O que é este blog?

Este blog trata basicamente de ideias, se possível inteligentes, para pessoas inteligentes. Ele também se ocupa de ideias aplicadas à política, em especial à política econômica. Ele constitui uma tentativa de manter um pensamento crítico e independente sobre livros, sobre questões culturais em geral, focando numa discussão bem informada sobre temas de relações internacionais e de política externa do Brasil. Para meus livros e ensaios ver o website: www.pralmeida.org.

Mostrando postagens com marcador Raymond Aron. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador Raymond Aron. Mostrar todas as postagens

quarta-feira, 3 de fevereiro de 2016

Um companion book ao pensamento de Raymond Aron, por mais de 100 dolares!!??

Books and Culture

Daniel DiSalvo
The Savior of French Liberalism
Raymond Aron’s work holds lessons for the future of Islam and the West.
February 3, 2016
Photo by Keystone/Hulton Archive/Getty Images
The Companion to Raymond Aron, edited by José Cohen and Elisabeth Dutartre-Michaut (Palgrave Macmillan, 304 pp., $110)

Liberalism—defined broadly as a democratically elected regime with a limited government and a market economy that protects individual rights—remains a hotly contested political persuasion in France. Today, libéralisme is associated with “savage capitalism” and the “Anglo-Saxon model.” If someone calls you a liberal in a Left Bank café, he likely means it as an insult.
Such attitudes have deep roots. Over the course of the twentieth century, liberalism had few defenders in Paris and was overshadowed by seductive varieties of nationalism, existentialism, structuralism, surrealism, and Marxism. It wasn’t until the end of the century that the non-liberal alternatives were spent and interest in liberalism was renewed—at least among scholars.
It would be nearly impossible to speak about French liberalism today if Raymond Aron had not kept the flame alight while other philosophical fashions tried to blow it out. Therefore, The Companion to Raymond Aron, edited by José Cohen and Elisabeth Dutartre-Michaut, is a welcome new addition to the work on Aron available in English. It brings to light Aron’s characteristic mode of political reflection, which remained close to political actors’ realistic options and the concerns of citizens—rather than elaborating the sort of high-minded theoretical schemas that often typify French thinking.
Aron’s life tracked the “short” twentieth century. He was born in 1905 just prior to the Great War and the Bolshevik Revolution. He died in 1983 just prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. In between, his political judgment was extraordinary. Calling him the “Thucydides of the twentieth century” isn’t an overstatement.
After studying in Germany just prior to the rise of Hitler, Aron adopted the position that Nazism had to be unequivocally opposed. After Paris fell to the Wehrmacht, Aron went into exile in London to join General Charles de Gaulle and the French Resistance. After the war, he consistently championed Western democracy over Soviet totalitarianism. He endorsed the Cold War strategy of undermining and outlasting the Soviet Union. He favored decolonization of French North Africa. During the events of May 1968, he rejected the students’ fantastical utopianism. Throughout his career he championed the basic liberal values of Western civilization. Compared with Jean-Paul Sartre, who got almost all of these questions wrong, Aron looks prophetic.
Of course, no good deed goes unpunished. Aron paid for his good judgment with isolation from French intellectual circles. The Left regularly derided him as a “Cold Warrior,” especially after his most famous book, The Opium of the Intellectuals (1955), exploded the cherished myths of the Left, the proletariat, and the revolution. Soon thereafter, the French Right abandoned him because he favored Algerian independence. Aron’s caustic analysis of the “psychodrama” of May 1968 once again placed him firmly outside the fashionable trends of his time.
Sartre—a former schoolmate and friend, whom he had introduced to German existentialism—quipped that Aron was “unworthy to teach.” Others censured Aron for the “icy clarity” of his analyses, which supposedly lacked compassion. It became a commonplace in French intellectual circles that “it is better to be wrong with Sartre than to be right with Aron.” In that light, Aron’s intellectual fortitude and independent-mindedness were truly remarkable. It was only near the end of his life, in the late 1970s, with publication of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s work on the Soviet gulag and the revelation of the horrors of Communism in Cambodia and Vietnam, that French opinion shifted in Aron’s favor. He now appeared to have been right all along about the nature of Communism—and much else. Claude Lévi-Strauss called Aron a “teacher of intellectual hygiene.”
