December 16, 2002

Talal Asad has conducted extensive research on the phenomenon of religion (and secularism),
particularly the religious revival in the Middle ast! "rofessor #sad is the author of Genealogies
of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam ($altimore% &ohns
'op(ins )niversity "ress, 1**+)! 'is ne, boo(, Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam,
Modernity ,ill be published by -tanford )niversity "ress in .ebruary 200+!
"rofessor #sad is Distinguished "rofessor of #nthropology at the /ity )niversity of 0e, 1or(
(/)01) 2raduate /enter!
3n this intervie, ,ith siaSource, "rofessor #sad discusses, among other things, religious
revivalist movements, human rights, -hariah la, and the modern state!
You have suggested in your essay "Religion, Nation-State, Secularism" that the term
religion is often used anachronistically. Why is it that the term religion does not exhaust
all the comonents -- the ractices, the !ays of "eing -- that comrise it# $o! did this
understanding of the term come a"out and !hy is it that you lace such emhasis on an
alternative concetion of the term#
3 thin( there is a slight misunderstanding here! 34m not really concerned to give another definition
of religion! 3 am not concerned to say that ,e can get a more comprehensive, a more dynamic
conception, and so on! 3 ,ish only to point to the fact that religion as a category is constantly
being defined ,ithin social and historical contexts, and that people have specific reasons for
defining it one ,ay or another!
5eligion is associated ,ith various (inds of experience, various institutions, ,ith various
movements, arguments and so on! 6hat is ,hat 3 am pointing to! 3n other ,ords, it is not an
abstract definition that interests me! "eople ,ho use abstract definitions of religion are missing
a very important point% that religion is a social and historical fact, ,hich has legal dimensions,
domestic and political dimensions, economic dimensions, and so on! -o ,hat one has to loo(
for, in other ,ords, is the ,ays in ,hich, as circumstances change, people constantly try, as it
,ere, to gather together elements that they thin( belong, or should belong, to the notion of
religion! "eople use particular conceptions of religion in social life! 6his has really been my
concern!
My concern in the Genealogies of Religion ,as to trace some of the ,ays in ,hich this notion
has come to be constructed historically, rather than to provide a cross7cultural definition of
religion that can be applied to any society! 6his is ,hat 3 have been trying to say!
%t has fre&uently "een argued that rocesses of moderni'ation should culminate in the
retreat of religion to the rivate shere, so that !herever religion manifests itself in
u"lic life, this can "e attri"uted to an incomlete or failed ro(ect of moderni'ation, or
as the vestiges of tradition forestalling the inevita"le triumh of the modern. $o! !ould
you resond to this#
8ell, certainly that is the theory, but, of course, for a long time it has been recogni9ed that this is
not the ,ay history has gone! 3ndeed, it is not even clear that the so7called :retreat of religion:
has been ;uite a simple thing even since the beginning of the 1*th century! 6he ,ay in ,hich
people have thought about secularism 7 that is, the separation bet,een state and religion 7 has
in fact been adapted to very different (inds of state!
<et4s thin( of three examples of states in the 8est that are supposed to be liberal, democratic
and secular% .rance, $ritain and the )nited -tates! 8hat you have in .rance 7 very
schematically spea(ing 7 is a state that is secular and a society ,hich is secular! 3n ngland,
you have an established religion and you have a very secular society! 3n the )nited -tates, you
have a very religious society and a secular state! 6here are therefore very different ,ays in
,hich the negotiation bet,een religion and politics ,or(s itself out! 6here are different (inds of
sensibilities, even in these three modern states and societies! 6here are different (inds of
reactions that people have to,ards ,hat is a transgression against :secular: principles!
