July 3, 2000 The Nation.

25

BOOKS & THE ARTS

A Literature From Below

GÜNTER GRASS AND PIERRE BOURDIEU

The role of the public intellectual—and the moral onus, assuming that one exists—
seems ever to thread the Scylla of celebrity and the Charybdis of marginality. In a con-
versation printed in part simultaneously in the French daily Le Monde and German
weekly Die Zeit, sociologist Pierre Bourdieu and Nobel laureate Günter Grass dis-
cussed the role of intellectuals in society, stylistic practices in sociology and litera-
ture, neoliberal economics, the emerging world order and other topics. The following
is adapted from a translation from the French by Deborah Treisman. Bourdieu is a
professor of philosophy at the Collège de France, was founder in 1975 of the journal
Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, and is author of, among other works: The
State Nobility (1996), The Rules of Art (1996), On Television (1998), The Weight of
the World (1999) and Pascalian Meditations (2000). Grass, a native of Danzig (now
Gdansk), defines himself as a “citizen writer” and won the Nobel Prize for Literature
in 1999. Among his works are The Tin Drum (1959), From the Diary of a Snail (1972),
The Rat (1987), Dog Years (1989), The Flounder (1989) and My Century (1999).

Pierre Bourdieu: You have spoken
somewhere of “the European or German
tradition”—which is also, by the way, a
French tradition—of “opening your big
mouth.” I am delighted that you received
the Nobel Prize, and I am also delighted
that you haven’t been transformed by re-
ceiving the Nobel, that you are as inclined
as you ever were to “open your big mouth.”
I am hoping that we can open our big
mouths together.
Günter Grass: It is relatively rare for a
sociologist and a writer to meet in a German
setting. In my country, it is more common
for philosophers to gather in one corner of
the room, the sociologists in another corner
and the writers, all giving each other the
cold shoulder, in the back. A communica-
tion of the kind we are undertaking now is
the exception to the rule. When I think of
your book The Weight of the World or of my
last book, My Century, I see that our works
have something in common: We are trying
to retell History, as seen from below. We
do not talk over society’s head; we do not
speak as conquerors of History; rather, in
keeping with the nature of our profession,
we are notoriously on the side of the losers,
of those who are marginalized or excluded
from society. In The Weight of the World,
you and your collaborators were able to put
your individuality aside and to base your
work on pure understanding, without claim-
ing always to know better: The result was
a snapshot of social conditions and the
state of French society that could easily
be superimposed on other countries. I am
tempted, writer that I am, to mine your
stories for raw material. For example, the
Grass: ‘To tell the truth, most intellectuals
today swallow everything, and it gives them
nothing but ulcers.’
study of the young woman who came from
the country to Paris in order to sort mail at
night. The description of her job makes
one understand the social problems with-
out harping on them in an ostentatious
manner. I was very pleased by that. I wish
that there were such a book about the so-
cial conditions in every country.
The only question that struck me comes,
perhaps, from the sociological domain:
There is no humor in this genre of writing.
It lacks the comedy of failure, which plays
such an important role in my stories, the ab-
surdity inherent in certain confrontations.
Bourdieu: You have written magnifi-
cently about a certain number of the ex-
periences we evoke. But the person who
hears these stories directly from the one
who experienced them is often wiped out
by them or overwhelmed, and it isn’t al-
ways possible to maintain one’s distance
from them. We felt, for example, that we
had to exclude a certain number of narra-
26 The Nation. July 3, 2000

