Тиранія каяття

by Pascal Bruckner, Паскаль Брюкнер, Петро Таращук (Translator)

У книзі сучасного французького письменника і філософа порушено питання, яке, на думку автора, становить велику проблему Європи: захоплення самобичуванням, розкаянням в «історичних» гріхах європейців перед колишніми колоніями та ісламським світом. П. Брюкнер, аналізуючи цей феномен, розмірковує над тим, якою має стати самосвідомість європейського суспільства, щоб каяття не перетворилося на своєрідний ритуал.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, History, Nonfiction, Sociology, Psychology, France

216 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2006

About the author

Pascal Bruckner est un romancier et essayiste français, d'origine suisse protestante, né à Paris le 15 décembre 1948. Après des études au Lycée Henri IV à Paris, à l'université de Paris I et de Paris VII, et à l'Ecole pratique des hautes études, Pascal Bruckner devient professeur invité à l'Université d'Etat de San Diego en Californie et à la New York University de 1986 à 1995. Maître de conférences à l'Institut d'études politiques de Paris de 1990 à 1994, il collabore également au Monde et au Nouvel Observateur. Romancier prolifique, on lui doit Lunes de fiel - adapté à l'écran par Roman Polanski - Les Voleurs de beauté - prix Renaudot en 1997 - et plus récemment L'Amour du prochain (2005).

Pascal Bruckner is a French writer, one of the "New Philosophers" who came to prominence in the 1970s and 1980s. Much of his work has been devoted to critiques of French society and culture. He is the author of many books including The Tyranny of Guilt, Perpetual Euphoria and The Paradox of Love. He writes regularly for Le Nouvel Observateur.

Reviews

[Zaphirenia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Αγόρασα αυτό το βιβλίο τυχαία από ένα παλαιοβιβλιοπωλείο στην Ιπποκράτους μια μέρα που επέστρεφα από τη δουλειά. Μου κίνησε το ενδιαφέρον και ο τίτλος και η περιγραφή στο οπισθόφυλλο και μια και ήταν σε καλή τιμή είπα γιατί όχι; Και τώρα με ευγνωμονώ για αυτή τη στιγμιαία έκλαμψη ευφυΐας (κόβω κάτι, οκ), γιατί μπορώ να προσθέσω στα βιβλία του 2019 ένα διαμαντάκι.

Ο Μπρυκνέρ με αυτό το δοκίμιο καταπιάνεται με το μίσος της Ευρώπης για τον εαυτό της και τη διαρκή αυτολύπηση και διαδικασία αυτομαστιγώματος στην οποία επιδίδεται τις τελευταίες δεκαετίες, αναμασώντας και ενθυμούμενη τις συμφορές που έχει επιβάλει στην ανθρωπότητα ανά τους αιώνες και παραβλέποντας τα επιτεύγματά της. Μεταμελείται για το ευρωπαϊκό δουλεμπόριο και την αποικιοκρατία χωρίς να υπολογίζει ότι η ίδια πρώτη κατήργησε τη δουλεία και εμφύσησε στους αποικιοκρατούμενους λαούς τις αξίες με βάση τις οποίες αυτοί αποτίναξαν την αποικιοκρατία. Μας λέει ο Μπρυκνέρ:

"Ένας πολιτισμός σαν της Ευρώπης, ικανός για τις χειρότερες θηριωδίες όπως και για τα υψηλότερα επιτεύγματα, δεν μπορεί να βλέπει τον εαυτό του μονάχα μέσα από το πρίσμα της κατάρας: αν η Ευρώπη διακατέχεται από ένα πραγματικό 'γενοκτονικό πάθος', είναι επίσης εκείνη που επέτρεψε να εννοήσουμε ορισμένα εγκλήματα ως γενοκτονίες, είναι εκείνη που, μετά το 1945, αποστασιοποιήθηκε από την ίδια της τη βαρβαρότητα για να δώσει σε αυτή τη λέξη ένα συγκεκριμένο νόημα διακινδυνεύοντας να δει την κατηγορία να στρέφεται εναντίον της."

Ταυτόχρονα, παίρνοντας πάνω της όλη την ευθύνη, η Ευρώπη ντύνει τους άλλους λαούς με ένα μανδύα απόλυτης αθωότητας, πλήρους ανευθυνότητας για τη μοίρα και την τύχη τους. Χωρίζει τους λαούς σε αθώους και ενόχους και κρατά για τον εαυτό της το ρόλο του θύτη. Ταυτόχρονα, αυτή η μοιρασιά της επιτρέπει να περιορίζεται στην ενοχικότητα για να μη λαμβάνει δράση. Οι "άλλοι", στο πλαίσιο της πολυπολιτισμικότητας, την οποία ο Μπρυκνέρ επικρίνει έντονα, έχουν την ακτινοβολία του αυθεντικού, του αμόλυντου. Οι μειονότητες μετατρέπονται σε μουσειακά είδη προς διατήρηση και προφύλαξη από την "κακή Δύση", κάτι που δεν επιτρέπει την ενσωμάτωσή τους και την δημιουργία μιας κοινής συνείδησης στη βάση της κοινής μας δημοκρατικής κοινωνίας, καθώς η ταυτότητα υπερισχύει του κοινωνικού δεσμού.

Πρέπει να αποτινάξουμε την τυραννία της μεταμέλειας, κατά τον Μπρυκνερ, και να δούμε μπροστά. Σε συνεργασία με την Αμερική, την άλλη μεγάλη δημοκρατική δύναμη, να πατήσουμε γερά στα πόδια μας, όχι ξεχνώντας αλλά ούτε και ενοχικά, και να πάρουμε θέση, να αφήσουμε πίσω μας την εσωστρέφεια. Και καταλήγει:

"Το πιο ωραίο δώρο που μπορεί να κάνει στον κόσμο η Ευρώπη, είναι να του προσφέρει το διερευνητικο πνεύμα που συνέλαβε εκείνη και που τη διέσωσε από τόσους κινδύνους. Είναι ένα δώρο δηλητηριασμένο, αλλά απαραίτητο για την επιβίωση της ανθρωπότητας."

Ένα πολύ ωραίο βιβλίο που αξίζει να διαβαστεί - γιατί εδώ που τα λέμε δεν το περιγράφω και τόσο πετυχημένα.

[Szplug · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quite excellent in its erudite and stinging execution, this necessary essay expounding upon the modern era's debilitatingly pervasive Cult of Culpability, and its attendant spiritual morbidity, aligns itself remarkably well as a complementary companion piece to Walter Russell Mead's God and Gold. Much as in the work that I've read of Chantal Delsol, Bruckner, a kindred French thinker, focusses the majority of his powers of observation upon his homeland—yet not only does his gaze allow itself to broaden and encompass modern Europe and its transatlantic kin, but the symptoms, malaise, and remedies that he espies in a troubled and torporific France can, through a medial extension, apply themselves, in varying degrees, to a considerable number of those democratic states that espouse the values birthed in the Enlightenment and are either located in, or descended from, the Western part of Europe.

The list of crimes and horrors enacted by the West over the past several centuries—endemic warfare and destruction, culminating in the unprecedented, still barely conceivable, slaughter of the Two World Wars; the exploding of two atomic bombs; the near extermination of the aboriginal inhabitants of three continents; the enslavement of millions of African blacks; an exploitative global imperialism; the rapacious spoilage of nature's bounty; the brutal political tyrannies of Fascism and Communism, and the actualizing of genocidal ideations leading up to the hell-on-earth of the Holocaust; the long subjugation of women as second-class, and homosexuals as invisible, citizens—is one both lengthy and appalling, and the shame and guilt they have brought upon its denizens was, and is, deserved and necessary. What Bruckner sets out to explain is that this guilt has metastasized, fed on itself, set itself up as the regnant emotion, to the degree that it has become pathological, allowing the Western gaze to be turned ever more limitingly inward, even as its external awareness becomes more abstract, its judgement more permissive, its guiding mores more ethereal.

In this donning of the mantle of eternal self-condemnation, Bruckner espies an arrogance and narcissism that—once spread outward through imperialism and conquest of supposedly uncivilized peoples and lands—now seeks, in elevating itself to the status of the paradigm of remorseful malefactor, to use such overindulgence to reclaim the former paramount position it held within the world. However unacceptable the deeds of another group or state might be, the West can cry Look at us! We're worse! Who are we to judge you? as it loudly lashes itself, takes its accustomed place upon the global stage, and assumes control of the conversation. Furthermore, the cult of culpability endemically results in the spread and prevalence of the opposing cult of victimhood. Within a nation, eternal victim status sets aggrieved groupings against each other in competition for largesse, usually governmental; and the promissory lure of compensation encourages that victimhood becomes a growth industry. Exterior to the nation, victim status is readily seized upon by other countries or collectivities as serving as a convenient shield against being forced to bear the responsibilities for one's current actions or behaviors. Excessive hubris, excessive victimization, excessive contrition—as in all things, intemperance breeds ill results.