.or example% such sensibilities are found in the debate in .rance (l!affaire du foulard) about
,hether Muslim girls should be permitted to ,ear the veil in public schools! 3t is interesting to
note, incidentally, that this has led to a negative reaction by secularists ,hereas ,earing a
yarmul(e to school has not! 8hat is it that ma(es the ,earing of the veil a violation of secular
rules of politics and not the yarmul(e= My point is not that there is unfair discrimination here, but
that even in a secular society there are differences in the ,ay secular people evaluate the
political significance of :religious symbols: in public space! >r ta(e #merica! 6here are clear
rules in the )nited -tates about the separation of state and religion, but that doesn4t prevent
:non7secular: interventions in the politics of the present regime! #s ,e all (no,, the /hristian
5ight is at the heart of the $ush government! 3t is an anti7-emitic ally of the ?ionist
organi9ations in #merica, and its political imagination embraces the coming ,ar against 3ra; as
a step to,ards #rmageddon! # :secular: ,ar is supported by them for :religious: reasons!
#gain, 3 say this not in order to express my disapproval of the 5eligious 5ight (although, of
course, 3 do disli(e them) but to point to the fact that a secular state can ,ithout difficulty
accommodate such politics!
-o to come bac( to the ;uestion of ,hat is modern and ,hat is not, and ,hat ultimately is
expected of a liberal, modern state% 3 thin( one has to recogni9e, first of all, that the
transformation of societies in ,hat is called a modern direction, included all sorts of
accommodations and all sorts of changes, all sorts of re7ad@ustments as ,ell as concessions!
6he :secular: politics that is emerging is partly the result of these changes! #nd in that sense
moderni9ationAseculari9ation is not really a simple story!
3 myself am very s(eptical of the notion that modernity is some (ind of straightfor,ard destiny
for everybody! 6here is a sense in ,hich modernity can be thought of as a historical
periodi9ation, as temporality, but also of particular ,ays in ,hich people live 7 must live! 3 am not
at all sure that the :modern: necessarily presupposes everything that people in one or other of
the so7called liberal, secular states ,ant or thin( it should be!
Secularism has al!ays "een considered a crucial comonent of the rocess of
moderni'ation. $o! !ould you define the relationshi "et!een religion and secularism#
3 have a boo( coming out in .ebruary 200+ called Formations of the Secular in ,hich 3 try to
loo( at ;uestions of sensibility, of experience, of the embodied concepts ,hich orient sub@ects4
sensorium and guide public understandings of truth! 3 also loo( at the political doctrine of
secularism itself, and at the seculari9ation of la, and morality in moderni9ing states! 3 thin(
these are complicated ;uestions! 3 thin( ,e don4t understand fully ,hat all the implications of the
secular modes of everyday existence are for secular politics! 3 thin( ,e need to thin( about such
matters far more deeply in the human sciences than ,e have done so far!
-ecularism as a political doctrine 3 see as being very closely connected to the formation of
religion itself, as the :other: of a religious order! 3t is precisely in a secular state 7 ,hich is
supposed to be totally separated from religion 7 that it is essential for state la, to define, again
and again, ,hat genuine religion is, and ,here its boundaries should properly be! 3n other
,ords, the state is not that separate! "aradoxically, modern politics cannot really be separated
from religion as the vulgar version of secularism argues it should be 7 ,ith religion having its
o,n sphere and politics its o,n! 6he state (a political entityArealm) has the function of defining
the acceptable public face of :religion:!
%t has "een argued else!here that religious revivalist movements -- such as )"ut not
limited to* ones in the +uslim !orld -- are not in fact atavistic or remodern, "ut that the
very condition of possibility of these movements is the modern. Would you agree !ith
this#
3 thin( to some extent this is certainly true! 3 ,ould agree if, in :the modern condition of
possibility: you include the nation7state, and the ambitions of the nation7state! 3t seems to me
that both (inds of movements 7 both militant movements as ,ell as the liberal forms of 3slam
that have emerged since the 1*th century 7 are ad@ustments to the fact that the state has
ambitions regarding the formation of sub@ects and the regulation of entire populations, of their
life and death! 6hese things ,ere the concern of various other agencies previously 7 including
,hat one might call the religious 7 or there ,as no such function at all! $ut no, a single political
structure, the modern nation7state, see(s to deal ,ith them!
