the boisi center interviews no. 61: October 6, 2011

tzvetan todorov is a philosopher, theorist, and literary critic from Bulgaria. He has been a researcher at the National Center for Scientific Research in Paris since 1968, and honorary director there since 2005. He spoke with Boisi Center associate director Erik Owens following his presentation on the modern applications of the 5th-century Augustine-Pelagius debate on human liberty.

owens: You grew up behind the Iron could be described without any mention this formal perspective either, not any Curtain. How has this influenced your of ideological components. This was my more than the Bulgarian. This was not work? professional profile at the time I was for any ideological reasons, but because leaving Bulgaria, and it remained so of the dominance in France of a sort of todorov: Very strongly, but in differ- for maybe ten more years. My original biographical and sociological approach to ent periods of my life, it influenced it in intention was to spend just one year in literature. The standard expression was different ways. I was twenty-four when I France, but this year became three years “life and work,” when you were writing left Bulgaria. This means that I had com- a thesis, you had to study all the events pleted my university studies, I had the of the author’s life, everything that was equivalent of a master’s degree. Before written on him, all the versions of his that I spent five years at the University works. This approach didn’t pay much of Sofia studying Slavic philology, that attention to the internal interpretation is, Slavic languages and literatures— of meaning, within the work itself. For a Bulgarian, Russian, and that of other certain number of years, my orientation Slavic countries. The study of literature was an attempt to remedy to that lack. in Bulgaria had to be conducted within a strict ideological framework. Literature My very first work was an anthology of was supposed to illustrate the major the Russian formalists. The Russian tenets of the communist ideology that we formalists were a group of literary critics were living in, and so the interpretation and scholars in the years just before of all writers was reduced in a way either and after the revolution, in a time of a to illustrating the communist idea, or relatively great political freedom. So, in to contradicting it, in which case they a way, I felt similar to them, fifty years deserved a more or less severe criticism. later. They were interested in the formal aspects of literary works, which allowed My first reaction to this was to get inter- because I decided to take a doctorate, them in the years after the revolution to ested in those aspects of literary works, sort of a Ph.D.; after that I married and avoid any political engagement. I selected of texts, which could escape from any my life became a French life instead of a and translated their writings and the ideological control. That’s how I became Bulgarian life, the way it is now. book was well received in France. At that a “formalist” in my youth—as a reaction In France I tried to learn more about time, there was an intellectual wave or a to the obligation to refer constantly to ide- the formal structure of literary works, fashion of structuralism, and this analy- ology. I tried to grasp the meaning of the but that wasn’t easy. In fact I discovered sis of literature appeared as an ingredient text by studying the grammatical struc- that French literary studies—because of a structuralist world view and way ture of its sentences, the choice of words, this was the larger framework of my of approaching study in humanities or the structure of narrative, of metaphor, interests—were not concerned with social sciences. of various literary devices, all things that

1 the boisi center interview: tzvetan todorov After ten or fifteen years living in France, tific institution devoted to pure research, wasn’t sure to know well. The fall of the my whole being was transformed, of which allowed me to choose freely the Berlin Wall acted as a kind of liberation course, because of the many differences topics of my work. I immersed myself in for me. Maybe the regime had to stop in the two situations, and I realized one this subject and spent three years work- existing in the real world so that I could day that there was no reason why in con- ing on it. I went to Mexico for a series of deal with it clearly enough in my mind. fronting literary works I should exclude lectures on another subject, but managed While it was alive, it was hard for me to everything concerning values, ideas, and to learn some Spanish, enough to read step outside of it, although I had lived meaning. At that point I started chang- the documents, and had discussions already for twenty-five years in France. In ing my attitude, using what I had learned with some specialists. The study of the a way its existence inhibited me. earlier as a tool, but no longer as an aim. conquest and the immediate aftermath As soon as the Wall fell, I felt I could deal I became interested in a certain number of the conquest became for me some- freely with this subject of totalitarianism of topics which in different ways were thing like a parable of the encounter of and thus with its opposite, democracy. still related to my Bulgarian identity, but The first book I wrote in this context was again, in a rather indirect way. called Facing the Extreme, an analysis One of them was the very fact that I was “I was convinced of what happened to morality in the raised in one context—geographical, concentration camp. I only know about cultural, ideological—which was Eastern that morality these experiences from the writings of Europe, the Balkans, an earlier part of didn’t disappear other witnesses, but there is a continuity the Ottoman Empire, with cultural in- between the life in and out of the camps, fluences coming from that past, but also there, as it was the camp was like a magnifying glass for belonging to the Slavic tradition, with the rest of the totalitarian world. Now, a major influence from Russian litera- frequently said, I was convinced that morality didn’t ture. And now I was living in France, in disappear there, as it was frequently said, Paris, which was “the capital of arts and that it was not a that it was not a purely Hobbesian world letters,” as it was perceived in Bulgar- purely Hobbesian of man becoming a wolf to other men, ia, and the French had different idols, or of war of all against all. If one read different gods that they were praying to. world of man carefully the testimony that came from I experienced a split within myself that the concentration camp, one could find all immigrants know about: I became si- becoming a wolf transformations of morality, rather than multaneously Bulgarian and French, and to other men, its disappearance. So that in a way, this was condemned to a permanent silent time again, but in a more positive way, I translation, not so much between two or of war of all was still dealing with what I experienced languages, but between two cultures. So in the first twenty-four years of my life. one of the topics of my research became against all.” That was a long answer to your short the tension between the unity of man- question. kind and the variety of cultures in which we are all necessarily immersed. owens: It actually provides a nice segue cultures. I wasn’t talking about myself, I for another question I wanted to ask. At The first work I did in this context was wasn’t interested in autobiography, but in the core of all political theory and theol- no longer about the Russian formalists, a way this biographical bias was behind ogy is a conception of human nature, or but about the conquest of America. This the words, was what motivated my work. here moral anthropology. I wonder if you event, especially in its early stages, be- In the following years, there was another could say a bit about your own under- came an amazing encounter of two parts change. I talk about it in this little book- standing of moral anthropology and how of humanity that had totally ignored each let, The Totalitarian Experience. The con- it influences your political theory today. other, and the outcome were not only mil- trast between my two worlds, the Bulgari- lions of victims but also some splendid todorov: I feel strongly opposed to an and the French, was not only cultural, documents—from the very beginning, at a kind of nihilistic attitude towards hu- it was also political. This brought me to the end of the 15th and especially in the man nature, morality, and basic human another major topic; I became more and 16th century—in Spanish and in native instincts. It isn’t the only view present in more interested in totalitarianism—the tongues. It was a wonderful example for contemporary debate, but it is extremely world in which I was raised and which my topic! By that time I had been hired in strong, maybe in France more so than in was also a part of myself in ways that I the CNRS, that marvelous French scien- the United States. It takes two forms: one