Content to proudly wear the cilice of its trespasses and establish itself as the font of all that is maleficent, its ability and will to identify and confront evil not located within has dangerously atrophied. Self-esteem, confidence, and pride are as vital to a nation as to an individual; the key is to achieve a degree of balance with its antipodal counterparts. In Bruckner's estimation, this balance has tilted inordinately in favor of the latter. While careful to ensure that the facticity of its offenses is always prevalent in the reader's mind, Bruckner wishes to show how both sin and atonement have sprung from the same core values that have fueled the engine of Western civilization for a half millennia:

There is no doubt that Europe has given birth to monsters, but at the same time it has given birth to theories that make it possible to understand and destroy these monsters. Because it has raised the alliance between progress and cruelty, between technological power and aggressiveness, to the highest point since the Conquistadors, because it has engaged for centuries in bloody saturnalia, it has also developed an acute sensibility to the follies of the human species. Taking over from Arabs and Africans, it instituted the transatlantic slave trade, but it also engendered abolitionism and put an end to slavery before other nations did. It has committed the worst crimes and given itself the means of eradicating them. The peculiarity of Europe is a paradox pushed to the extreme; out of the medieval order came the Renaissance; out of feudalism, the aspiration to democracy; and out of the church's repression, the rise of the Enlightenment. The religious wars promoted secularism, national antagonisms, promoted the hope of a supranational community, and the revolutions of the twentieth century promoted the antitotalitarian movement. Europe, like a jailer who throws you into prison and slips you the keys to your cell, brought into the world both despotism and liberty. It sent soldiers, merchants, and missionaries to subjugate and exploit distant lands, but it also invented an anthropology that provides a way of seeing oneself from the other's point of view, of seeing the other in oneself, and oneself in the other—in short, of separating oneself from what is near in order to come closer to that from which one is separated.

Our Enlightenment values may have revealed themselves as carrying a venom within—but they have simultaneously been shown to also bear an antitoxin for that poison. We should make use of this fact not to shoulder all of the blame for the ills of the world, excusing non-Western nations for their excesses and crimes out of the embarrassed knowledge that we have done the same (or worse); rather, we ought to stand firm in requiring that such realms admit themselves to the same processes of self-reflection, -responsibility, and -improvement. For all of its myriad faults, the West has evolved a societal standard of personal liberties, tolerance, and the rule of law; imperfectly conceived and realized, to be sure, but a commonality within its constituent nations. It ill-behooves such foundational values to wallow in culpability to the degree that it paralyses the West from reproaching others when they abuse those rights against their own citizenry or neighbors—or are brought as a barrier to set against Western values by those who have immigrated into the countries from which they first arose.

Aye, the multicultural issue. Bruckner is fearless in wading full into the touchiest topics of our time: the aforementioned and identity politics; the Israeli-Palestinian quagmire; the War on Terrorism; fundamental Islam and its anti-modernity; the accommodations with authoritarian China, Russia, and the Middle East; the failures amongst the former colonial nations of Africa; and the enduring conflict between the Old World and the New World over how to deal with all of the above. Bruckner's analysis and opinions of each is too complex to delve into with justice in a review. But as an example, he sees in Europe's white-hot condemnation of Israel one that is out of proportion to both the Jewish state's size and offenses. Fully acknowledging Israel's enduring injustices to the Palestinians, he yet sees a disturbing tendency to equate Israel carte-blance with the Nazi regime, a trend the author believes stems from the desire of select European nations—France foremost—to purge themselves of their guilt over complicity in the treatment of Jews in the Second World War by retroactively proving the Jews deserving of their fate, and the transmission of a hatred of Liberal Capitalism—shorn of appropriate Third World or Proletarian movements to be infused with such—into the heart of its Western outpost within an Islamic milieu that (some parts of) the West believes it lacks the moral authority to confront.

It is this atrophied will that Bruckner would like to see addressed; in effect, he desires that the Old and New Worlds work continually and supportively together, rather than at odds, in order that Europe might gain the United States' ability for self-reflection without a diminishment in capacity to act firmly, and that the US might simultaneously come to accept the need to tame its pride and accept certain limitations to its ability, and the desirability, of it being the decider-in-chief of the world. Both civilizations need to work to balance their current spiritual constitution, that they might help the process—one that will require patience and time to be effected—of encouraging those nations who oppose them to adopt the Enlightenment-derived values that will influence them to curb their own abuses, allow internal changes and improvements the room to evolve, and bring themselves into some means of accommodation with an interconnected world. And for France itself, the author wishes that it might develop some of the Anglo-American dynamism that allows them to comparatively embrace the free market economic system that has spread across the globe, in order that its young populace might show more ambition than to compete for bloated government jobs with guaranteed income and pension; abstain from its slow sinking into the status of museum of civilization; refuse to patronizingly coddle its disaffected minorities and work instead towards addressing a culture that continues to discriminate against the new and unfamiliar; that its Leftist elements might proves less conservative, and its Conservative elements less radical in the peculiarly paradoxical state of affairs that comprises the modern French polity.

One does not need to agree with everything that Bruckner brings to the table in The Tyranny of Guilt. In addition to lacking the detailed knowledge of modern France sufficient to fully gauge the accuracy of the situations therein that he describes and decries, I have certain quibbles or problems with his purview regarding multiculturalism, the assimilation of immigrants, and the exhausting Israeli-Palestinian perma-crisis. And while the excesses of identity politics can be and are debilitating, in many cases their existence was vital to keeping their issue(s) at the forefront of Society's short attention span—the tyranny of Guilt has a sibling in the Majority that can prove just as endemic and enfettering. However, Bruckner is concerned, at heart, with excesses, and I found myself agreeing throughout with his elegantly stated, impassioned, and wittily limned prose. The Tyranny of Guilt is an affliction that easily devolves to the individual. I know that my life is one where an oppresively excessive burden of guilt, an unceasing self-hatred that is, perforce, the malignant outgrowth of a terribly metastasized self-love, has deformed my personality and restricted my life in ways that I can acknowledge but have proven incapable (perhaps unwilling) to address. The reality of guilt's tyranny is something I have an acute awareness of—and so when I encounter Bruckner's application of it to a higher and broader collectivity, I can both accept what he states as true while drawing an even deeper and fuller understanding of it from his brilliantly constructed arguments. Not the happiest of tomes to read, but an important one.

[Blair · Rating 4 out of 5]

Think of this book as a work of philosophy. A French intellectual is challenging the thinking of his contemporaries who chose to deride the accomplishments of their own culture. The writing is very French – not only is it about the perspective as seen from France, but the writing style itself is very florid. Personally I thought some of it was very eloquent. It seems many people disagree with me and found it difficult to read.

He is not attacking irrelevant straw men. These intellectuals are the people who are teaching our children that the West is the source of all oppression with a litany of victims, and their ideas are creeping into mainstream society. It is important to challenge this thinking, and this work, read properly, can make a useful contribution.

Rather than try to summarize his entire argument, I will drop a few quotes so you can get a feel for his writing style and some of the ideas he explores. Lets start at the beginning:

“Repent! That is the message that, under cover of its proclaimed hedonism, Western philosophy has been hammering into us for the past half-century— though that philosophy claims to be both an emancipatory discourse and the guilty conscience of its time. What it injects into us in the guise of atheism is nothing other than the old notion of original sin, the ancient poison of damnation. In Judeo-Christian lands, there is no fuel so potent as the feeling of guilt, and the more our philosophers and sociologists proclaim themselves to be agnostics, atheists, and free-thinkers, the more they take us back to the religious belief they are challenging. As Nietzsche put it, in the name of humanity secular ideologies have out-Christianized Christianity and taken its message still further.”

Here is an idea that I have not fully considered before – our progressive intellectuals are imprisoned by the worst ideas from our past. They are merely re-enacting the old medieval play while changing the names of the actors. For example, that which is supposed to be criticism really amounts to confession:

“Critical thought, at first subversive, turns against itself and becomes a new conformism, but one that is sanctified by the memory of its former rebellion. Yesterday’s audacity is transformed into clichés… There is no artist, no journalist, no actor who does not claim to be subversive, especially if he or she receives a government subsidy.”

Martyrdom has now been recast as being on the receiving end of oppression:

“Suffering gives one rights, it is even the sole source of rights, that is what we have learned over the past century. In Christianity, it used to generate redemption; now it generates reparations.”

An important point he raises is that the celebration of victimhood (the meek shall inherit the Earth) locks people into that role. It is merely a recasting of our discredited attitude of superiority:

“This culture of apologies is above all a culture of condescendence. Nothing authorizes us to divide humanity into the guilty and the innocent, for innocence is the lot of children, but also that of idiots and slaves. A people that is never held accountable for its acts has lost all the qualities that make it possible to treat it as an equal.”

Whose interest does all this really serve?

“Multiculturalism may ultimately be nothing more than a legal apartheid in which we find the wealthy once again explaining tenderly to the poor that money won’t make them happy: let us shoulder the burden of freedom, of inventing ourselves, of the equality of men and women; you have the joys of custom, forced marriages, the veil, polygamy, and clitoridectomy.”

Finally, he suggests that our supposed caring about others is really an act of self-indulgence:

“There still remains, to quench their thirst for the absolute, a final noble savage: the Palestinian. He is the great Christ-like icon, the oppressed of the oppressed, whose beatification has been proceeding for the past thirty years. And the fact that his situation has hardly improved makes it possible to keep alive the revolt he incarnates.”