3 thin( it is true that, if you li(e, both the radical forms of religious movements as ,ell as the
liberal forms are accommodations to the modern state! 6he liberal ones obviously because they
represent attempts to ad@ust to that overarching political po,er and the spaces it authori9es 7 to
the forms of privacy and autonomy that it enables and legitimi9es! 6he radical ones too belong
to the same modern ,orld because ,hat is at sta(e for them primarily is the state since that is
the seat of po,er determining all sorts of things in ,ays that previously ,ere left unregulated!
-o in that sense, yes, these movements are modern! 6hey are also of course modern in the
sense that there are all sorts of modern techni;ues that are no, available and employed by
them (electronic techni;ues of communication, scientific forms of (no,ledge, the various means
through ,hich (no,ledge is produced and circulated, etc!)! -o it is ;uite true% various aspects of
these movements are constituted in a modern ,ay! #t the same time one should not forget that
they dra, on traditions of reform and reinterpretation that are part of an old history 7 a history of
disagreement, dispute and physical conflict 7 that is dra,n on and re7presented!
,an or should contemorary %slamist movements ma-e us rethin- Western concetions
of secular modernity#
>n the ,hole, neither radical 3slamist movements nor liberal 3slam appear able to ma(e people
rethin( 8estern conceptions of secular modernity! 3n part this is because many of their pro@ects,
in so far as they are modern, have ta(en over modern assumptions of politics! 3n part also it is
because there is an enduring antipathy in the 8est to,ards 3slam and ideas coming from the
3slamic tradition! #nd of course the mere fact of the enormous disparity in po,er bet,een
apparently successful 8estern societies and evidently ,ea( Muslim societies also plays a part!
$ut 3 thin( that the phenomenon as a ,hole 7 that is the phenomenon of 3slamism 7 as ,ell as
comparable religious movements else,here in the ,orld ought to ma(e us rethin( the accepted
narratives of triumphant secularism and liberal assumptions about ,hat is politically and morally
essential to modern life! 6he very existence of these phenomena should ma(e us rethin( our
assumptions about ,hat is necessary to modernity!
There has "een much discussion recently of the fact that %slam is antithetical to li"eral
democracy and all it entails )e&uality, individualism, human rights, luralism, tolerance
and so on*. $o! !ould you resond to this claim#
6his is connected to the previous ;uestion! 3f you thin( of 3slam and the 3slamic tradition as
fixed, as having a certain (ind of unchangeable essence, then it might ,ell be argued that 3slam
is antithetical to liberal democracy% ,hat is modern is not really 3slamic and ,hat is 3slamic
cannot really be modern! -o it4s a /atch722 situation that many critics insist on putting Muslims
into!
>f course there are people ,ho are trying to rethin( the 3slamic tradition in ,ays that ,ould
ma(e it compatible ,ith liberal democracy! $ut 3 am much more interested in the fact that the
3slamic tradition ought to lead us to ;uestion many of the liberal categories themsel"es! 5ather
than saying, :8ell yes ,e can also be li(e you,: ,hy not as( ,hat the liberal categories
themselves mean, and ,hat they have represented historically= 6he ;uestion of individualism,
for example, is fraught ,ith all sorts of problems, as people ,ho have loo(ed carefully at the
tradition of individualism in the 8est (no, very ,ell! 6he same is true of the ;uestion of
e;uality! 8e (no, that the e;uality that is offered in liberal democracies is a purely legal
e;uality, not economic e;uality! #nd the t,o forms of e;uality can4t be (ept in ,ater7tight
compartments! ven political e;uality doesn4t necessarily give e;ual opportunity to all citi9ens to
engage in or contribute to the formulation of policy! 8hat do 3slamic ideas about the individual,
e;uality, etc!, tell us about 8estern liberal ideas=
6hese are ;uestions ,orth pursuing, 3 thin(! -o instead of leaping up and saying, :#h yes, ,e
can all be liberal,: 3 thin( it is more important to as(, for example, :8hat exactly does the liberal
mean by tolerance=: 3t is easy enough to be tolerant about things that don4t matter very much!
