Interview: Luc Ferry, philosopher and former French Education Minister

Herald of the new revolution

Mastermind behind the epoch-making ban of religious symbols at public schools in France and main responsible for throwing this big issue into the ring of Europe, Mr. Ferry is one of the principal adherents of Secular Humanism. Minister of Education from 2002 to 2004 on the cabinet led by the right-wing Prime-Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin, he is frequently labeled as conservative, polemical and racist. However, when his words are carefully listened, it is easy to perceive he is nothing but a wholeheartedly enthusiast of fair reason


By LUAN GALANI
from Curitiba, BRAZIL


Cornerstone of ideal human proportions and world-renowned drawing, the Vitruvian Man from da Vinci closely resembles Luc Ferry: slim, tall, with a voluminous dark head of hair and a symbol of Humanism. Hardly ever may the definitions of philosopher, politician and best seller author be applicable to one person only. But that is the case of Luc Ferry. With the book "Learning to live", Ferry was awarded with the Aujourd'hui 2006, one of the most well-thought-of awards of contemporary non-ficiton in France. Nowadays, although he is not in a political office, it is widely known that the French president Nicolas Sarkozy listens carefully to his opinions.

He has a strong conviction that we live today the "Revolution of Love", in which relations between people are becoming gradually more important than religions and ideologies. With a wide grin and a black Iphone in his hands during the entire meeting, Luc Ferry received WAVE magazine for an interview in Curitiba, where he has been for a lecture at Positivo University.

What is the motive that has led you to take the decision of banning religious symbols?

- The answer is very particular for the case of France. We have the largest Jewish community after New York and Israel. But by far it is the most important community in the whole world. At the same time, we have the largest Islamic community in Europe. More or last 5.5 million of Muslims live together with the largest Jewish community. What occurred in France is that after the second Intifada, in 2001, there was an increase of 200% of racist and anti-Semitic demonstrations, mainly at schools. So, as minister at that very time, I took the decision not of forbidding religious symbols, but banning militant signs.

In class we can surely have small crosses or Davi stars or any Islamic symbol. What I wanted to avoid was classes organizing themselves in militant religious communities. There were children that used to bring huge crosses to class and they used to say: "Muslims come with veil, Jews come with kippah, so, why can't I show my religion?" So, I strongly believed that it is adults' responsibility to hinder children from fighting at school. Women can use veil, men can wear kippah and carry giant crosses. If you want, even at university it is feasible. But not children. After the second Intifada, the Arab little boys, descendents from Maghreb, who are French, thought they were Palestinians. And the little Jews thought they were Israelis. Well, boys born in France are French. We could not let them reproduce the conflict in the Middle East. Since this law has been voted, there were no more problems of this sort in France. I think I did it well.

Veil, burqa, yarmulk (or kippah) and a wedding ring. All of them have their origin in religion. That considered, why can not a female young Muslim wear her symbol, the veil, and a teacher can use a wedding ring at school?

- When I was a child, there were no veils. I've never seen such thing in France. So why have they sprang up all over France and Europe? Muslims only have five obligations in their religion and the veil is not one of them. Why this return to the use of veil? Because there has been a very strong radical Islamic movement around the world, notably since 9/11. Then, the use of veil became a political sign, not cultural. There was a woman movement in France, of Arab-French women, called "Nor whore nor submissive". And one of these women is Fadela Amara. She is part of the left and member of the Sarkozy government to uphold this sort of ideas. She says democracy and republic can not be beaten by religious fundamentalism. So, do not bow to it. Adults can wear what they want, but not children.

For you, a defender of secular Philosophy, is the Brazilian government's decision of establishing religious teaching at public schools right?

- Personally, I do not believe in God. It is not important, but it is needed to let it clear for any misunderstanding not to happen. However, when I was minister I decided that the history of religions should be taught. It is not implanted yet but in the programme, mainly for 16, 17 years-old-students, it will be taught Islamism, Judaism, Christianist and Buddhism. I did that because, in the cultural plan, history of religion is vital. You will not understand anything at all in relation to classic works of art, if you do not have the minimum of religious culture. All of it deals about the understanding of the birth of Christianity, the understanding of the existent ties among Judaism, Islamism and Christianism etc. I think we can be secular and, at the same time, not hostile to religions. All that said, I could not agree more with the Brazilian decision.

