares with emotion: "We are on the brink of an abyss. We must take a big step forward."
Society has evolved, we hear them argue. But are we sure it has evolved for the better? That society changes, that it does not cease to change, or that it has never ceased to change - one understands what they mean. But how do we know it has changed for the better?
Because there are also diseases that evolve towards a fatal end. Or one can reach an impasse and simply 'hit the wall'. And all of us each day take one more step towards death. Nor should we forget that 'advanced' also describes cheese which is no longer fit for consumption.
As it happens, it is very possible that our society too is advancing towards its own destruction and is doing so methodically, in its deployment of suicidal logic.
Our civilization has believed in progress since roughly the second half of the 18th century, and by the 19th century, this dogma had become unassailable.
But this is just one of the ways of representing how history evolves. One can imagine a primitive Golden Age, a Paradise lost, followed by a long decadence, stepwise or along a gentle slope (Hesiod). Or cycles within which mankind is oscillating indefinitely. According to an earlier model, between exponential ascents and hard landings provoked by sone natural catastrophe (Plato). According to a second mode, by slow ascents, followed by a more or less stable plateau, which is then followed by slow decline (Spengler).
Finally, history could simply be a kaleidoscope in which the basic elements are always the same but present themselves in constantly new configurations. none of which are better than the other (Schopenhauer).
And so I ask: What is our guarantee that every innovation necessarily is for the better? And I answer: Nothing, other than a naive relic of faith in Providence. But, look, we who are modern, we who are enlightened, we who are not dupes, it's been a long time since we believed in such things...
So, does the statement really hold up? Let us make a distinction: There are things we believe we don't believe, but on the other hand, there is what we really do in practice, the things we do every day, which are assumed to represent our implicit though unavowed beliefs.
This is demonstrated by the fact that we speak of 'advances' without asking in what direction. It is as if we think that whatever we do, everything will turn up well.
I don't know if "it will all work out" or if "everything will go to the dogs". I tend to think, with Bernanos, that a pessimist is a sad imbecile and an optimist is a happy imbecile. My faith in Providence is not that of someone in a parachute.
But I must ask, does one go bungee jumping without verifying who set up the cord?
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 31/01/2013 14:55]