As we approach Europe Week, the week which includes two anniversaries, that of May 8, 1945, the end of the Third Reich, and that of May 9, 1950, the date of Robert Schumann's founding speech, how can we talk about Europe today in a world in turmoil, where the balance of powers is being reconfigured, where the fate of Europe is marked by the return of war and bizarrely hostile slogans expressing the "hatred of the West"?
It is not a question here of adding a profession of European faith in the wake of many others, although our European convictions are in steel. It is rather a question of taking the particular look that plurilingualism as a philosophy turns towards Europe and towards the world, because one cannot speak of Europe without speaking of the world.
A question of "point of view
It is only a "point of view" in the sense which Leibniz explained the concept of "monads" as so many mirrors of the same universe, each mirror having its share of the universal1 . Reformulated by Nietzsche, this gives "there are no facts, only interpretations"2 , which does not mean that reality does not exist and that all interpretations are just as good. For Kant, "to walk towards a common sense, that is to say towards our humanity implies to think by putting oneself in the place of any other human being"3 . Humboldt gave his own linguistic version by seeing in each language a "vision of the world" or, if we prefer, "a point of view on the world"4 . But Vico, well before him, was already engaged on this path by explaining the variety of languages by the diversity of historical experiences5 . Without exhausting these too well-known references, we can also reproduce the words of an old man of the Navajo tribe: "If you don't breathe, the air doesn't exist. If you don't walk, the Earth doesn't exist. If you do not speak, the world does not exist"6 . All is said.
There is a corollary to this introduction. Interpersonal or intercultural understanding is not self-evident. Both understanding and the production of thought through language are processes7 . And the fundamental reason why this is so is that "reflection never has the whole world and the plurality of deployed and objectified monads under its gaze, and never has more than a partial view and a limited power"8 .
Dominique Wolton in a recent essay, without any philosophical reference, has developed this idea through the concept of incommunication9 and describes Europe as a formidable process of learning to understand the other through negotiation.
Back to the beginnings
In order to give the subject a historical depth, we would like to take up the thread of our last editorial "Europe without shores and the global circulation of ideas". It was about a historical period from the 8th to the 15th century around the Mediterranean sea, a period seen from an angle that is very hardly developed in school curricula and yet essential to the understanding of the history of Europe and the world.
How did Europe recover the heritage of Greek antiquity? How did the dominant religion in the European space, the Christian religion, capture this heritage? How did this heritage lead to the period that is described as a Renaissance? One will forgive the shortcuts. From the 8th to the 13th century the Islamic world, whose empire, even if fragmented, occupied all of North Africa as far as sub-Saharan Africa, appropriated the Greek scholars and philosophers. Muslim scholars, philosophers and theologians did more than appropriate this heritage. They translated it or had it translated (the translators were generally Jews and Christians), analyzed, commented and criticized it. For Europe, the high point was Averroes' (Ibn Rushd from Cordoba) commentary on Aristotle. The main philosophical subject during these five centuries concerns the relationship between science and reason on the one hand, and faith on the other. For Averroes, there cannot be any contradiction and the message he takes from the Koran is that knowledge brings closer to God. The translation was first done from Greek into Arabic, then from Arabic into Latin after the reconquest of Toledo by the Christians. After the fall of Cordoba in 1236, the translation movement accelerated and monks from the North came to Toledo to discover the Greek heritage and Aristotle. Medieval scholasticism was nourished by this heritage and if the masters of scholasticism, first and foremost Thomas Aquinas, fought as heretical the movement of ideas called by simplification "Averroism", the philosophical issue was almost the same as in the Islamic period, and focused on the relationship between scientific truth and religious truth. Another translation movement was at work in Italy in Apulia, but with the fall of Constantinople in 1453, Greek scholars fled en masse to Italy with the original manuscripts or what was left of them, and the direct translation of Greek works into Latin could develop. It is no coincidence that the resulting intellectual and artistic effervescence in Italy led to the Italian renaissance(s) and then the French renaissance. With the Renaissance, the sciences slowly continued their emancipation from religion. However, there is no hint that this movement will ever come to an end, for we can see that questions such as those raised by the theory of evolution are being contested today in the name of religion in certain circles and are forbidden to be taught in certain states of the United States. But they are simply a continuation of debates that are over a thousand years old.
Why is it important to look back on this historical period, which seems so far away? Not only because the debates of that time are close to those we know today, but also because the remarkable "progress" of the human mind, of the "human understanding" to speak like Locke or Leibniz, took place in a plural environment, a plurilingual environment with intense intercultural exchanges.
It is clear that the wars of religion, the crusades in particular, did not prevent the circulation of ideas. Europe did not exist in the minds of men and if one can reconstitute it a posteriori, it was indeed a Europe "without shores".