tives from the book because they were too those who oppose this regression seem position to the left of the Social Democratic
poignant or too pathetic, too painful. themselves to be regressing. Those who governments. In France, there was the great
Grass: When I speak of “comedy,” I oppose terror come to seem like terrorists. strike of 1995 that mobilized a large portion
don’t mean to imply that tragedy and com- It’s something that we have both experi- of the population—laborers, office work-
edy are mutually exclusive, that the bound- enced: We voluntarily classify ourselves as ers, etc., and also intellectuals. Then there
aries between the two don’t fluctuate. archaic—in French, we are called ringards were a whole series of protests. There was
Bourdieu: Absolutely.… That’s (old-timers), arriérés (outdated). the unemployed workers’ demonstration,
true.… In fact, what we aim to do is to Grass: Dinosauria… the European march to protest unemploy-
make our readers see that raw absurdity, Bourdieu: Dinosaurs—exactly. That is ment, the illegal immigrants’ protest and
without any special effects. One of our the great strength of conservative revolu- so on. There was a kind of continuous ag-
rules was that there would be no turning of tions, or “progressive” restorations. Even itation that obliged the Social Democrats in
the stories into “literature.” This may seem what you’re saying, I believe, illustrates power to pretend, at least, to be participat-
shocking to you, but there is a ing in some sort of socialist
temptation, when one is deal- Bourdieu: ‘A conservative revolution is a very discourse. But in practice this
ing with dramas like these, to critical movement is still very
write well. The rule here was strange thing: It’s a revolution that restores weak, for the most part because
to be as brutally pragmatic as the past and yet presents itself as progressive.’ it is limited to a national level.
possible, to allow these stories One of the most important
to retain their extraordinary, and almost the idea. We are told: You’re not funny. But questions, it seems to me, in the political
unbearable, violence. There were two rea- the era is really not funny! Honestly, there arena, is to know how, on an international
sons for this: scientific reasons and, also, I is nothing to laugh about. scale, to create a position that is to the left
think, literary ones, because we chose not Grass: I have never claimed that we of the Social Democratic governments and
to be literary precisely in order to be literary were living in an amusing era. But the in- that is capable of having a real influence on
in another sense. There are also political fernal laughter triggered by literary means them. But I think that any attempt to create
reasons. We felt that the violence being per- is also a form of protest against our social a European social movement at the moment
petrated at the moment by the neoliberal conditions. What is peddled today as neo- would be very unlikely to succeed; and the
politics established in Europe and Latin liberalism is a return to the methods of question I ask myself is the following: What
America and in many other countries—that the Manchester liberalism of the nineteenth can we, as intellectuals, do to contribute to
the violence of the system is so vast one century. In the seventies, in most of Eu- that movement, which is indispensable, be-
cannot explain it through purely conceptual rope, there was a relatively successful effort cause, despite what neoliberalism holds to
analysis. Our critical resources are no match to civilize capitalism. If you believe in the be the case, all social victories have been
for the effects of this political system. principle that both socialism and capitalism won through battle? If we want to create
Grass: We are both, the sociologist and are the charmingly spoiled children of the a “social Europe,” as they say, we must
the writer, children of the European En- Enlightenment, then you also have to admit create a European social movement. And
lightenment, of a tradition that has now that they have had a certain way of keep- I think—it is my impression—that intel-
been thrown into question everywhere—or, ing each other in check. Even capitalism has lectuals bear a great deal of the responsi-
at least, in France and Germany—as if the been subject to certain responsibilities. In bility for the creation of such a movement,
European movement toward Aufklärung, Germany, we call this the social economy because the nature of political domination
toward Enlightenment, had failed. Many of the market, and there was a general con- is not only economic but also intellectual;
of its early aspects—we need only think of sensus, which included the conservative it lies also on the side of belief. And that
Montaigne—have been lost over the course party, that the conditions of the Weimar is why, I believe, we must “open our big
of the centuries. Humor is one of them. Republic should never be reproduced. This mouths” and try to restore our utopia; be-
Voltaire’s Candide and Diderot’s Jacques consensus broke down in the early eighties. cause one of the defining qualities of these
le fataliste, for example, are books in which Since the Communist hierarchies fell apart, neoliberal governments is that they do away
the social conditions described are equally capitalism has come to believe that it can do with utopias.
horrifying. Yet, even in pain and in failure, anything, that it has escaped all control. Its Grass: The Socialist and Social Demo-
the human capacity for comedy and, there- polar opposite has defaulted. The rare re- cratic parties also believed somewhat in that
fore, victory, comes through. maining responsible capitalists who call for idea, when they claimed that the downfall
Bourdieu: Yes, but our sense of having prudence do so because they realize that of Communism would also wipe socialism
lost the tradition of the Enlightenment is they have lost their sense of direction, that off the globe, and they lost confidence in the
tied to the complete reversal of our vision the neoliberal system is now repeating the European workers’ movement that had ex-
of the world that has been imposed by the errors of Communism by creating its own isted, mind you, much longer than Commu-
neoliberal vision that dominates today. I dogma, its own certificate of infallibility. nism had. If one abandons one’s own tradi-
think (and here, in Germany, I can make Bourdieu: Yes, but the strength of this tions, one abandons oneself. In Germany,
this comparison), I think that the current neoliberalism is that it has been applied, at there have only been a few timid attempts
neoliberal revolution is a conservative revo- least in Europe, by people who call them- to organize the unemployed. For years, I
lution—in the sense that one spoke of a selves Socialists. Whether it’s [Gerhard] have been trying to tell the unions: You
conservative revolution in Germany in the Schröder or [Tony] Blair or [Lionel] Jospin, cannot content yourselves with supervising
thirties—and a conservative revolution is these are people who invoke socialism in only the workers who have jobs—and who,
a very strange thing: It’s a revolution that order to further neoliberalism. as soon as they lose them, fall into a bottom-
restores the past and yet presents itself as Grass: It is a capitulation to economics. less abyss. You must found a union for the
progressive, a revolution that transforms Bourdieu: At the same time, it has be- unemployed citizens of Europe. We com-
regression into progress—to the extent that come extremely difficult to create a critical plain that the construction of Europe is tak-
July 3, 2000 The Nation. 27