The author makes it clear that he is well aware of the real injustices suffered by the Palestinians. His point is that we do not actually care about them as real people:

“People who support the Palestinians are not hoping to aid flesh-and-blood human beings but pure ideas. Intellectuals, writers, and politicians are not so much engaged in inquiring into a specific antagonism as in settling accounts with Western culture. The actual fate of millions of men and women subjected to daily humiliation and precarious living conditions is of little importance. We are pursuing our own mythologies in a foreign theater.”

The writing is provocative. It is meant to be. He is trying to puncture our own mythologies. But he also has a positive view about how we should acknowledge and overcome that which we regret about our past:

“The best victory over the exterminators, torturers, and slave traders of yesterday is the coexistence that is now possible among peoples and ethnic groups that prejudices and mentalities previously declared to be incompatible, it is that formerly dominated people are now treated as equals and engaged in a collective adventure.”

Not everyone likes the book. This review observes that he is sometimes loose with his facts. Taken literally, it is unnecessarily polarizing. However, I read it as philosophy, a source of ideas, rather than an objective documentary about the Western intellectual landscape. It is food for thought, not the gospel. I am glad I read it.

[Tristram Shandy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Paternalisme de la mauvaise conscience

Was aufgrund seines vergleichsweise geringen Umfangs zunächst aussah wie ein schnell zu lesendes Werk, entpuppte sich für mich recht bald als eine intellektuelle Konzentrationsübung, die lange Nachdenkpausen erforderte, dafür aber angesichts der hier aufgezeigten Zusammenhänge genügend intrinsische Motivation zum Durchhalten bot. Pascal Bruckners Essay La Tyrannie de la pénitence. Essai sur le masochisme occidental ist keine leichte Kost – schon allein deshalb nicht, weil der Autor zu einem leicht ausufernden Stil neigt –, aber unbedingt empfehlenswert, denn er legt den Finger in eine Wunde, die nur allzu offensichtlich ist:

Der Westen, Europa allzumal, hat die Lust an sich, das Selbstvertrauen verloren und übt sich in einer Kultur der permanenten Selbstanklage, die verheerende Folgen für unsere liberalen Werte und auch die Demokratie an sich haben kann.

Ich will in dieser Rezension nur einige Punkte herausgreifen und diese kurz umreißen und auch aus dem französischen Kontext, auf dessen Grundlage Bruckner vor allem argumentiert, herauslösen. Dieser Schuldkomplex erscheint beispielsweise in der wohlfeilen Anti-Haltung gegenüber der Politik und Kultur der USA sowie im Umgang mit dem islamisch motivierten Terrorismus in einem deutlichen Licht. Bruckner zeigt ein sehr überzeugendes Beispiel für diese Geisteshaltung, indem er Jacques Derrida zitiert, wobei er nebenbei auch noch überzeugend darlegt, wie es die Dekonstruktivisten, ähnlich wie die Richter der Heiligen Inquisition als Vertreter einer außer Kontrolle durch jegliche Vernunft geratenen Ideologie, verstehen, einen Begriff so zu zerlegen, daß er schließlich keine scharfe Bedeutung mehr hat und scheinbar folgerichtig auf andere Zusammenhänge bezogen werden kann. Hierbei handelt es sich dann aber wohl kaum mehr um Philosophie, die ja von der Klarheit ihrer Begriffe lebt, sondern lediglich um perfide Taschenspielertricks.

»’Et puis le terrorisme’, explique Jacques Derrida à propos du 11 Septembre, ‘est-ce
que cela passe seulement par la mort ? Ne peut-on terroriser sans tuer ? Et puis tuer, est-ce nécessairement ‘faire mourir’, est-ce que ‘laisser mourir ‘, ne pas vouloir savoir qu’on laisse mourir (des centaines de millions d’êtres humains de faim, du sida, de non-médicalisation etc.) ne peut faire partie d’une stratégie terroriste ‘plus ou moins’ consciente et délibérée ? On a tort de supposer légèrement que tout terrorisme est volontaire, conscient, organisé, délibéré, intentionnellement calculé : il y a des situations historiques ou politiques dans lesquelles la terreur opère, si on peut dire, comme d’elle-même, par le simple effet d’un dispositif, en raison des rapports de force en place, sans que personne, aucun sujet conscient, aucune personne ne s’en sente consciente ou ne s’en porte responsable. Toutes les situations d’oppression sociale ou nationale structurelles produisent une terreur qui n’est jamais naturelle (qui est donc organisée, institutionelle) et dont elles dépendent sans que jamais ceux qui en bénéficient n’aient à organiser des actes terroristes et ne soient traités comme des terroristes.’ »

Mit anderen Worten, die westlichen Gesellschaften – nein, die Menschen, die in ihnen leben, so deutlich sei es einmal gesagt – sind in dieser Lesart die Urheber und Nutznießer eines strukturellen Terrorismus und haben somit jegliches moralische Recht verwirkt, sich entsprechend gegen den Terrorismus, der am 9. September über die USA hereinbrach, zur Wehr zu setzen. Diese steile These fußt allerdings auf einer sehr weiten Auslegung des Wortes „Terrorismus“, die kaum noch etwas mit seiner Ursprungsbedeutung zu tun hat. Willkommen in der Wortspielwelt des Dekonstruktivismus!

Eine ähnliche von Selbstbezichtigungen getragene Vogel-Strauß-Haltung attestiert Bruckner den Vertretern eines unreflektierten Multikulturalismus, der es den liberalen, aufgeklärten Stimmen innerhalb nicht-autochthoner Minderheiten schwierig macht, sich gegen Fundamentalisten, die sie nicht selten sogar an Leib und Leben bedrohen, durchzusetzen und dazu beizutragen, daß die Angehörigen dieser Minderheiten an den Errungenschaften der westlichen Welt partizipieren und auf ihre Weise in der Mehrheitsgesellschaft ankommen können:

»L’islam fait partie du paysage français et européen, il a droit à cet égard de la liberté de culte, à des lieux de prière corrects et au respect. A condition qu’il respecte lui-même les règles républicaines et laïques, ne réclame pas un statut extra-territorial, droits spéciaux, dérogation de piscine et de gymnastique pour les femmes, enseignement séparé, faveurs et privilèges divers. »

Hamed Abdel-Samad und Seyran Ateş würden Bruckner wahrscheinlich für diese klaren Worte danken.

Meinen Kindern sage ich oft, daß es am einfachsten sei, sich selbst die Schuld zu geben, wenn irgendwo ein Konflikt oder ein Problem auftaucht – am einfachsten deshalb, weil einem dann in der Regel niemand widersprechen und man nicht in die Verlegenheit kommen dürfte, einer Sache wirklich auf den Grund zu gehen und einen notwendigen Strauß auszufechten. Ob es auch am zweckmäßigsten sei, füge ich jedesmal hinzu, bleibe einmal dahingestellt. Diesen Gedanken finde ich auch in La Tyrannie de la pénitence wieder, beispielsweise dann, wenn der Verfasser nach den Gründen des westlichen Schuldkomplexes fragt, der unsere Gesellschaft dazu bringt, ihre eigenen Werte nicht nachdrücklich genug zu verteidigen. Bruckner sieht in diesem Zusammenhang nicht nur die Überzeugung am Werke, der Westen habe wirklich in der Geschichte der Menschheit unvergleichliche Grausamkeiten begangen – bei aller berechtigten Kritik muß man sich freilich auch vergegenwärtigen, daß er die Geburtsstätte von Menschenrechten, Demokratie und Individualismus ist und daß er mithin den wertvollsten Beitrag zur Menschheitsgeschichte geleistet hat –, sondern er sieht als eine der Wurzeln des Schuldkults auch den Unwillen des modernen westlich geprägten Menschen, Verantwortung zu übernehmen, sich Fährnissen und Herausforderungen zu stellen und im Zweifelsfall auch Opfer zu bringen für eine Sache, die über die eigene private Lebenswelt und ihre Bequemlichkeit hinausweist. Hiermit will Bruckner keinesfalls einem blinden Kulturimperialismus das Wort reden, sondern seine Leser dazu aufrütteln, sich der positiven Seiten und der Errungenschaften der westlichen Kultur zu besinnen und diese, wo es notwendig ist, zu verteidigen und dafür zu sorgen, daß jeder, der es möchte, auch in ihren Genuß kommen kann.

[sarah · Rating 1 out of 5]

What started as a decent and well-constructed study on the feelings of shame and guilt of Europe turned out to be a biased, narrow-minded read spewing hatred towards islam and eulogizing zionism and the Zionist Construction. Eloquently written, regarding the content however it is too many times inaccurate and not much worth.

[Uxküll · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lucid and prescient would be the best way to describe this short book/essay. Despite his egalitarian/pluralist bent Pascal Bruckner does not, as many liberals, turn a blind eye to the dubiousness of the Western guilt complex.

He does not accept it as dogma prima facie that 'The West' is guilty in an unqualified sense, nor does he accept the pious pleading for absolution as a necessary or desirable phenomenon amongst our peoples.

References to important thinkers: Nietzsche, Lichtenberg, Thucydides, etc., abound in the book, and are referenced well.