It is important to go back even further in time back to the intellectual blooming of ancient Greece and the birth of philosophy. It is said the European identity is Christian and Greco-Latin. To a first approximation, nobody disputes this. But how was philosophy born in Greece between the 6th and 4th centuries B.C., which nobody seems to dispute? The question is not insignificant because understanding how civilization could go from the invention of writing in Mesopotamia to the appearance of science and philosophy is a real issue10 . It is agreed that it is the fusion of practical knowledge largely inherited from Mesopotamia and Pharaonic Egypt together with the habit and taste of public debate in the Athenian Republic which favored the passage from practical knowledges to their theorization, then to the capacity of the Athenian thought to analyze itself and to acquire its autonomy in relation to the hold of the cosmos and the gods. The different dimensions of human reality (history, culture, language, politics, geopolitics, economy, mentalities and passions) become objects of study in anticipation of the human sciences such as we know them today11 . It is important to underline that this movement which affects the whole eastern part of the Mediterranean basin cannot be understood without the initial contribution of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt.
It should be noted that it was the conquerors of Greece, the Romans, who recovered the heritage of their colonized people and that it was the new conquerors of the whole of the eastern Mediterranean and North Africa, the Arabs, who in turn captured this heritage established in the conquered lands, This did not prevent the Caliph Al-Mamûn from sending an embassy to Constantinople to obtain manuscripts and enrich his library in the House of Wisdom which, in the middle of the 9th century, constituted the largest collection of books in the world.
Essentialism, a permanent threat
Another remark which can be made at this level of analysis is the fact that there is no European essence, no more than there is an Arab, African, Chinese or Indian essence. For some, this may seem obvious, but one should draw all the consequences. Thus, to choose as chapter titles of a very beautiful world history of philosophy the terms "Greek", "Roman", "Euro-Western", "Russian", "Indian", "Chinese" philosophy, is to some extent an abuse of language. The author rightly speaks of "philosophy in Islam" rather than Islamic philosophy. Moreover, about Russian philosophy, the author brings some very interesting clarifications: "The Greek-Byzantine world first, then Western Europe, are the two great cultural sources from which the Russian thought draws. From these ethnic, geographical, linguistic and cultural data, a Russian intellectual history emerges which cannot be incorporated into any other intellectual history - it must therefore be studied for itself."12
Philosophy in Russia, like philosophy in Islam, participates, as "points of view" in the sense of Leibniz, of philosophy nothing more nothing less. Moreover, one can note with what care Souleymane Bachir Diagne, one of the most remarkable contemporary African philosophers, has entitled one of his recent works Comment philosopher en Islam?13 .
On the other hand, a title such as L'universalisme européen (European Universalism)14 can be criticized in more than one way, independently of its content. On the one hand, universalism is not European. Universalism is a philosophical notion, the use of which can be misused, but it does not belong either to Europe or to the European world, since the author seems to make a distinction and focuses the European world on the United States and Great Britain. But if we do not start by defining what we mean by "universalism", we create confusion and nothing more. Why not talk about Chinese or African universalism. That is simply absurd. Then Europe is not universal because, according to what we have said, based on Leibniz, who is not alone, it can only claim a part of universality. But no one can reasonably deny that Europe has played a major role in what can be called universal thought. It is the reduction of universalism to an ideology and to an instrument of power which can and must be denounced, but it is then a matter of something else entirely. Everyone will understand that the essentialism with which this title is impregnated, whose conceptual basis is categorization, in the original Greek sense of "indictment"15 , and not Aristotelian, is much more "selling" than complexity. For universalism, if we are willing to explore its contours, cannot be reduced to a lowest common denominator whose source would remain hypothetical. Science is constantly evolving, just like the real world, material or imaginary, does not cease to evolve. This means that universalism is a horizon which is being built and which no one, no State, no institution can appropriate.
A long way
Criticism by the other and by oneself is a healthy, vital and intrinsic exercise in philosophy. Philosophy is not thought. It is a form of thinking and it was invented in ancient Greece.
Let's recognize its salutary role. To remain on the European soil, let us quote this cry of rage from Paul Valérie in his Regards sur le monde actuel16 published in 1945: "The miserable Europeans preferred to play the Armagnacs and the Burgundians, rather than take on the whole world the great role which the Romans knew how to take on and hold for centuries in the world of their time. Their number and their means were nothing compared to ours; but they found in the entrails of their chickens more just and consequent ideas than all our political sciences contain.
"Europe will be punished for its policy; it will be deprived of wine and beer and liquor. And other things...
Europe visibly aspires to be governed by an American commission. All its policies are directed towards that end."
Is this judgment still valid? At least in part. The European countries have returned to the path of political intelligence, but when it came to supporting the invasion of Iraq and pretending to believe one of the biggest state lies of all time, everyone except France and Germany responded to cut themselves off from the rest of the world.
On the other hand, European civilization has been a pioneer in abolishing slavery, in promoting the emancipation of women, in setting up unprecedented mechanisms of social justice, in taking an interest in other cultures, including those of the "first" peoples, and in becoming rapidly aware of environmental challenges17 . This too is a reality.