6hat tends to be the rule in liberal societies! 3ncreasingly ,hat you believe, ,hat you do in your
o,n home, ,hether you stand on your head or decide not to, is up to you as an individual in
liberal democracies! -o ,ho cares= 6he liberal tolerates these things because the liberal
doesn4t care about them! 1et tolerance is really only meaningful ,hen it is about things that
really matter! ven in ordinary language ,e tal( about :tolerating pain:! 3n other ,ords, the (ind
of tolerance that really matters is something ,e ought to be exploring, thin(ing more about 7 and
the ,ays in ,hich the 3slamic tradition conceives of tolerance (ho,ever limited that might be)
helps to open up such ;uestions!
-o ,e ought to be thin(ing about ;uestions li(e that instead of simply 7 and rather defensively 7
saying, :6here are 3slamic traditions that are very liberal, you (no,! 8e can also become
liberal!: 3t is in fact much more interesting to as(, :8hat does liberalism mean by tolerance, or
by pluralism= 3s the meaning of individualism totally clear, is it totally desirable= Does an
exploration of 3slamic traditions give us a deeper, more critical understanding of individualism, or
tolerance, or pluralism=: 3 ,ould li(e to see more of this (ind of ;uestioning, rather than people
trying to prove their liberal credentials!
$o! !ould you exlain !hy there are infinitely more reorts of human rights violations
in the "Third World" than there are in the .uro-American !orld#
>ne reason for this is of course the fact that there are ;uite a lot of dictators in po,er in the
6hird 8orld! 6his applies to <atin #merica, to #frica, and to /hina 7 not only to the Muslim ,orld
as the media ,ould have us believe! $ut 3 thin( that there is something more that interests me in
this ,hole ;uestion of human rights! Bery often, many of the assumptions underlying human
rights have to do ,ith ,ays of life that are recogni9ed as 8estern! Many things are found
insufferable in the 6hird 8orld merely because they are in the 6hird 8orld! 6hings in the 8est
are not found ;uite so insufferable simply because they are part of a different (more prestigious)
,ay of life!
3 ,as reminded of this again ,hen 3 ,as reading the Christian Science Monitor recently! 6here
,as a long article on Catar, ,hich is said to be relatively liberal and tolerant, and so on! Catar is
portrayed as a progressive society, therefore as one of the more interesting societies in the
region! 6he examples given to support this claim, ;uite unselfconsciously, are that Doha has
-tarbuc(s4 cafes, that people eat -ub,ay sand,iches, that there are malls! #nd of course they
are also #merica4s crucial military allies in the region at a time ,hen -audi #rabia is shuffling its
feet in the coming ,ar against 3ra;! 3 am not trying to trash Catar, of course! 8hat 3 am saying is
that the conception here, automatically and ;uite unselfconsciously put for,ard, is that :they are
becoming more li(e us:! :)s: here refers explicitly to #mericans, not even to uropeans (,hich
the uropeans are discovering no, much to their frustration)!
6here is another important aspect to this human rights issue, one that has international
dimensions! Many of the conditions of disenfranchisement in the 6hird 8orld are due not only to
brutal dictators but also to the ,ay in ,hich these societies are connected to the global system!
6he point is that conditions inside a country are not thought of as being anybody4s responsibility
but that of the national government!