The Companion to Raymond Aron is an excellent introduction to the main events of his life and the core themes of his work. The various authors reveal how and why Aron became recognized as one of the world’s most thoughtful analysts of the moral, political, economic, military, and sociological dimensions of modern democracy. His interests ranged from nuclear strategy to Tocqueville.
Primarily known outside France as an analyst of international relations, Aron was one of the first to develop the idea of totalitarianism. He argued that the Nazi and Stalinist regimes were without precedent in human history because they were based on “secular religions.” Each expressed a notion of providential destiny: for the Nazis, the victory of a race; for the Soviets, the victory of a class. These totalizing ideologies were what made these regimes so dangerous. Aron concluded that Marxist-Leninism “as an ideology is the root of all (in the Soviet regime), the source of falsehood, the principle of evil.” Ultimately, the Soviet regime’s attempt to make man into an angel in fact “create a beast,” while the Nazi’s experience showed that “man should not try to resemble a beast of prey because, when he does so, he is only too successful.”
The lessons that Aron drew from the twentieth century were that history is tragic, human freedom fragile, and theories of historical determinism pernicious. In his defense of liberal principles, Aron described himself as an adherent of “democratic conservatism.” Compared with the totalitarian regimes, “we are all the more conservatives because we are liberals who want to preserve something of personal dignity and autonomy.”
Aron sought to distinguish politics as a prosaic activity from the quest for salvation. “Modern society is a democratic society that must be observed without transports of enthusiasm or indignation,” he once remarked. “It is not the ultimate fulfillment of human destiny.” Aron’s outlook was characterized by modesty about what politics could achieve and what one should thereby expect from it. His liberalism fits into the French historical tradition more than the classical liberalism of England or the United States. For instance, Aron did not stress ideas of natural rights, which are the root of American liberal principals.
The recent terrorist attacks in Paris raise profound questions for both France and the Western democracies. How can the West develop a foreign policy that addresses the threats of Islamic terrorism and the reality of evil in the world but doesn’t get trapped trying to transform other regimes through nation-building and social engineering? Aron’s hostility to philosophies of history—such as recent claims about the “end of history” and the democratization of the world—is a powerful reminder that a hard-headed realism about what needs to be done can be combined with a balanced notion of how much can be achieved through political action. The presence in Europe of large numbers of Muslims citizens along with immigrants from the Middle East and Africa means that domestic and foreign policy are closely intertwined. How can France, which has the largest Muslim population in Europe, simultaneously preserve its own traditions and values and address increasing cultural and religious diversity? How can France integrate its Muslim population while simultaneously taking military action in the very regions from which its immigrant population hails?
These are enormous questions, but Aron provides some helpful guideposts. His skepticism about historical determinism casts doubt on the reigning “secularization” thesis—or dogma. This thesis holds that, as society modernizes, citizens will slowly lose their religious convictions, and those that cling to them will agree to do so exclusively in private. Reading Aron helps to break such spells. A broad understanding of his work would temper optimism about what laïcité (or secularism) can do to transform Europe’s Muslims. Europeans in general—and the French in particular—need to come to terms with the fact that Islam is not likely to follow Christianity’s historical trajectory in Europe. Only then can realistic approaches to religious diversity begin to be developed.