But to return to the linguistic terrain, we must consider the following: no unitary country or set of federal or confederal countries has yet adopted as an official language a language spoken by only 1% of its population. One or more common languages such as English, French or German, the most widely spoken languages in Europe as a mother tongue or second language, or even Spanish, can be valued. But in no way can these languages replace or marginalize national or regional languages. An official language, as it is beautifully expressed in the royal ordinance of Villers-Cotterêts of 1539, is a language intended for the communication of the political and administrative authorities with the citizens and administered. The official language must be clear and understandable by all. In no way is it intended to express allegiance to any foreign power. Far from the implicit curse of plurilingualism that the dominant interpretation draws from the myth of Babel, the Koran, in a little known verse, says this: "We have divided you into languages and nations so that you may learn from each other"18 .
Refocusing on language
As the historical examples which we have mentioned, in an unfortunately incomplete way, have largely proven, linguistic diversity is not a plague but is intimately linked to human progress. Contrary to the straitjacket imposed on us by the managerial culture, it is a wealth to be exploited. The European cultural convention of 1954 said in its article 2:
Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible :
a - encourage among its nationals the study of the languages, history and civilization of the other Contracting Parties, and provide facilities for the development of such studies in its territory; and
b - shall endeavor to develop the study of its language or languages, its history and civilization on the territory of the other Contracting Parties and to offer to the nationals of the latter the possibility of pursuing similar studies in its territory.
It is not certain that the authors of this convention were really convinced of their recommendations, whose aim was more peace between nations than a renaissance through the diversity of languages. No doubt they had not really freed themselves from their monolingual prejudice nor had they really felt all the richness and the potential of creativity which lies in linguistic diversity.
This scheme, which has not been applied for 70 years, has not changed in its foundations. The final report of the conference on the future of Europe does not show any other ambition than the renewal of the same one.
We have to ask ourselves questions.
Perhaps we should consider that the actions of the European authorities in the field of languages should cease to be always in opposition to their stated intentions? This implies a fundamental revision of the communication policy of the European authorities, especially the European Commission, and more active educational policies on the part of governments.
Perhaps it would also be necessary to profoundly change the place of language in teaching? Michel Foucault in Words and Things had an enlightenment19 . After noting the disappearance of the fact of language as a conscious phenomenon in modern society, in order to "rediscover in a unique space the great game of language", he imagines that refocusing on language would be "a decisive leap towards a completely new form of thought". This is what Heinz Wismann does in Penser entre les langues20 or Souleymane Bachir Diagne in De langue à langue21 . For plurilingualism is more than speaking several languages, it is also thinking differently. What our adult soul finds difficult to understand, a child is capable of doing. The primary school student who answers the question of a survey of the Academy "What is your mother tongue?" answers "my mother tongue is French and Arabic" has understood everything. There is nothing more to say.
1Discours de métaphysique, Monadologie, Gallimard, Folio, 2004, p. 234 and (n° 57) and p. 373 and following.
2Posthumous Fragments, 7 [60], in Nietzsche, Complete Philosophical Works, op. cit.
3Quoted by Tzvetan Todorov in La littérature en péril, Flammarion, 2007, p. 78
4Sur le caractère national des langues et autres écrits sur le langage, Ed. Du Seuil, Points, p. 131, but also p. 69, 75, 81.
5La science nouvelle, Giambattista Vico, translated and presented by Alain Pons, Fayard, 2001, § 445, p. 200.
6Akira Yamamoto's paraphrase of an old man from the Navajo tribe, PBS TV, Millennium Series: Tribal Wisdom and the Modern World, hosted by D. Maybury-Lewis and broadcast on May 24, 1992.
7Widely analyzed by Lev Vygotski in Pensée & Langage, La dispute, 1997.
8Phenomenology of perception, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Gallimard, 1945, p. 88.
9Vive l'incommunication, La victoire de l'Europe, Ed. François Bourdin, 2020
10L'évolution de la connaissance, repenser la science pour l'Anthropocène, Jürgen Renn, Les Belles Lettres, 2022, notably chapter XI "La mondialisation de la connaissance dans l'histoire".
11Histoire mondiale de la philosophie, Vincent Citot, 2022, p. 27-35
12Ibid. p. 233
13How to philosophize in Islam, Souleymane Bachir Diagne, Éditions Jimsaan, 2014
14L'universalisme européen, De la colonisation au droit d'ingérence, Immanuel Wallerstein, Éditions Demopolis, 2006
15According to the Dictionnaire historique de la langue française, the word "category" is borrowed from the Low Latin categoria, itself taken from the Greek katêgoria "accusation" and, in Aristotle, "quality attributed to an object attribute". This word is derived from katêgorein which means both "to speak against, accuse, blame" and "to state, signify, affirm" in Aristotelian logic.
16Regards sur le monde actuel et autres essais, Paul Valéry, Gallimard, 1945, p. 28
17A timely reminder by Pierre-Henri Tavoillot in the Figaro of January 3, 2022.
18Quoted by François Rastier in Apprendre pour transmettre, PUF, 2013, p. 146, Sourate Les Appartements (Al-Hujurât, verse 13). Rastier specifies that according to the Arabists he has consulted, this translation remains legitimate, if not licit.
19Les mots et les choses, Michel Foucault, Gallimard, 1966, p. 318
20Thinking between languages, Heinz Wismann, Albin Michel, 2012
21De langue à langue, Souleymane Bachir Diagne, Albin Michel, 2022.