6he trouble ,ith the ,ay human rights violations are conceived is that they invest the sovereign
state ,ith legal responsibility for all the sufferings of its people! 6here is some reason for this,
historical as ,ell as political, but increasingly around the ,orld this notion ma(es nonsense of
the ,ay in ,hich the violation of people4s rights should be understood! 6he notion that lac( of
education, poverty and misery of various (inds has only to do ,ith those countries themselves is
absurd! >f course (it is grandly conceded) ,e in the 8est have an obligation to give aid and
they in the 6hird 8orld have an obligation to follo, the sound policies urged on by the 3M. and
the 8orld $an( that lend them money! $ut beyond that each 6hird 8orld country is responsible
for its o,n miseries 7 and its o,n human rights abuses!
3n other ,ords the responsibility cannot lie here ,ith 8estern countries as far as any human
rights violations in the 6hird 8orld are concerned! -o it is that as ,ell! 6here are really a
number of different things that contribute to people thin(ing in particular ,ays about human
rights violations, and therefore to more violations :there: than :here:!
Some +uslim states such as Nigeria and /a-istan have attemted in various !ays to
imlement Shariah la!, attemts that have fre&uently "een contested and critici'ed,
since there is a revailing "elief that Shariah la! is ""ac-!ard" and anti-modern. Would
you agree !ith this# %s it ossi"le for Shariah la! to "e accommodated "y the centrali'ed
and coercive system of la! that is so crucial to the modern state#
/an it be accommodated= #spects of it cannot be accommodated, and have not been
accommodated of course since the 1*th century 7 commercial la, particularly, but also
procedural la,, and so on, have long been abandoned in most Muslim countries! /riminal la,
as ,ell but that has less to do ,ith ho, the modern capitalist state ,or(s than ,ith certain (inds
of liberal values (for instance, ideas of ,hat is really cruel and insufferable and ,hat is not)!
6here is a re@ection of punishments that have to do ,ith the body, they are anathema to the
liberal sensibility! 3 happen to have the same sensibilities but logically -hariah punishments are
not inconsistent ,ith the demands of a :centrali9ed and coercive system of la, so crucial to the
modern state:!
#s far as family la, is concerned, it is ;uite clear that this has been ad@usted and
accommodated in and by modern states in all sorts of ,ays! #nd no, there is increasing
demand for e;uality on the part of ,omen in relation to particular (inds of la,s that discriminate
against them! 'ere the -hariah has come under pressure!
#gain 3 ,ould stress that there are movements of re7interpretation going on among various
Muslims ,ho are (een to introduce liberal values into the -hariah, ,ho ,ould li(e to re7,rite the
-hariah from its foundations, as it ,ere, so that it has both some (ind of attachment to the
historical tradition but at the same time is more palatable to a 8estern liberal sensibility! 3n
principle, 3 do not see ,hy this is impossible, and indeed, it may very ,ell happen to a greater or
lesser extent! 3n this country, there is for instance an interesting ,oman, #9i9ah #l7'ibri, a
la,yer and a la, professor at 5ichmond )niversity, ,ho has been very concerned to develop
liberal interpretations of the -hariah in this country! -urely there are movements of this (ind and
they ,ill be accommodated by a liberal democratic state!
What is the relationshi "et!een modern forms of o!er and the !ay in !hich &uestions
a"out religion and human rights and secularism are framed#
6his is a large ;uestion! #nd short of repeating myself, 3 ,ould only say that many of the things
claimed about liberal tolerance should be ;uestioned! 6here are various (inds of intimidation
and coercion that go on both covertly and overtly to ma(e things acceptable to liberal
sensibilities! "o,er is exerted not only in the ,ays people are allo,ed to spea( or not spea(,
but in ,hat it is that ma(es sense to them! 5ather than thin(ing of po,er only in terms of the
;uestion of freedom of expression and its limitations, ,e should also pay attention to the (inds
of po,er that go into the formation of listening sub@ects, of sub@ects ,ho can open their minds to
something that is strange or uncomfortable or distasteful!