terça-feira, 10 de novembro de 2015

Morte de um homem decente: André Glucksmann - Guy Sorman

Eye on the News

Guy Sorman
Death of a Righteous Man
André Glucksmann, RIP
The City Journal, November 10, 2015
My generation of French writers has a powerful image, dated June 1979, etched forever in our memories: that of an exhausted Jean-Paul Sartre climbing the steps of the Élysée Palace alongside Raymond Aron, his former friend and longtime intellectual opponent, both escorted by a tall, long-haired young philosopher named André Glucksmann. French president Valéry Giscard d’Estaing waited for them at the top. He had heard their demands and was ready to open the French borders to more than 100,000 refugees fleeing the Communist regime in Vietnam in makeshift rafts, much like the Syrians of today.
This essential moment in French intellectual history, and in European public life—inspired by Glucksmann—came to represent the end of extreme ideological conflicts and recognition of their absurdity when immediate and real evils confronted the conscience. Symbolically, it marked the end of Marxism, a worldview that had helped forge the young Glucksmann, and which Sartre had supported his entire life. Glucksmann was a leading voice of an emerging generation of thinkers, the New Philosophers. His writings not only renounced Marxism but also accused it of providing a theoretical foundation for some of the large-scale massacres of the twentieth century. Aron had always made this charge, though less forcefully. French classical liberals, alongside Aron, tended to be pessimistic, worried about the likelihood of the USSR’s eventual victory over democracy. But Glucksmann—similar to neoconservative Americans in this regard—believed Communism could be beaten with human rights, pitting morals against suffering.
André Glucksmann, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Raymond Aron in 1979
From then on, across a range of essays (including for City Journal, to which he regularly contributed) and books (including The Master Thinkers, on the roots of totalitarianism in German thought, and his autobiography, Une rage d’enfant), Glucksmann became the voice of all victims of every totalitarian ideology, up to and including Islamism, which he identified as a form of fascism in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks in New York. But another opponent of human rights also reared its head, one that Glucksmann had not predicted: cultural relativism. The West chose not to intervene in support of the Chechens while the Russians were crushing them because, well, the Russians aren’t like us, you see. We could never impose our humanist ideals upon them. Glucksmann found himself at a loss before this hypocrisy, which, more often than not, served as a mask for realpolitik. He refused ever to accept realpolitik or moral evasions. The West, he lamented, tended to rally to the cause of human rights when faced with weak regimes but stood idly by when confronted with powerful governments, such as those of the Russians or the Chinese.
Glucksmann was a historical exemplar of public morality—and also of the relative inefficiency of this morality. A quote from French poet Charles Péguy comes to mind: Moralists, he said, “have clean hands but, in a manner of speaking, actually no hands.” Glucksmann kept his hands clean until the end, yet without indulging in self-deception. He was a righteous, pure man—a rare man.

sábado, 8 de dezembro de 2012

Raymond Aron: penseur de l'Europe et de la nation - Giulio De Ligio (ed.)

De Ligio, Giulio (dir.)

Raymond Aron, penseur de l'Europe et de la nation


Series: Euroclio - Volume 66
Year of Publication: 2012
Bruxelles, Bern, Berlin, Frankfurt am Main, New York, Oxford, Wien, 2012. 160 p.
ISBN 978-90-5201-826-3 br.  (Softcover)
ISBN 978-3-0352-6178-3 (eBook)
Weight: 0.240 kg, 0.529 lbs
available Softcover / PDF
  • Softcover:
  • SFR 39.00
  • €* 32.10
  • €** 33.00
  • € 30.00
  • £ 27.00
  • US$ 41.95
  • Softcover
» Currency of invoice * includes VAT – valid for Germany and EU customers without VAT Reg No
** includes VAT - only valid for Austria

Book synopsis

À mesure que le temps passe, la pertinence des démarches et des analyses de Raymond Aron se confirme au lieu de s'estomper. Parce qu'il a été le commentateur inlassable des événements, parce que ses livres ont souvent répondu à des situations bien différentes de la nôtre, on a pu penser que son oeuvre, à l'exception bien sûr des grands ouvrages théoriques, perdrait de son actualité en raison de l'éloignement des circonstances qui lui avaient donné naissance. C'est le contraire qui se produit. C'est de nous et donc à nous qu'Aron parle encore.
À travers la forme politique propre à l'Europe, la journée d'études du 7 juin 2011, dont est issu cet ouvrage, s'était proposée de dégager la science politique que Raymond Aron nous lègue pour mieux comprendre la condition humaine et la situation présente des pays européens.

Contents

Contenu : Pierre Manent : Avant-propos. Permanence de Raymond Aron - Giulio De Ligio : Présentation. La politique digne de l'Europe : l'actualité de la leçon aronienne - Giulio De Ligio : Nature et destin des nations : Aron et la forme politique de l'Europe - Danny Trom : L'État d'Israël, objet de pensée et d'expérience chez Raymond Aron - Agnès Bayrou : L'Europe comme corps politique ? L'analyse aronienne de la construction européenne - Joël Mouric : Raymond Aron, citoyen français et intellectuel européen - Nicolas Baverez : L'Europe à l'âge de l'histoire universelle - Olivier de Lapparent : La crise de la conscience europèenne : L'Europe entre décadence et vitalité historique - Matthias Oppermann : Raymond Aron et la défense de l'Europe : Questions militaires et politiques - Raymond Aron : Universalité de l'idée de nation et contestation - Raymond Aron : Europe, avenir d'un mythe.