Well worth the read despite the somewhat regrettable re-affirmation of 'democracy' and 'pluralism', as if those help us in any sense. Any intensification of more of the same will do us no good I'm afraid...

[Sasha Ambroz · Rating 3 out of 5]

Давно мені так не хотілося дискутувати із книгою, як із цією.
Коротко: "Тиранія каяття" Паскаля Брюкнера, письменника із так званої хвилі "Нових філософів" - це трактат про європейський (переважно французький) образ сучасного мислення, який у оберненні та зациклюванні на минулому призводить до руйнування сучасності та майбутнього Європи.
Брюкнер жаліється щодо речей, які загалом турбують дуже так званих правих (я кажу "так званих", тому що, як на мене, це вже перетворилося на самоназву). Найбільше він побивається через так звану ревізію історії. Занурення в минулі помилки, каже Брюкнер - це ходіння по колу, з якого неможливо вийти, тому давайте все залишимо, як є, і тоді ми зможемо рухатися далі. You can imagine all the words I was muttering at the book in these moments. Не подобаються Брюкнеру і знесення пам'ятників. Їх ставили тоді, в минулому, каже він, не нам їх знімати. Думаю, цей момент дуже "заходить" українській аудиторії.
В історичних розділах автор дуже часто протирічить собі або говорить ну прям дуже контроверсійні речі. Наприклад, один з розділів він починає зі щирого обурення. Уявляєте, син бомбардувальника, який скидав бомби на німецьке місто, зараз збирає гроші на його відновлення. Яке лицемірство! І тут я якось навіть не знаю, що сказати. Хай натомість він плюне в обличчя німцям? Сяде в літак і розбомбить те, що не добомбив батько? Що не так роблять кляті ліберали? (с).
Або у розділі про Голокост Брюкнер взагалі йде берегів і каже, цитую: справжній ревізіоніст - це не той, хто не вірить в Голокост.
Брюкнер одночасно звинувачує Європу в забуванні свого кривавого минулого, автор називає це замилуванням демілітаризованною історією, і в той же час надмірним побиванням через минулі військові та колоніальні звитяги. Не можна дивитися на колоніалізм лише через призму пригноблення, радить Брюкнер, адже в ньому були і позитивні моменти, наприклад, він навчив поневолені народи боротися за свої права та свободи (це один з найбільших wtf моментів в цій книжці, але не найбільший).
Багато Брюкнер говорить і про замикання меншин в ґетто їхньої ідентифікації. Якщо ти постійно пишатимешся тим, що ти чорний/гей/ром/жінка, то це робить з тебе жертву і не дозволяю тобі рухатися вперед, уникати майбутніх загроз притиснення. Натомість пишатися тим, що ти француз Брюкнер дозволяє і навіть дорікає сучасним французам, що вони не дуже ідентифікують себе громадянами великої країни.
Натомість, в отруєних лібералізмом (Брюкнер навіть неіронічно каже "клятим лібералізмом", хоча згодом жаліється, що у Франції лібералізм винуватий в усьому, але ніхто достеменно не знає, що таке цей лібералізм), так от, в занадто ліберальних спільнотах дійшло вже до того, що меншинам можна те, що для інших громадян зась. Наприклад, і тут знову цитата: "У США гомосексуалістів за рідкісними винятками не можна звинуватити в сексуальних домаганнях" (ось він, найбільший wtf-момент).
Французам від Брюкнера дісталося найбільше, це найменш суперечливий для мене розділ, як і частина про сучасний Ізраїль та те, як на діях цієї країни зосереджений масовий хейт, а на надмірно агресивні дії інших країн світова спільнота не дуже звертає увагу.
Є також і моменти, яким хочеться аплодувати. Брюкнер каже, що страх перед війною та безперервне каяття за помилки минулого призводять до безуспішних спроб замиритися з тими, з ким соромно сідати срати на одне поле. В написаному в 2006-му тексті він влучно пише: "Якщо завтра Владімір Путін накладе свої лабети на балтійські країни, загарбає Грузію або утвердить у Молдавії режим, що лизатиме йому халяви, Західна Європа одностайно вигукне: "Призволяйтеся!"
Брюкнер дуже багато пише про самоізоляцію Європи, бажання відкупитися чи відхреститися від війни, зворушливе західноєвропейське бажання заховати голову в пісок від проблем навколишнього світу, загалом все те, на що бідкався ще Шпенглер. Але знесення пам'ятників ("вони спорожнять всі музеї!", хапається за голову Брюкнер, маючи на увазі, звичайно, повернення викрадених цінностей з музеїв європейських до музеїв країн, звідки їх було викрадено такими корисними колонізаторами) та перегляд історії його лякає більше, ніж пасивна політична позиція. Цікаво читати це і дивитися на сусідню країну, де історію переглядати відмовляються, і тому Сталін залишається ефективним менеджером та стає "комфортним чєлом" для маленьких "лібералів".
Коротше да, в мене підгоріло сильно від цієї книжки, але прочитати її було дуже корисно.

[Jim Coughenour · Rating 4 out of 5]

From existentialism to deconstructionism, all of modern thought can be reduced to a mechanical denunciation of the West, emphasizing the the latter's hypocrisy, violence, and abomination. In this enterprise the best minds have lost much of their substance.

Thus begins Pascal Bruckner's entertaining, occasionally brilliant denunciation of the denunciators – who are, more or less, all of us.

It would be easy to lump Bruckner in with disillusioned Anglo-American liberals such as Paul Berman or Christopher Hitchens (in his Iraq-invasion cheerleading guise) but the temptation should be resisted. "Iraq was an exemplary case of the double bind: whether one approved of the intervention or not, one was wrong." Hard to imagine Hitchens writing that. Bruckner's analysis is subtler, more spritely – as you'd expect from the author of Perpetual Euphoria and Bitter Moon. His polemic is directed at whole pantheons of intellectuals, historians, commentators, journalists, at all the "masochists" who hate themselves more than they love others, who refuse to hold other cultures and societies to the same standards by which they condemn their own.

Bruckner is hardly the first to make this argument, but few have made it better. I did find it strange that he made no mention of The Betrayal of the West by Jacques Ellul, published a generation ago. An enterprising reviewer (not me) could provide a point-by-point comparison of the two books; in fact, in his central argument, Bruckner merely updates and re-frames Ellul. Neither has any intention of excusing the crimes of the West; they accept those as given. But each wants to defend values that have taken centuries to achieve even if those values have just as often been betrayed. "Nowhere else did anyone discover the astounding truth that is peculiar to man: he is a maker of history, history understood as the expression of freedom and of man's mastery of events, nature, and his own social life. This conception of history is characteristic of all western thinking, whether rightest or leftist." (Ellul) "Freedom is not a crusade, it is a proposition." (Bruckner) "The situation of the West brings with it a crushing responsibility – and perhaps a crushing guilt," writes Ellul. But masochism solves nothing. Culpability "provides an alibi for our abdication," Bruckner concludes. "Crime will always exceed the possibilities of pardon, and memories will always be too numerous: the dead will not be avenged or sufferings amended, wounds closed.... Only history, oral or written, can give these millions of dead the tomb they deserve."

Everyone will find plenty to argue with in this book, but it's bracing in the best sense, free of the poison of partisan politics, exemplary in its exercise of critical thought and imagination.

[John David · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a powerfully argued, in many ways persuasive, intelligent book that I thought I would end up disliking because of Bruckner’s reputation as a political gadfly in Europe. The subject of the book would also put off a certain kind of American reader who might openly identify with the terms “liberal” or “progressive.” In a time when the French thinker can sometimes be more identified with the obscurantism of someone like Jean Baudrillard, Bruckner much more closely resembles someone like Raymond Aron – which would position him, politically at least, as a moderate in the United States, and on the far right (especially in academic circles) on the Continent.

At the heart of Bruckner’s book, he makes claim that is not meant to provoke so much as it is to get people thinking: Europe has spent too much of the twentieth century apologizing for its mistakes (fascism, the Holocaust, the horrors of Communist) instead of carving out a new path for itself by learning from these mistakes. This apologizing, he says, can become pathologically debilitating. In a time of bracing secularism, Brucker argues that the guilt of original sin never really left us, but that it has been transmogrified – into guilt at the former atrocities of colonialism, slavery, racism, genocide, and many others. Condemnation has become a kind of new civic religion.

Instead of doing the rational thing, which would consist of a dialectical consideration of both our past crimes and an ongoing effort to both correct for them and ensure that they do not occur again, the West (and he’s particularly talking about western Europe here) reverts to a kind of childish narcissism whereby the only way we can savage any shred of former international importance is to wallow in past atrocities.

Whether or not you agree with Bruckner’s thesis, and I had the feeling that I would learn and appreciate it a lot less than I actually did – his writing, even the translation, is extraordinarily well-crafted and his writing convincing. A few of his more minor assertions – like his claim that Baudrillard was positively giddy at the bombing of the Twin Towers on 9/11 – struck me as dubious. The general themes, however, brought me on board more than I expected them to. This is said too often, and of too many writers, but its true of Bruckner: whether you agree with him or not, you’ll certainly come away from this book having been challenged – and done so by a writer who, while far outside the European political mainstream of the intelligentsia, eschews extremism and intelligently questions even his own assumptions.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting book where Western guilt over colonialism, genocide, slavery, racism, fascism and European procrastination and remorse has weakened it. He argues America acts decisively. Written in 2006 the world has moved on.