3 thin( ,e need much more investigation of ,hat people regard as poppycoc( and of ,hat they
are ,illing to open their minds to! -ecularism has tended to regard religious traditions as either
ma(ing nonsensical claims about public (no,ledge or as having dangerous conse;uences
,hen they are allo,ed to enter the political realm! 8illiam /onnolly, for instance, has been
trying in many of his ,ritings to re7theori9e the political arrangement of secularism as it is has
been understood historically so that a more compassionate, open7minded attitude can be invited
into modern politics!
You have "een accused of symathi'ing !ith nativism, "%slamic fundamentalism", and
the li-e. Recently one critic charged you )along !ith others* of cultivating an "aura of
authenticity". $o! !ould you resond to such a charge#
My first reaction ,ould be to say that 3 only ans,er charges in a court of la,D
3 find this rather disappointing, fran(ly! 3t is a reflection of much of the careless thin(ing that is
going around in the human sciences these days! 3t is the (ind of carelessness ,hich has some
rather unfortunate and ,orrying moral implications! 6he people ,ho say this are not unli(e $ush
,ho says, :1ou are either ,ith us, or against us,: and not unli(e people ,ho condemn attempts
at understanding disturbing events as nothing more than attempts at excusing! 3 do not thin(
;uite honestly that anybody ,ho has read my ,or( carefully could thin( that 3 am for irrationality
and for the (ind of fanaticism that is associated ,ith fundamentalism (a term 3 prefer not to use
for theoretical reasons as ,ell as political ones)!
3 (no, also that at least one critic has said that 3 have endorsed an :aura of authenticity: 7 and
that, in his eyes, is clearly a great political failing on my part! 8hat 3 have to say in response to
this is not only that the person concerned has not read my ,or( carefully but also that he has
not read 8alter $en@amin carefully, from ,hom the expression :aura of authenticity: is derived,
particularly from his essay, :6he 8or( of #rt in the #ge of Mechanical 5eproduction:!
Many people in cultural studies and anthropology ,ho invo(e that text do not seem to have
noticed that $en@amin had a very ambivalent attitude to,ards :authenticity:! 3f you re7read that
essay, you ,ill see that on the one hand, he loo(s for,ard ,ith approval to a time ,hen certain
(inds of authority are undermined, he particularly expects the end of religious authority ,ith the
collapse of cultic aura and envisages a conse;uent enhancement of freedom that the techni;ue
of mechanical reproduction ,ill ma(e possible! 8e (no,, of course, that this optimism has not
been @ustified!
#t the same time, $en@amin4s idea of authenticity and aura is a very complex one! 3t is also a
notion that relates to historicity, to the historicity of the authentic thing! 3t is precisely because a
thing is authentic, because the same thing moves from one time to another that it ac;uires, as it
,ere, certain ;ualities of ancientness and genuineness, an aura! 3ts authenticity as an ancient
thing guarantees its historicity! $en@amin recogni9ed ambivalently that the undermining of aura,
in the complex sense in ,hich he ,as tal(ing about it, might also mean the undermining of
historicity! 6hus it is precisely the fact that certain ancient documents are authentic documents,
that they sho,, as it ,ere, the :real: ,ear and tear of their historical experience, ,hich ma(es it
possible to use those documents to construct a reliable historical account of something! 3n other
,ords, $en@amin had a notion of aura not only as essential to modern concepts of historicity but
also as intrinsic to :tradition:! 6his lends his ,or( a productive tension because it is not
straightfor,ardly progressivist!
3 find that ,hat $en@amin has to say there is much more complicated and dialectical, much more
suggestive, than is often vulgarly assumed by progressivists! -o 3 ,ould say that ,hoever
accused me of sympathi9ing ,ith fundamentalism because 34m supposed to have endorsed the
idea of :aura of authenticity: that $en@amin dismantled, has done a rather superficial reading not
only of my o,n ,or( but of $en@amin4s as ,ell!