2 the boisi center interview: tzvetan todorov is the refusal of taking into account our biological nature (“nature” and “natural” have become dirty words), the other is the conviction that we are purely selfish and aggressive animals. Compared to these points of view, I appear as a kind of old-fashioned defender of the moral nature of human beings. And I find some support in the recent work of various anthropologists, ethologists and paleon- tologists who observe that what actually distinguishes the human species from other animal species is a greater capacity for empathy, interaction and cooperation. One book that struck me, for instance, in that direction was Sarah Blaffer Hrdy’s Mothers and Others. Hrdy is a major anthropologist that taught at Berkeley; within a chain because of all the impacts extracting evil forever seems to me a dan- by collecting evidence from very di- that we have absorbed and transformed gerous endeavor. That’s why I think one verse and distant fields, she shows that within us, and all the impact that we give of the sentences I quoted in my talk from cooperation is what enabled the human outside of us, to our children of course, this White House pamphlet issued in species to survive. The human infant is but also to our neighbors and to the advance of the invasion of Iraq—to “fur- much more vulnerable than the infant people whom we encounter. There is a ther freedom’s triumph over all its foes,” of other species, its dependence lasts for sort of immortality contained in human to eradicate evil definitely—indicates a comparatively longer period of time. If interaction. dangerous inclinations. Because in a way, the mother is the only person to pro- this iswhat totalitarianism was supposed owens: Alasdair MacIntyre’s Dependent tect it, the human species would have todo: to posit this ideal of the radiant Rational Animals offers a compelling disappeared. This means that there were view from this perspective as well as future of communism, when there will a larger number of people cooperating. one that highlights dependence as a core be no conflicts, no private property, no The apes’ specialist Frans de Waal brings human feature. “your” and “mine,” no reason to worry. other relevant observations. Everything will be shared in common In your work on totalitarianism, you These insights confirmed me in my con- and we’ll be smiling and happy all along focus on the will to perfection, or the viction that our dependence on others is the line! I think this is a nightmarish perfectionist impulse, and a rejection of a major characteristic of our species. We dream in fact, because its realization our fallibility, as the core of what you call are born weak and vulnerable, and with- implies, rather than the learning to live messianism. Could you elaborate on that? out this contact with other human beings with human beings such as they are, an next to us, we cannot survive or for that todorov: I pretty much agree on this enormous amount of violence on them matter really become human. The same point with MacIntyre, but this view can and the invention of a new species. is true on another level, not merely on be found also in earlier authors, such as, owens: But if it’s the drive for unifor- our physical survival but on our mental paradoxically, Rousseau. Yet, MacIntyre’s mity that’s so violent in the totalitarian construction: we are totally dependent insistence on our basic vulnerability and dream, how do you distinguish between on our parents’ gaze on us, their interac- disability is indeed helpful. it and the democratic messianism you de- tion with us, which is responsible for the I do perceive this dream of perfection- scribe—the use of violence to spread, or birth of consciousness, to say nothing of ism. To try to be more perfect than one at least ostensibly spread, democracy and language, or of all the skills. This implies was the day before is in itself a positive human rights? It seems to be a pluralist that we are totallyengrained, constructed dream, and a deeply human one as well. impulse in some form, although unifor- by human interaction and continuously It is a powerful drive for improvement, mity is a goal, in some sense, of a global engaged in this interaction. In a way, this what Rousseau used to call perfectibility. liberal society. Is it fair to consider the is my conception of, not the immortal But the utopian or millenarian vision current wave of messianism as connected soul, but something which would be a lay of constructing paradise on earth and to the prior totalitarianism of the French equivalent to it. That is, we are only a link