Russia, China and media oligarchs successfully removed the United Kingdom from the EU. America left Iraq in chaos, abandoned Afghanistan to the Taliban echoing Vietnam. Russia invaded the Ukraine. Trump is likely to be reelected President in 2024. Chaos and hatred will increase.

The book advocates both more cooperation with America and less guilt about the past. To draw a line under slavery and other barbarities and atrocities. Not to forget but to move on without trying to right every wrong.

The French perspective is fascinating with the Algerian aspect and the lack of clarity even now forward. In the last 18 years in Africa China and Russia have supplanted in several African French colonies. What the future holds nobody knows.

I reluctantly agree that ‘Democracies have to be powerfully armed in order not to be defeated by the forces of tyranny.’ However, we need to remember’When fighting a monster, beware of becoming a monster yourself’ (Nietzsche).

[Amari · Rating 1 out of 5]

I read fairly happily until page 31. I thought, until that moment, that perhaps the translation was inadequate to convey the subtleties of Bruckner's arguments, but suspected that the fault lay with Bruckner himself. Indeed it appears to me that he is slightly mad.

The premise here is that the West isn't only bad, and that it's not only Western governments that have inflicted evil. I agree and enjoyed the beginning of this wild and provocative ride. But only sentences after arguing that forcing baguettes on Africans and pudding on Hindus is "using tribalism to practice imperialism", he shows that, despite his hip and all-embracing posturing, he in fact reeks of that all-too-familiar Western superiority. Page 31: Without Caesar and without the "infusion" of Greco-Roman culture into France (was it an "infusion" and not a forced, imperialist infliction because he approves of its high culture in retrospect? There are plenty of examples of Great Cultures practiced by non-Europeans, too...), France would -- get this! -- "have long remained a myriad of tribes with uncouth customs and obscure forms of worship."

I can only laugh, because if I think much further about this abomination, there will be a book-burning in Berlin tonight. I'm wasting neither my time nor a match.

[Pieter · Rating 4 out of 5]

Guilt must be the Christian principle par excellence. Obviously it is a healthy element that helps to discipline both individuals and societies. But as Aristoteles has taught us, a virtue should be moderate. The current European is paralyzed by guilt, masochism and fear. Both the left (Aragon, Chomsky) and Third World countries help to exploit this feeling. The former because they thrive on chaos, the latter mostly for financial reasons. Paradoxically, millions immigrants still want to invade this so-called racist continent.

Bruckner stresses that Europe should not feel guilty for all what happened since the end of its colonial empires. Asian countries have proved to recover very well, while Africa and Middle East use Europe and even USA and Israel to neglect their lack of potential, corruption,...

The European politicians are either too leftist or too cowardish to react against this tendency. Minorities get privileges and are sometimes above the law. Hardly a non-white can be sentenced for being racist. A country is reduced to no more than a group of people residing at some point in time somewhere on the same piece of land. Multiculturalism has created a new form of apartheid that no longer requires a constitution to tie in all its inhabitants. Common values are not required, which makes it hard to impossible to integrate mass immigration (cf. recent Charlie Hebdo murders).

Europe has lost its political will and military power. During the Cold War, it could rely on its Western nephew, which it secretly admires and openly hates. While Europe is risk averse and clinging to its past (not sure whether it should cherish or despise that past too), US is rather confident and forward looking.

I liked particularly the episode on France and its post-WW II feelings of annoyance and regret about its glorious past.

Not sure whether Europe and US are so connected and should be as the author recommends. Bush jr. and Obama seem to have directed their attention to Asia. In my opinion, Europe should first gain confidence and heavily invest in a military and political future. As a strong partner it can look to both United States and Russia to co-operate. But that perspective requires a strong ideological medecine to get cured from that nasty feeling of guilt. Is there any doctor in the room?

[Michael Morgan · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent critique of cultural relativism, western guilt, and multiculturalism. While western society has produced injustices (colonialism, slavery, racism, massacre) it has also produced the antidotes - antislavery and abolition, anticolonialism, the belief in equality before the law, liberty, antiracism. The attitude that guilt over past western injustices should be atoned for by being uncritical towards other cultures is wrongheaded - it is atrophying for ourselves and also takes away the possibility of progress for other societies.

[Aurélien Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

We've been living baffling times. Human Right activists and Humanists of all sides surely are right in agreeing upon one point: from slavery to colonialism, the Western world has been guilty of awful deeds across the globe and for the past centuries. No one denies that, yet... Isn't it bizarre that such criticisms are more often than not turned only against the West, and is not applied to others -political regimes, foreign governments, religions, cultures... The 'others' have often been perceived as 'victims' only, never as executioners themselves. Isn't it telling indeed that whose daring to ignore such intellectual conformism (read: apply the same critical thinking in order to denounce non-Westerners for their own questionable deeds) get themselves quickly put back to order, being labelled, among other insults quickly thrown around, 'racist' or 'islamophobe' (a very interesting term, of which Pascal Bruckner retells the historical background so as to enlighten whose using it lightly...). Such denial and refusal to point fingers at others for their crimes can actually play right into our enemies' hands...

This was written by a Frenchman more than a decade ago; but the writing was on the wall:

'... if tomorrow, God forbids, terrorists were to blow themselves up in the Parisian tube, destroy the Eiffel Tower or destroy Notre-Dame... do-gooders from Right and Left would intimate us to make amend: we've been targeted, so we must be guilty; our aggressors can be nothing but poor destitute at war against our insulting wealth, our lifestyle, our predatory economical system'.

Here's was a baffling state of affair, and the philosophe, in this superb essay reading in one go, offers welcome insights so as to get rid of such moral decaying. He in fact tries to understand why, in Europe especially, instead of being proud and defending Western civilisation and its values, faced by enemies more and more threatening, many are actually turning against themselves to denounce its whole heritage. He reminds, in fact, why the West shouldn't be ashamed of what it is. He also challenges the tenets of whose supporting multiculturalism with a sagacity which will delight anyone standing against racism (read: the real anti-racists, not those defeatists purporting cultural relativism and political correctness).

Going against the grain whereas everything wrong in the world is the sole fault of the Western historical legacy, and a punch in the face of whose who, shamelessly, ally themselves with fanatics of all sorts (be it political regimes or terrorists lauded as 'freedom fighters') under the guise of humanism, Pascal Bruckner delivers here a welcome read!

Of course, there are flaws in his views. For instance, I found him very naïve in his defence of American foreign policies (this was written during the tumultuous Blair-Bush leadership), which he sees as a way to defend Western values against its enemies. Bruckner indeed believed the USA to be the last Western bastion standing proud, as opposed to a Europe on its way out from history. Personally, I don't adhere to this idea of 'a clash of civilisations', nor do I believe American interventionism to have been mainly motivated by ethical reasons.

Nevertheless, here's a welcome read. At least, someone had the guts to stand up and point at many naked Emperors! Political correctness, excessive guilt only applying to some and not others, cultural relativism, the dangerous mindset whereas 'the enemies of my enemies are my allies' and else are nothing but defeatism; and the West deserves better than that.

[Derrick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Quite simply, this book is masterful and eloquent, and it translates beautifully from its original French. Pascale Bruckner's many talents are showcased here: at once, France's leading intellectual is a painter with words, a globalist philosopher, a left-leaning journalist. His tone is kind and compassionate one moment, scathing and sarcastic the next. Ultimately, Bruckner makes a case for unity between America and the European Union, while also detailing the cultural incompatibilities that separate the people of both continents. A recommended read for American conservatives who assume that the entire world loves and respects the United States; ultimately, this read will benefit anyone seeking a realistic view of America's place in the world, and where the nation stands amongst its neighbors, particularly other emerging superpowers.

[Sharon Barrow Wilfong · Rating 5 out of 5]

Pascal Bruckner clearly and successfully articulates my own thoughts and feelings concerning the West's heavy love affair with flagellating itself.

He makes so many good points and I certainly won't attempt to list them all here but a few:

That once upon a time the West had good reason to feel guilty of slavery, racism, genocide, fascism, communism, imperialism etc... but those days are gone. We are still apologizing for events that have happened hundreds of years ago. The most recent events, like segregation and racial discrimination hearken back to the years before affirmative action which was the 1950s. Notice how all the popular movies about racism in the U.S. take place in the fifties or earlier? But according to our culture of Western guilt nothing has changed.

Yes, we have poverty and too many minorities and immigrants living in ghettos, but are the reasons still due to racism and discrimination?

Bruckner gives a resounding "No!" He then elucidates on what actually does hold minorities and immigrants back. It is the tyranny of Western Guilt. Because when the great white west tells African and Middle Eastern immigrants and also racial minorities in the U.S. that "It is all due to the evil white empire that you are degraded." What are you saying? You are calling these people degraded.

What can be more degrading than to make a career of victimhood?

The terrorist threats? The West's fault! Poverty among immigrants? West's fault.

