Recentemente um ex-aluno querido me mandou um texto de uma professora da sua atual universidade que causou polêmica. No seu texto ela critica enfaticamente a remoção de estátuas "polêmicas" pelo mundo afora a partir da explosão causada pela morte de George Floyd. Peguei pedaços do texto dela e escrevi comentários apontando alguns dos aspectos mais problemáticos do liberalismo europeu e aponto a ironia do texto ser produzido por uma pessoa vinda da periferia absoluta dessa Europa que ela enche a boca em chamar de "West" [ocidente].
“alleged offenses”
This implies people are faking their outrage, which automatically dismisses their claims.
“there is no society without an ongoing conflict for social status between groups: that equalizes oppressors and oppressed as “two groups”
This speaks of social classes, ethnic groups, etc. as if they were not fundamentally different and implies that the end [or at least the diminution] of oppression in any given society is impossible.
“… perceive themselves as inferior in status”:
She assumes that the inferiority is not materially, objectively ascertained (who gets arrested more often, who is unemployed more often, who is portrayed as dangerous criminals more often, ect.) but only “perceived”. Furthermore, she frames social disadvantage as a question of “status.”
“… the identity of the West as we know it”:
This is the pinnacle of conservatism, imagining that “the West as we know it” is something permanent and unchanged. The West now is not the West fifty years ago, and it will not be the same fifty years from now. The real issue is what the West will be transformed into in the future. Hopefully into a less discriminatory, more inclusive place.
“… the moral principle that all persons ought to be treated with equal and impartial positive consideration for their respective goods or interests does indeed seem to have conquered the world and become the global norm”:
In the world of billionaires and politics who only care about the interests of capital this is just a very bad joke.
Tocqueville:
I am not surprised Tocqueville appears here. He was a 19th century man of monarchist persuasion, who was deeply troubled by democracy as “the rule of the mob”. Universal suffrage was feared because it would allow “the ignorant masses” to take part in politics. I love Tocqueville [he did have a keen eye for the US culture], but she does it for the wrong reasons.
“Alternative elite”:
For her there is always going to be an elite; we’re just going to trade one elite for a new one simply. Again, I see echoes of the fear of “the mob rule.”
“Most former colonial countries are ruled by kleptocrats today, whether they are democrats or autocrats, and the explanatory power of the colonial legacy has lost some of its shine”:
Not if we consider that these “kleptocrats” are usually put in place and supported by the West enthusiastically whenever they help them keep the neo-colonial order in place.
“Corruption replaces old cleavages as the major universal source of discrimination”:
First, she finally admits that discrimination has existed. She seems to think there is a better discriminatory regime though. And she wrongly assumes that the current discriminatory regime is absolutely filled with corruption: police defending their own even when they kill; politicians that only answer to big money interests; favoring certain people over others in jobs, housing, education, etc.
Comments