ing place on a purely economic level, but resent a unanimity of voices. In order to are the only ones, in a sense, who can break
the unions themselves have made no effort fight it effectively, we must insure that the the circle. But, unfortunately, they are
to find a form of organization and action criticisms reach the public. We are con- often established precisely because they
that goes beyond the national framework stantly invaded and assaulted by the dom- are unquestioning and soft-spoken and be-
and has an impact across borders. We must inant discourse. A vast majority of jour- cause we want to keep them that way, and
create a counterweight to this worldwide nalists are often unconsciously complicit there are very few who make use of the
neoliberalism. But, to tell the truth, most in the process, and it is incredibly difficult symbolic capital their position gives them
intellectuals today swallow everything, and to break down that illusion of unanimity. to speak out, to speak frankly and to make
it gives them nothing but ulcers. Which is First, because, in the case of France, it is sure that the voices of those who cannot
why I doubt that we can count exclusively difficult for anyone who is not very estab- speak for themselves are heard. In My Cen-
on intellectuals. In France, it seems to me, lished and very well-known to get access tury, you evoke a series of historical events
one speaks always, without hesitation, of to the public. When I said, at the beginning and a certain number of them touched me
“the intellectuals,” but my experiences in of this conversation, that I hoped you were very much—I am thinking of the story of
Germany have shown me that it’s a mistake going to “open your big mouth,” it was be- the little boy who goes to the Liebknecht
to believe that all intellectuals are on the left. cause I think that established public figures demonstration and pees on his father’s
You can find proof to the contrary through-
out the history of the twentieth century, the
Nazi era included: A man like Goebbels
was an intellectual. For me, being an intel-
lectual is not a proof of quality. Your book
The Weight of the World shows how those
who come from the working world, who are
union members, often have more experi-
ence in the social domain than intellectuals
do. Those people are now unemployed or
retired and no one seems to need them any-
more. Their potential is lying fallow.
Bourdieu: Let me go back for one sec-
ond to the book The Weight of the World.
It is an attempt to attribute a much more
modest and, I believe, more useful function
than one usually does to the efforts of the
intellectual: the function of “public writer.”
The public writer—and I’ve witnessed this
in the countries of North Africa—is some-
one who knows how to write and who lends
his talent to others so that they can express
the things they know, on one level, far
better than the person who writes them
down. Sociologists are in a position that is
unique. They are not like other intellec-
tuals; they are primarily—though not al-
ways—people who know how to listen,
how to decipher what they hear and how
to transcribe and transmit it.
Grass: But that means that we must
also call on the intellectuals who situate
themselves in the proximity of neoliberal-
ism. There are those among them who are
starting to ask themselves whether this
circulation of money around the globe,
which eludes all control, whether this form
of madness that follows in the wake of
capitalism might not be about to collide
with some kind of opposition. Mergers,
for example, without purpose or reason,
that cause the “redundancy” of 2,000,
5,000, 10,000 people. All that counts for
stock-market valuations is the maximiza-
tion of profit.
Bourdieu: Yes, unfortunately, it is not
simply a matter of opposing and thwarting
the dominant discourse that claims to rep-
28 The Nation. July 3, 2000

back. I don’t know if it is based on a per-

sonal memory, but in any case it shows a
very original way of learning about social- Second-Wave Soundings
ism. I also very much liked what you said
ROSALYN BAXANDALL AND LINDA GORDON
about Jünger and Remarque: you say, be-
tween the lines, many things about the role
THE WORLD SPLIT OPEN: How the Modern Women’s Movement Changed America.
of intellectuals and their complicity in By Ruth Rosen. Viking. 446 pp. $34.95.
tragic events—even in those they appear to
criticize. I also liked what you said about IN OUR TIME: Memoir of a Revolution.
Heidegger. That’s one more thing we have By Susan Brownmiller. Dial Press. 360 pp. $24.95.
in common. I have done a whole analysis
he women’s liberation movement, as it was called in the sixties and seventies,