Bruckner's book goes further into citing specific historical sources and also political leaders that have profited by perpetuating this myth and the people that follow along because it makes them feel virtuous while they continue to live in upper scale, segregated neighborhoods, putting their children in private schools while denying minorities who are too poor to pay for these schools the same choice and have to put their children in dangerous, failing public schools and continue to live in gang-ridden neighborhoods.

Bruckner makes an interesting observation about the recent turn against Jewish people, especially in Europe. They were acceptable as victims of the holocaust, and living in ghettos, but once they rose to equal status to the rest of Europe and America and built their own nation, they are the "new fascists" and the Arab nations are Israel's victims.

He points out how Europe enables anti-nationalism because we are not supposed to identify with a particular country anymore but see ourselves as part of a global community. So people gleefully boo during the French national anthem during soccer matches. Algerian immigrants who were born and raised in France wave Algerian flags while never ever intending to step foot in Algeria.

The career of Victim-hood demands that we see ourselves as the tyrannical oppressors of Middle Eastern countries while never contemplating why these same people are desperately trying to get out of their own countries and come to Europe, America and Canada.

He brilliantly points out a fact that the self-flagellates are blind to: that to view yourself as an oppressor or tyrant is to hold yourself as guess what? SUPERIOR! And guess what it also does? Holds your "victims" as INFERIOR.

The results of this Western Guilt is to preserve racial division and create an even greater hostile environment between the different groups than when there was actual discrimination.

An excellent quote from the book:

"It is a mistake to believe that making schoolchildren feel guilty in accord with the principle 'your ancestors enslaved mine' will make them like the idea of human diversity any better or will seem to them anything more than a theatrical artifice.

Just imagine little blond, brunette or curly headed kids coming up to each other on the playground and introducing themselves as descendants of slaves, of colonized peoples, of slave traders, of bandits, of peasants,of beggars."

WHY ASK BOYS AND GIRLS TO MAKE THEMSELVES THE CONTEMPORARIES OF CRIMES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN COMMITTED THREE CENTURIES AGO....WE ARE SUPPOSED CONSTANTLY TO INJECT RAGE AND ANGER INTO THEM...

He goes on to say that perhaps we should simply abolish any kind of statutes of limitations on crimes, give all of us a portfolio at birth of grievances to exploit. That we can go back as "far as the Middle Ages" to "demand justice."

Our present system of white guilt has produced "chronic malcontents" where no one can ever get on with their life and enjoy it. We must either view ourselves as oppressed and be miserable or as oppressors and be consumed with guilt (another form of misery).

Somebody finally put in print what I have been thinking for ever so long.

The book says far more with many historical recitations and I don't agree with everything he says, especially concerning Christianity, which he considers the originator of guilt, at least the Medieval Catholic church, which is an oversimplification and it ignores the gods of pagan countries who had to be constantly appeased in order to avoid destruction.

He says that the Enlightenment threw off religion but retained the mantle of guilt. This is his theory of origins but he can't really substantiate it.

However, his observations of the here and now are compelling and one of the most perspicacious studies on the subject.

[Tony · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lots of incisive phrasing and humor in this very serious book about how Western multiculturalism sells out Western values while denying full personhood to minorities. Protecting minority culture in the West creates "a legal apartheid in which we find the wealthy once again explaining tenderly to the poor that money won't make them happy: let us shoulder the burden of freedom, of inventing ourselves, of the equality of men and women; you have the joys of custom, forced marriages, the veil, polygamy, and clitoridcectomy."

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

The intellectual farts of a French bureaucrat rehashing the school manual as own thoughts. In the end Bruckner's ideas are like asking a soccer star with a childhood experience in tending chicken what an investment bank should do next. A racist text that puts the abstraction of some recent institutions above human beings.

[Dasha · Rating 4 out of 5]

Брюкнерівські тлумачення філософії політичних рішень Європи і США
/
Жодна сила не здатна знищити дух народу чи то ззовні, чи то зсередини, хіба що він сам уже позбавлений життя, хіба що сам уже занепадає. Гегель

[Jacques · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ciekawe spojrzenie, ale moim zdaniem zbyt przesadzone momentami. Warto przeczytać dla skonfrontowania swoich poglądów na obecną Europę.

[the_deepest_black]

"Jeśli jutro Władimir Putin położy swoją wielką łapę na krajach bałtyckich, zaatakuje Gruzję lub narzuci Mołdawii podporządkowane sobie władze, Europa Zachodnia jednym tchem wykrzyknie zapewne: 'Proszę bardzo!'. Jedynie Stany zjednoczone być może zareagują. Można się nad tym użalać, ale wszędzie tam, gdzie ludzie są uciskani i jęczą w kajdanach, wszędzie, gdzie znoszą ciężar tyranii, znowu zwracają się do Ameryki, a nie do Europy".

"W skryty sposób wybito nam zęby, zmieniając barbarzyńców w kupców na rynku lub - co wychodzi na to samo 0 w krytyków rynku: nasi alterglobaliści i wszelkiej maści przeciwnicy utylitaryzmu wciąż kierują się etosem merkantylnym - mają obsesję na jego punkcje , nie mogą się odeń uwolnić. Ich sprzeciw wobec kapitalizmu to przejaw ich podporzadkowania rynkowi, przeciwko któremu kierują całą swoją energię oraz bunt. Takie postepowanie przypomina ateistów, którzy bluźnią przeciwko Bogu, aby pomóc mu zmartwychwstać".

"Przypisując człowiekowi wszystkie nieszczęścia, jakie spotykają nasza planetę, pewnego gatunku ekolodzy dają dowód nieograniczonemu antropocentryzmowi, potwierdzają nasz status jako 'panów i niszczycieli' tego globu. [...] to powrót do skrajnie irracjonalnego prometeizmu [...]".

"Granica oddziela, ale w równym stopniu jednoczy; stanowi drzwi, które się zamyka, ale i kładkę, która łączy; pozostaje otwarta na to, od czego nas oddziela. Trzeba mieć określone miejsce zamieszkania, by się otworzyć na świat, i słusznie, że narody są od siebie oddzielony, by żyć. [...] Nakreślenie własnych granic nie jest aktem wrogości, lecz dobrosąsiedztwa. Aby móc się porozumieć, potrzebny jest dystans, nadmierna bliskość utrudnia widzenie".

"Krytyczny umysł zawsze staje przeciwko sobie i niszczy własne ramy".

Pascal domagał się, by rozum "dostrzegał wroga tkwiącego w nim samym".

"Tam, gdzie nie widać konfliktów, nie ma wolności" pisze Monteskiusz.

"Błogosławieni niech będą sceptycy i niedowiarkowie, jeśli ochłoną i porzucą morderczy zapał swej wiary!".

###

Jules Michelet: "Zbyt dożo wypiłem czarnej krwi umarłych".

"Jak mówił Nietzsche, świeckie ideologie nadały chrześcijaństwu, w imię humanizmu, nadchrześcijański wymiar i przebiły jego ofertę".

"Ludobójstwo tkwi 'w sercu myśli europejskiej' (Sven Lindqvist), a je imperialistyczny charakter jest "biologicznie koniecznym procesem, który zgodnie z prawami natury prowadzi do nieuniknionej zagłady klas niższych". Skoro Zachód 'był w stanie produkować komputery wyłącznie dlatego, że gdzieś indziej ludzie umierali bez możliwości zaspokojenia głodu i innych potrzeb", to wniosek jest jeden: trzeba wszelkimi sposobami przeciwstawiać się jego niszczącej potędze".

"Jako Francuzi możemy dwa tysiące lat później uznać, że zajęcie Galii przez Rzymian było koniec końców rzeczą dobrą i że bez zwycięstwa jakie Cezar odniósł nad Wercyngetoryksem pod Alezją, bez wpływu kultury grecko-łacińskiej na nasze ziemie, bylibyśmy długo grupką plemion o barbarzyńskiej moralności i mrocznych wierzeniach. Podobnie arabskie rządy w Hiszpanii trwające do XV wieku zaowocowały niesłychanym rozwojem cywilizacji [...]".

"Można zarzucić Kościołowi katolickiemu wiele zbrodni. Dotyczy to w szczególności - jak stwierdza historyk Denis de Rougemont - przeprowadzenia pierwszego w historii Europy ludobójstwa; to papież Innocenty III zainicjował w 1209 roku masakrę albigensów [...]".

"Niezależnie od tego, co o tym myślą rozczarowani postępem, wychowanie całego rodzaju ludzkiego, tak jak je sobie wyobraził w XVIII wieku [...] Lessign, nie jest pustym frazesem. Niezbędna była i nadal jest potrzeba cierpliwa praca historii, istnieją opory, które trzeba przezwyciężyć, możliwy jest regres ku tyrani, dlatego trzeba budzić sumienia".

"Nie ulega wątpliwości, że na naszych oczach fabrykowane jest w skali planetarnej nowe przestępstwo myśli, tak jak kiedyś w Związku Radzieckim walczono z wrogami ludu. Trzeba osaczyć lokalnego reformatora, który opowiada się za laickim wymiarem sprawiedliwości i systemem oświaty, ale także zamknąć dziób oponentom, przenieść dyskusję z płaszczyzny intelektualnej czy teologicznej na płaszczyznę karną, jako że wszelki sprzeciw, niechęć i kpina grożą postępowaniem".