You have so-en of self-criticism !ithin the +iddle .ast. 0or strategic reasons, the 1S
has no! also discursively comlicated its reading of %slamic tradition2 it sea-s of a
lurality )or rather, a duality - the regressive and the modern* of traditions !ithin %slam,
and declares its aim to "e to encourage the more modern, democratic element. What is
the difference "et!een your areciation of the comlexity of +uslim tradition and the
1S schema# %s there any commonality "et!een the forces that the 1S see-s to
encourage, and the sources of criticism that you gesture to!ards# Where !ould you
locate, and ho! !ould you read a ossi"le emanciatory olitics today#
8ell first of all, let me distance myself from )- policy, and say that clearly, as 3 read it, )-
policy is only concerned to find tendencies in the Middle ast and the Muslim ,orld, ,hether
they are religious or secular, ,ith ,hich it can ally politically! 6hat does not interest me of
course! -econdly, these )- policyma(ers have a teleological conception of regional
developments, and 3 touched on that ,hen ,e tal(ed about $en@amin! 3n other ,ords, people
li(e the patriotic @ournalist 6homas .riedman evaluate these movements by reference to ,hat
:,e: in the )- are! $ecause that, of course, is ,hat all civili9ed human beings should become 7
and if this is not obvious to everyone in the ,orld then clearly there4s something terribly ,rong
,ith them!
3 do not see it that ,ay at all! 3 hope that things ,ill not develop that ,ay! 3n my more pessimistic
moments, ,hich are no, increasingly fre;uent, 3 thin( that regardless of ,hat one ,ould li(e,
one may end up ,ith a ,orld that the .riedmans of this country ,ant! 3n other ,ords, ,e may
see a ,orld that is more dominated and hegemoni9ed by a singular po,er pushing us in a
singular direction, ,ith less and less possibility for a multiplicity of experiences, and so on! 3 see
po,er as being more and more polari9ed, 3 see cultural options becoming narro,er 7 even
though individuals might have more things to consume, more ,ays to amuse themselves, more
,ays to aesthetici9e their personal lives! 3 ,ould li(e to see something else, but ,hat 3 li(e is
neither here nor there, so 3 distinguish bet,een ho, 3 see things as desirable and ho, 3 see
things as probable! 6his is ,hat 3 fear% a homogeni9ation ,hich may ,ell lead to a victory for the
(ind of ,orld )- policyma(ers have in mind! -o in that sense .riedman and 3 might agree, but 3
,ith sadness and he ,ith great delight!
$ut then history is full of surprisesE that is the one thing 3 console myself ,ith! 6he best7laid
plans of mice and men go ,rong! "eople ,ho confidently predict particular outcomes of
historical developments are often mista(en! 3 hope that 3 ,ill be ,rong too! 8hat might emerge
as this century proceeds is in the end very difficult to say! 3 thin( that ,hat (ind of emancipatory
politics ma(es sense ,ill depend very much on ,hat emerges! 3 am not in favour of tal(ing
confidently about ,hat (ind of politics is emancipatory! 8e have had too many programs of this
(ind in the past that have been dismal failures! /learly one can try to resist oppressive po,er in
various ,ays, some big, and some smallE one can resist morally, one can resist politically! $ut 3
don4t thin( academics have ;uite as much impact on politics as they sometimes thin( 7 except if
you happen to be a Fissinger of course! 6hen you are a public intellectual integrated into the
ruling apparatus! -o 3 don4t (no,, ;uite honestly, if 3 have anything useful to say on this sub@ect!
#ll 3 can say is that certainly politics has al,ays had an oppositional dimension! -o ,e ought to
try to ma(e our arrogant rulers uncomfortable at the very least, and insecure, at best! 8hether
,e can do more than that 3 doubt! 3n the end it is up to the younger generation that has both a
greater imagination and a stronger sense of commitment to fello,7human beings to decide ,hat
to do and ho, to do it! #t present 3 see large uncertainties around! 8e are all in a sense much
more in the dar( than ,e thin( ,e are!
Inter"iew conducted #y $ermeen Shai%h of siaSource&