About the author(s)/editor(s)

Giulio De Ligio est docteur de recherche en histoire de la pensée politique de l'université de Bologne, il enseigne actuellement à l'Università per stranieri di Perugia et poursuit parallèlement ses recherches au Centre d'études sociologiques et politiques Raymond Aron de l'École des hautes études en sciences sociales (Paris). Il est membre du comité de rédaction de la Rivista di politica (Rome) et secrétaire général de l'Istituto di politica (Rome-Pérouse). Il a reçu en 2007 le prix Raymond Aron.

Series

Euroclio. Études et Documents. Vol. 66
Directeurs de collection : Éric Bussière, Michel Dumoulin et Antonio Varsori

terça-feira, 31 de maio de 2011

Raymond Aron: meu pensador preferido - coloquio em Paris

Helas, não vou poder estar...
Meu livro: Os Primeiros Anos do Século XX: o Brasil e as relações internacionais contemporâneas (São Paulo: Paz e Terra, 2001)
é apropriadamente aroniano.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

COLLOQUE
Raymond Aron, penseur de l'Europe et de la nation
Paris, 7 juin 2011

Raymond Aron, penseur de l’Europe et de la nation, journée d’études, mardi 7 juin 2011, EHESS - Amphithéâtre François-Furet, 105 Bd Raspail, 75006 Paris
-Centre d’études sociologiques et politiques Raymond Aron (CESPRA)
- Société des Amis de Raymond Aron
Il s’agira d’éclairer, à partir de différents points de vue, la question de la nature et du destin à la fois de la nation et de la « construction européenne » telle qu’elle a été présentée par la pensée aronienne. À travers le problème de la forme politique propre à l’Europe, la journée d’études se propose plus généralement de dégager la science politique qu’Aron nous lègue pour mieux comprendre la condition humaine et la situation présente des pays européens.

9h00 – Ouverture de la journée d’études par Philippe Urfalino, directeur d’études à l’EHESS, directeur du CESPRA et Pierre Manent, directeur d’études à l’EHESS, membre du CESPRA, responsable de la formation doctorale « Études politiques ».
9h15 – Présentation de la journée d’études par Giulio De Ligio (Université pour étrangers de Pérouse).
9h30-11h - Qu’est-ce qu’une nation ?
Présidente de séance : Dominique Schnapper (EHESS/CESPRA)
Giulio De Ligio (Université pour étrangers de Pérouse) : Nature et destin des nations : Aron et la forme politique de l’Europe.
Danny Trom (EHESS/GSPM) : L'État d'Israël comme objet de pensée et d'expérience chez Raymond Aron.
Pause café (salle 1)
11h30-13h – Penser politiquement l’Europe
Président de séance : Philippe Raynaud (Université Paris II)
Joël Mouric (Université de Bretagne occidentale) : Raymond Aron, citoyen français et intellectuel européen.
Agnès Bayrou (Sciences po-Paris) : L’Europe comme corps politique ? La science politique aronienne de la construction européenne.

Pause déjeuner
15h-17h – Les nations européennes à l’aube de l’histoire universelle : situation et dimensions
Président de séance : Pierre Manent (EHESS/CESPRA)
Matthias Oppermann (Université de Potsdam) : Raymond Aron et la défense de l’Europe. Questions militaires et politiques.
Olivier de Lapparent (Université Paris I) : La crise de la conscience européenne : l'Europe entre décadence et vitalité historique.
Nicolas Baverez (Cabinet Gibson Dunn) : L'Europe, tiers continent dans la mondialisation.

17h-17h30 – Débat général
Conclusion de la journée d’études par Jean-Claude Casanova, président de la Société des Amis de R. Aron et de la Fondation nationale des sciences politiques, directeur de la revue Commentaire.
Pot de l’amitié (salle 8)

Contacts :
Giulio De Ligio : giulio.de@libero.it
Elisabeth Dutartre-Michaut : dutartre@ehess.fr