"Europie problem palestyński posłużył wyłącznie do tego, by na nowo uprawomocnić bez wyrzutów sumienia nienawiść do Żydów. 'W praktyce Arabowie to nic innego jak kij do tłuczenia Żydów'. [...] Wojnę w Libanie utożsamia się z niemiecką polityką Lebensraumu, przestrzeni życiowej. Strefa Gazy do Auschwitz, podobnie jak Dżanin, syjonizm do ideologia bliźniacza wobec nazizmu".

"Gdyby nie lęk przed uproszczeniami, można by powiedzieć, że w łonie naszych cywilizacji zderzają się dwa marzenia. Jedni chcą wykorzenić ludzką nikczemność za sprawą takich cnót jak dialog tolerancja, ciągłe przypominanie dawnych zbrodni. Inni starają się wykorzystać złą naturę człowieka w służbie społeczeństwa, zachować energię zła, by wykorzystać ją do szlachetnych celów. To twórcze barbarzyństwo [...].

"Europa chce sobie przywrócić dziewictwo, zabijając w symboliczny sposób swą córkę zza Atlantyku, która skupia wszystkie negatywne cechy dawnych ojczyzn (dlatego właśnie antyamerykanizm stał się u nas przepustka do sławy [...]".

"Europa to Holocaust, ale także zniszczenie nazizmu, gułag, ale także upadek Muru, imperia, ale także dekolonizacja, niewolnictwo, ale także jego obalenie; to za każdym razem forma przemocy - wskazana z imienia i nie dość, że pokonana, to jeszcze wyjęta spod prawa".

"[...] to w Europie przez wieki trwały krwawe saturnalia; i to właśnie Europa stała się szczególnie wrażliwa na wszelkiego rodzaju szaleństwa rodzaju ludzkiego. Europa, w ślad za Arabami i Afrykanami, rozwinęła pomiędzy oboma brzegami Atlantyki handel niewolnikami; i to w Europie właśnie narodził się abolicjonizm - tutaj również, wcześniej niż w innych rejonach świata, zniesiono niewolnictwo. Europa popełniła największe zbrodnie i wyposażyła się w instrumenty, by je zwalczyć. Europa jest wyjątkowa, to skrajny paradoks: ze średniowiecznego porządku powstaje renesans, z feudalizmu: dążenia demokratyczne, z prześladowania przez Kościół - oświecenie. Wojny religijne sprzyjały idei świeckości, konflikty między narodami europejskimi - marzeniom o ponadnarodowej wspólnocie, zamorskie podboje - dążeniom antykolonialnym, rewolucje XX wieku - sprzeciwowi wobec totalitaryzmu".

Eric Hobsbawn: "Historia, ściśle biorą historia, w której sami maczaliśmy palce, to zapchany klozet. Spłukujemy i spłukujemy, a gówno mimo to wypływa".

"Ogromna przewaga nieszczęścia nad szczęściem jest taka, że to pierwsze zapewnia określone przeznaczenie".

"W jakimś sensie Trzecia Rzesza to matryca europejskiej historii lub, innymi słowy, jej prawdziwa twarz".

"Głosi się więc, że nazizm zaczął się, gdy biali ludzie [...] po raz pierwszy wylądowali na afrykańskich i amerykańskich wybrzeżach, przynosząc ze sobą śmierć, chaos i zniszczenie. [...] Czy można zatem uznać odbój Algierii za swego rodzaju 'niepokojący precedens' Auschwitz, tym bardziej, że inni uznają za precedens konkwistadorów w Meksyku i Peru, "laboratorium afrykańsko-amerykańskie", złowieszczy podbój Konga przez Leopolda II, króla Belgii, kolonizację Australii przez brytyjskich skazańców lub rzeź Herero dokonaną w Namibii w 1904 roku przez generała Von Trothę?".

"Cała historia to kredyt zaciągany na nasz koszt".

"Polityka tożsamości podkreśla różnice, choć chce promować równość, w imię walki z rasizmem odkopuje stare uprzedzenia związane z rasą i narodowością. Ochrona praw mniejszości to także prawo każdej należącej do nich jednostki, aby się od mniejszości bez trudu odłączyć [...]. Pod pretekstem poszanowania idei różnorodności wprowadza się zarazem podziały w społeczeństwie i rezygnuje z zasady równości, gdyż niektórzy - tylko dlatego, że istnieją - cieszą się przywilejami, które są niedostępne dla innych. W efekcie istnieje odrębna polityka wobec grup zmarginalizowanych, która jest nie mniej restrykcyjna od cechującego je szowinistycznego nacjonalizmu".

mizerabilizm

"To przed skrajną lewicą musimy się tłumaczyć, to ona uniemożliwia rozwój prawdziwej socjaldemokracji, na podobieństwo angielskiej Labour czy rozwiązań skandynawskich: ktokolwiek podejmuje działanie czy tworzy prawo, musi się zmierzyć z tym ideologicznym gorsetem, który zastąpił Kościół i autorytety moralne".

"We Francji nazywa się reakcjonistami tych intelektualistów, którzy wciąż biorą na serio idee oświecenia, przypominają lewicy o jej obowiązkach i nie uważają, że można wyrównać rachunek ze światem dzięki diatrybom wymierzonym w finansistów o kamiennych sercach".

balzakowski krzyk sklepikarzy

klimatyzowany koszmar

"Ludzkość weszła w podwójny proces publicznego wyznania win i niekończących się analiz, co można uznać za powszechny tryumf chrześcijaństwa i freudyzmu".

[Doom Guy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ce livre m’a regardé depuis mes étagères pendant quelques années, car je doutais si j’avais un niveau de français suffisant pour comprendre un essai philosophique tel que celui-là. Néanmoins, j’ai décidé il y a quelques jours que j’aborderai ce livre enfin, et au final ça n'a pas été si difficile que ça. Il y avait quand même des mots ou des phrases que je n’ai pas bien compris, alors j'espère que ma critique ne déformera pas les arguments de Bruckner.

L'idée centrale est la suivante: nous avons trop érodé notre autorité morale contemporaine à cause de nos péchés historiques, en les saisissant comme une réflexion fixe de notre culture, servant à délégitimer nos critiques des régimes malfaisants à présent.
Bruckner propose que l’Occident est parfois détesté, non à cause de ses crimes, mais à cause du fait qu’il ait osé tenter de les amender (= l'idée du progrès moral). Cela a représenté une rupture historique avec la brutalité routinisée, où chaque puissance était responsable d’elle-même, et donc exerçait rarement un jugement moral sur soi-même. L’Occident a développé la notion de la civilisation comme reconnaissance du barbarisme potentiel en soi, un mécanisme d'autorégulation.
Bien évidemment, les développements techno-industriels et socio-politiques ont permis à l'Occident un niveau de pouvoir sans précédent, durant lequel des crimes odieux ont été commis, notamment la traite et l’Holocauste. Bruckner propose qu'il faut reconnaître le passé de manière franche - que nos sociétés ont été (accent sur le temps passé) responsables de la production de ces horreurs, cependant nous devons également tenir compte du fait que nous avons aboli la traite, que nous avons vaincu le fascisme exterminateur.
Il prend comme exemple contrastant le Japon, un pays qui se projette comme fier de son histoire malgré ses crimes. Bruckner fait ici sa distinction du cas européen, disant que nous pouvons être fiers de nous-mêmes "contre nos crimes".
Selon l’auteur, cela nous donne alors une certaine légitimité morale où nous pouvons juger les autres, non en disant que nous sommes des êtres humains plus moraux qu’eux, mais que nous savons à quoi ressemble la civilisation, précisément car nous avons vécu la barbarie à plusieurs reprises, et nous avons pris des mesures concrètes pour éviter la répétition de ces mêmes horreurs. Il met en garde contre le fait de permettre aux régimes autoritaires d’instrumentaliser notre culpabilité contre nous, en nous incitant à détourner le regard de leurs propres crimes.

Lié à cette honte occidentale de nos crimes, Bruckner parle aussi du besoin de retrouver une confiance dans notre projet libéral. Les Européens se sont orientés trop vers le passé, et il vaudrait mieux diriger nos réflexions sur notre histoire vers un projet "d’inauguration permanente" optimiste, plutôt que de craindre le possible du progrès ("L’Europe a une histoire mais l'Amérique est l’histoire"). Cela me semble pertinent à présent car nous voyons qu'à travers l’Europe, la perception d’inaction politique et du manque de vision face aux soucis contemporains est un moteur qui torpille les gens vers les extrêmes politiques.
Bruckner constate que le Vieux Monde préfère la culpabilité à la responsabilité, largement car il est plus facile de coexister avec l’injustice que de véritablement la combattre. Cette mentalité a pour résultat un retrait du monde, un renoncement à notre rôle en tant que démocraties libérales de contester les horreurs contemporaines.