of Heidegger’s rhetoric, which has had a
terrible effect in France almost to the pres-
ent day.
Grass: What is important for me in that
story about Liebknecht is that you have,
on one hand, Liebknecht, the agitator of
youth—a progressive movement in the
name of socialism is just beginning—and,
on the other hand, the father who, in his
enthusiasm, doesn’t realize that his son,
who is sitting on his shoulders, wants to
get down. When the little boy pees on his
father’s neck, his father gives him a fierce
spanking. This type of authoritarian be-
havior later causes the boy to enlist vol-
untarily when troops are being mobilized
for the First World War—in other words, to
do exactly the opposite of what Liebknecht
was hoping to inspire young people to do.
In My Century, I describe a professor who
reflects, during a Wednesday seminar, on
his reactions in 1966, ’67 and ’68. At the
time, his point of departure was a philos-
ophy of high ideas. And he has come back
to it in the end. In between, he had several
spurts of radicalism, and he was one of
those who publicly tore Adorno to pieces
from the podium. It is a very typical biog-
raphy of the era. In the sixties, I was caught
up in events. The student protests were
necessary and they set more things in mo-
T
was the largest social movement in the history of the United States—and
probably in the world. Its impact has been felt in every home, school and
workplace, in every form of art, entertainment and sport, in all aspects of
personal and public life in the United States.
Like a river overflowing its banks and seek-
ing a new course, it permanently altered the
landscape.
In fact, contrary to the punditry, which
claims that the women’s movement is dead
and that the public has turned against it,
public-opinion research shows the oppo-
site. In 1998 a Time/CNN poll found that
51 percent of Americans believe that fem-
inists have been helpful to women; 53 per-
cent of women that feminists are “in touch
with the average American woman.” A sep-
arate poll among blacks found that 65 per-
cent think black feminists help the black
community.
The movement’s impact cannot be eas-
ily encapsulated. Its judicial and legislative
victories include the legalization of abortion
in 1973, federal guidelines against coercive
sterilization, rape-shield laws that encour-
age more women to prosecute their attack-
ers, affirmative action programs that aim to
correct past discrimination—although not
the Equal Rights Amendment, which failed
in 1982, just three states short of the re-
written to promote equal opportunity for
girls, in the universities and professional
schools more women are admitted and
funded, and a new and rich feminist scholar-
ship has, in some disciplines, overcome
opposition and won recognition. Title IX,
passed in 1972 to mandate equal access to
educational programs, has worked a vir-
tual revolution in sports. As regards health,
for example, many physicians and hospi-
tals have made major improvements in
the treatment of women; about 50 percent
of medical students are women; women
successfully fought their exclusion from
medical research; and diseases affecting
women, such as breast cancer, now receive
better funding thanks to women’s efforts.
In supporting families, feminists organized
daycare centers, demanded daycare funding
from government and private employers,
developed standards and curriculums for
early childhood education, fought for the
rights of mothers and for a decent welfare
system.
eminists have also struggled for better

tion than the spokespeople of the pseudo-
revolution of ’68 wanted to admit. That is
to say, the revolution didn’t take place, it
had no basis, but society did change. In
From the Diary of a Snail, I describe how
the students yelled when I told them: Prog-
ress is a snail. Very few wanted to believe
it. We are both now at an age where we
can, I agree, be sure to continue to open
our big mouths, for as long as we retain
our health; but our time is limited. I don’t
know what it’s like in France—I don’t think
it’s any better—but I believe that the young-
er generation of German literature has
proven to have little inclination or interest
in perpetuating the traditions of the En-
lightenment, the tradition of opening your
big mouth and interfering. If there is no
renewal of that, no changing of the guard,
then this aspect of the good European tra-
dition will also be lost. ■ Books in September.
quired two-thirds.
But the most salient accomplishments
occurred not in law but in the economy and
the society, involving an accumulation of
changes in the way people live, dress, dream
of their future and make a living. Feminists
turned violence against women, previously
a well-kept secret, into a public political
issue; made rape, incest, battering and sex-
ual harassment understood as crimes; and
got public funding for shelters for battered
women. Because of feminist pressure,
changes in education have been substantial:
Curriculums and textbooks have been re-
Rosalyn Baxandall and Linda Gordon are the
editors of Dear Sisters: Dispatches From the
Women’s Liberation Movement, a collection
of primary documents, forthcoming from Basic
F
employment conditions for women.
They won greater access to traditionally
male occupations, from construction to
the professions and business. They en-
tered and changed the unions and have been
successful at organizing previously non-
union workers such as secretaries, wait-
resses, hospital workers and flight attend-
ants. As the great majority of American
women increasingly need to work for wages
throughout their lives, the feminist move-
ment tried to educate men to share in house-
work and childrearing. Although women
still do the bulk of the housework and child-
rearing, it is also commonplace today to see
men in the playgrounds, the supermarkets,
PTA meetings.
Considering the enormity of these sea
changes, astonishingly little has been pub-
lished about this now thirty-five-year-old