3 the boisi center interview: tzvetan todorov revolutionary movement and Stalinist become as good as they were. For them, Sometimes the current attitudes are and fascist movements? it was an assimilationist project, not at all directly related to earlier ones. Concern- an exterminationist project. ing Libya, to take the last example, I todorov: I think they all belong to the think that France and Britain, the two same family, and at the same time they Concerning the present wave, I think major colonial powers in the past, had a are quite different in impact and also in it may be too early to make final gener- stronger engagement in the conflict than their nature. Even between what I call the alizations, because we only have a few any other country because they wanted to first and the second wave, the Napoleonic examples. It does not coincide with the make a demonstration of military might and colonial wars on the one hand, the earlier colonial project: none of these cur- and at the same time exercise a certain expansion of totalitarianism on the other, rent expeditions is supposed to conquer degree of control over the most important there is an important difference. During the land in order to establish colonies resources in oil and gas of the African the first wave there was no project of there. The new form of control of these continent. producing a new man, nor of necessar- countries is, first, a military occupation, ily eliminating a significant part of the as in Iraq and Afghanistan, and second, owens: Clearly, this more traditional population, whereas this became the an indirect control over the government, attitude—it’s in my interest to do it—is distinctive feature of the second wave. In assuring us that it will be of a friendly always present. But it doesn’t work well, all of the variant and sometimes opposed disposition, favorable to the West. It has it’s not a good public argument. We have forms of totalitarian utopianism, there something paradoxical about it. In order to give to our public actions a kind of was always, almost as a starting point, to help the triumph of freedom and legitimation that makes them acceptable, the elimination of those who really don’t equality we declare that these other popu- and that’s where human rights, fear of fit in the picture, whereas the earlier rev- genocide, democratic values, etc. come olutionary and colonial wave was rather in. Of course, we are all against genocide, a wave of education, of assimilation, of so if someone claims that he prevented a transformation. Even the worst colonial “I believe more genocide, everybody applauds. powers didn’t mean to exterminate all the But just to be clear: you reject the argu- brutes, as Kurtz would put it in Joseph strongly in the ment that ideology or humanitarianism Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. power of ideas are mere covers for economic interests, Except during the process of conquest than in those who right? And you agree that ideas have real itself, when the others’ life didn’t count influence in the world? for much, the story was that the Euro- decide to impose todorov: I have the impression that peans were bringing to these people a I believe more strongly in the power of better understanding of the world, so that them by the force ideas than in those who decide to impose the latter will be educated and become them by the force of arms. The simple as good as we are. This same distinction of arms.” idea of democracy has encouraged the could be found during the conquest of evolution of Middle East countries more America. Some of the conquistadors were lations are unable to see for themselves than the occupation of Iraq, which was just interested in getting rid of the local where their good lies, and we bring it to supposed to bring democracy to this part population as soon as possible in order to them by force. In other words, we consid- of the world. When a regime is over- collect all the silver and gold that could be er them as unequal and undeserving to thrown by forces that come from within found. Whereas Las Casas, the Domini- be free. The pluralistic ideal is defeated by it, they usually are much less powerful, cans and the Franciscans who accompa- the unitary action used in order to impose in terms of military equipment, than the nied the conquistadors had a very differ- it. Behind this decision looms the maybe ruling group, they win by the force of ent point of view: they wanted to improve unconscious hope that the world can be their ideas. I share the humanitarian and the condition of the natives and bring brought to perfection, an aim so attractive democratic ideal but believe that we are them to the right faith. They wanted to that all means are acceptable if only they doing it bad service by promoting it with convert them to the Christian religion give us victory. From this point of view, all our jets and missiles. because on the one hand they thought three waves of messianism are akin to the that all men belonged to the same race [end] teachings of Pelagius, who didn’t really and on the other because they were con- believe in original sin, and opposed to vinced that the Christian religion was the Augustine’s doctrine. greatest good that could be offered to this population, and that by this token it will

4 the boisi center interview: tzvetan todorov The Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life Boston College 24 Quincy Road Chestnut Hill, MA 02467

tel 617-552-1860 fax 617-552-1863 [email protected] Visit bc.edu/boisi-resources for a complete set of the boisicenter Boisi Center Interviews and audio, video, photographs, @boisi_center and transcripts from our events.

5 the boisi center interview: tzvetan todorov