Il soutient que l’Europe a une conception idéaliste des relations internationales mais un pessimisme envers le changement pour le mieux. Au contraire, les États-Unis aperçoivent l'état du monde de manière tragique, cependant ils sont certains qu’ils peuvent améliorer les choses. Bruckner propose que les résultats dangereux sont d’un côté l’immobilisme, et de l’autre l’aventurisme.
Notamment, il parle des projets de "nation-building" américain au Moyen-Orient, mettant en avant les critiques suivantes:
1) La démocratie n’est pas créée à travers des institutions impos��es. La démocratie ce n’est pas juste des mécanismes formels, mais un esprit social, dont le développement prend du temps
2) Le fait que les États-Unis sont tombés dans le piège de Ben Laden, devenant le pouvoir impérial oppressif qu’il voulait qu’ils soient pour ses propres buts idéologiques. En utilisant des méthodes barbares pour défendre leur conception de la civilisation, ils ont commis la grave erreur dont parle Nietzsche. En combattant un monstre, ils sont eux-mêmes devenus plus monstrueux.

Néanmoins, Bruckner n’est pas contre la capacité crédible d’utilisation de force militaire. Il constate que la puissance occidentale peut créer les conditions positives (ce qui n’est pas la même chose que de l’action interventionniste au nom du 'democracy building') pour la démocratisation autour du monde, mais il faut que les puissances autoritaires qui agiraient pour empêcher cela se sentent intimidées, et alors dissuadées. Il met en évidence le cas de la Révolution orange en Ukraine en 2004, qui n’aurait probablement pas été possible si l’OTAN n’avait pas été dans le voisinage pour dissuader une invasion russe à ce moment-là. Le livre a été publié en 2006, donc il n’y a pas de commentaire sur les développements dans la région depuis, mais selon ce qu’il dit ici, j’imagine qu’il dirait qu’une perception de faiblesse euro-atlantique (mais particulièrement du côté européen) a permis à Poutine d’oser prendre la Crimée suite à la Révolution ukrainienne de 2014.

Sa conclusion: la meilleure chose que l’Europe peut offrir au monde, c'est une exportation de son esprit (auto)critique qu’elle a développé et qui l’a, à plusieurs reprises, sauvée des falaises périlleuses de l’histoire.

Quelques idées à part que j’ai trouvées intéressantes:
1) Bruckner dit que l’individualisme (notre envie de s'épanouir selon nos propres conditions) est devenu largement incompatible avec l'idée de mourir pour quelque chose de plus grand que nous. La guerre est hors de notre contrôle, et nous rejetons ainsi d’y participer. Ce n’est pas alors de la lâcheté conventionnelle, mais un sens de vouloir contrôler son propre destin. Ceci explique pourquoi il n'est pas paradoxal que de nombreux Occidentaux risquent leur vie en pratiquant l'alpinisme, car ils s'engagent dans ce "contrat" selon leurs propres conditions. Comme le dit Bruckner: "Pour être tolérable, la souffrance doit être librement décidée, non subie."
2) L'abus de pouvoir de l'Amérique à l'ONU, son refus de ratifier les traités et d'obéir à la CIJ ressemblent aux régimes communistes du passé qui rejetaient la "légalité bourgeoise" en faveur d'une "vérité prolétarienne" convenable (quelque part pire dans le cas des États-Unis, ils ont souvent été un architecte, ou au moins un influenceur des légalités qu'ils rejettent ensuite systématiquement).

La principale réserve que j’ai à l’égard du livre:
Il y avait certains moments où j’ai eu l’impression que cela (écrit en 2006) glissait vers des arguments de proto-'culture war', ce qui, en 2025, devenait un peu lassant.

[Kitty Red-Eye · Rating 3 out of 5]

In some ways, Bruckner is quite a mouthful. Combined with very learned references comes a very polemical style (I'm not sure when I might have read the word "plebeian" used non-ironical earlier, but it's not often and it's not recent). In Norwegian, when someone is put in his place, we say that that someone gets "to know where David bought the beer" - I don't know an English equivalent. In this book, Bruckner tells France, Europe, USA, the West and the rest of the world for good measure, "where David bought the beer". Make no mistake: I rather like it. I find that Bruckner has many good points, about the book's title, "Tyranny of Guilt", about the status of victimhood, and his critisism of multiculturalism is in no way out of place (might he have been one of the first to warn about this?). But the style can get tireing. I would prefer a more argumentative and less polemical book on this extremely important topic. But it certainly isn't the last I've read of neither Bruckner nor the rest of the "new French philosophers" crowd.

[Maksym Karpovets · Rating 4 out of 5]

Достатньо цікава та інколи несподівана збірка відомого французького письменника та есеїста. "Тиранія покаяння" вийшла у відомому російському вид. ім. І. Лімбуха, що спеціалізується на такому типі письма (і не тільки). Тут і легкість подачі матеріалу, і достатньо гостра ерудиція, а також щемкий інколи гумор, оскільки йдеться насамперед про досвід тоталітарних режимів, сліди яких торкались/торкаються українських земель. Найбільш цікавими видались авторські роздуми про долю Європи, зокрема у світлі ісламу. Закономірно, що для французів така ситуація є дуже актуальною, але Брюкнер зумів зберегти середину між лівим обмеженим популізмом та буржуазним староєвропейським затхлим традиціоналізмом. Читати про це дуже цікаво та корисно, за що дякуємо прекрасному перекладу Сергія Дубіна.

"Любой крестный путь когда-нибудь да приводит к искуплению".

Одним словом, рекомендую. Гарний приклад того, як треба писати есе сучасному інтелектуалу у сучасному світі.

[Benjamin · Rating 4 out of 5]

A deeply uncomfortable read in the best possible way. Bruckner challenges left and right on their attitudes towards the West, antisemitism, islamophobia and guilt to make the point that we shouldn't lose sight of the good we've done. Not always convincing, but he does a good job of pushing your buttons.

[JEAN-PHILIPPE PEROL]

Un livre inutile, brulot trop partial et trop haineux dont les quelques bonnes idées sont noyées dans une rage pro- américaine et pro-israelienne qui ne rajoute rien à aucun débat.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

Much wisdom here but not likely to convince those holding opposing views...

[Minäpäminä · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nothing is more western than hatred of the West.

An extended think piece, but wonderful as such. Bruckner champions a moderate answer to the problem of Europe's relationship with the rest of the world. Between war and peace there is politics, and it is the answer, not the passive relativism of the EU nor the aggressive world-policing of the US.

Brimming with bulls-eye aphorism-like stabs, such as: "The rebel used to be a man of the people who wanted to shock the bourgeois; now he is a bourgeois who wants to shock the people." Or, regarding the current fanatical atmosphere of doctrinal correctness: "Nothing comparable, of course, with the 1930s, just enough trouble and suspicion to poison everyday life."

All that said, I'm not convinced it's fair nor even possible to equate existentialism and deconstructionism with Western self-hatred. Bruckner seems to be exaggerating at several other points as well, but he did foresee two (2!) major events with uncanny accuracy: 1) That Europe would do nothing if Russia was to invade Georgia - as happened in 2008. 2) That street-names would start to be changed due to their association with "offensive" historical figures - as has begun to happen just this year. So I have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

All in all a magnificent work of radical centrism, more of an attack on Left-liberals than a defense of any kind of Right.

The democratic ideal is based on the dream of a strong people and a weak government.

[Alex Strohschein · Rating 3 out of 5]

An article in The Chronicle of Higher Education described Pascal Bruckner as the "Gallic Christopher Hitchens," a French intellectual who outside his native country is more admired by conservatives than the left. I appreciated this punchy and eloquent jeremiad; according to Bruckner, Europe has replaced the Christian concept of original sin with the "tyranny of guilt." Europe is awash with remorse over its past crimes and tragedies, eagerly waiting for the next purported victim to come forward so that the continent can beg for forgiveness. However, Bruckner points out that other countries, other peoples, are also guilty of savagery but the West adamantly refuses to point the finger at these non-Western nations. Europe has lost its pride in itself. Bruckner frequently focuses on France itself but he also examines Europe and compares and contrasts Europe with the United States. I think Bruckner does well to lament Europe's loss of self-esteem and to remind readers that cruelty and oppression are universal, not just in Europe and among its imperialist nations. However, after a while I experienced fatigue as Bruckner moves on to discuss issues within France. As well, reading this at the tail end of 2018, when the geopolitical world of the West is very different, one wonders how Bruckner would view Europe today?

[valeria hoffmann · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was a little difficult to me, honestly it was really complicated for me to read that book, however, I do have to say that I learned a lot, so instead of doing a review, I'm gonna write down a list of all of the interesting stuff I noticed and learned throughout the whole reading.

1. Bruckner explores how guilt has become a dominant emotional state in Western culture. He suggests that this guilt is often disproportionate and can lead to a kind of masochism, where individuals or societies inflict suffering on themselves as a form of penance for perceived wrongs. he author examines the roots of this guilt, tracing it back to historical events such as colonialism, slavery, and the Holocaust.

2. It also critiques intellectuals and cultural elites who perpetuate this culture of guilt. He argues that they often promote narratives emphasizing victimhood and moral superiority, which can stifle healthy discourse and personal responsibility.

3. analyzes the rise of what he terms "victimhood culture," where individuals or groups emphasize their status as victims to gain moral authority. He warns that this can lead to divisiveness and hinder genuine dialogue about social issues.