You say that family is the most valorized institution nowadays, calling it "New Humanism" or "Wisdom of love". Would not it be the contrary, with family degrading itself?

- I will contradict you. But kindly. That is a total illusion. We generally think that family is badly off in the West. We think that because there are many divorces. However, paradoxically, divorce is not a sign of sickness. Family is based upon something new, which is marriage based on mutual love. In the Middle Ages, and still today in some parts of Africa and India, most people get married not on love. Traditional marriage is arranged by relatives. Sometimes a couple can end up loving each other, but it is rare. What characterizes modern democracy is that the young will decide freely with whom to marry to. Then, they will get married on love, not on economical or biological motives. If you establish marriage on love, of course family will be based on something variable and fragile. When a couple does not feel mutual love anymore, they simply get divorced. But it does not mean family is getting ill.

Nowadays, above all, in the right-wing parties, it is missed and wept over the good time when people did not get divorced. Well, I tell you that the genuinely traditional family without divorce was inseparable from another institution: brothel. For instance, in France, the presidents of the republic, without exception, till Nicolas Sarkozy, never got divorced. It would be the wreck of their careers. However, surprisingly, on the day of the funeral, when any president has passed away, we would have to open all the doors of the church for children who were born out of the official marriage and lovers to come in. On the other hand, Nicolas Sarkozy, the first French president to get divorced, is the only one that married on love, like any other French citizen these days. Everybody knows love can transform itself into hate and indifference. Then people divorce. Young people, when married, believe the marriage is going to last their entire life. It is not true. Of course we can miss the period in which there was no divorce. But then you would have to accept that your parents got married by force.

Could you explain your thesis about how family replaced religion as a sacred entity?

- What is the reason for us living? Looking at the history of humanity, these reasons were always linked to sacred. And sacred is something which you can sacrifice yourself and give your life for. Our ancestors died for three huge motives. People died for God, in the religious conflicts. People died for homeland, with the nationalist wars, like the Great World Wars. And people died for revolutions. Maoism made 60 million dead. Today, all these hailed figures were shut down. Nobody is disposed to risk his life for those reasons. However, on the other hand, we all would put our lives at risk to save the lives of those we love. That is the revolution we are living: the Revolution of Love. The emergence of a new principle of life. Only love makes sense to our lives. When I was a kid, at the time of general de Gaulle, for him, France was ten thousand times more important than family and love. For my Maoist friends from the 1960's, revolution was ten thousand times more important than private life. Che Guevara was ten thousand times more important than Brigitte Bardot. But that is not the victory of private life under public life. It is a rearrangement between them.

And about politics, is it taking a new path as well?

- Politics has never been so vital like now. But it is no more serves to the glory of the empire, or of the French or German colonies. What breeds politics today is some sort of support for our children. And ecology is the first big political movement that understood it. The fundamental political question today is: what is the world we want to let for our kids? It is about ecology, but not only that. It is also about the shock of civilizations. That is the point why I was so favorable to the entrance of Turkey in the EU, because I reckon the relation between the West and the Arab world is the number one problem. Through war we will not solve our problems. Modern politics has been through a radical transformation. Politics now serves to people. And that is a revolution like no other in 2,000 years.

Max Weber, the great sociologist, used to say that to better understand traditional values of sacred we should focus on the following example: the code of honour of a commander of a ship. For centuries, if the ship wrecked, the commander should die with the ship, even if the members of the crew had been rescued. For his honour, he would sink with the ship. Metaphorically, it is a symbol. In the current West, no one would ever die for a hull, but surely for the people inside. That is a formidable progress. I have friends of the right that weep over the time in which people used to die for the nation. I have friends in the left that weep over the epoch when people used to die for the revolution. Oh, my friend, I have no nostalgia at all in relation to my nation or the revolution. I sincerely think the elimination of these two non-senses is the best news of the millennium. Champagne!



(Published: 12.06.2010.)