Josep Maria Esquirol: “You can only think truly if you are frank with yourself”

You say: “Simple people have always known it: it is worth resisting. Philosophical reflection arrives late, but it arrives”. Was necessary to break the ice speaking about time (El respirar dels dies) and careful look (El respecto o la mirada atenta), in order to get to resistance and proximity? How do you select the concepts you want to analyse?

These three titles belong to the same research line that could have been named filosofia de la proximitat (nearness proximity) from the beginning. In spite that it is only mentioned in the title of the latest book, the intention to get closer to experience is present in all of them. Instead of elaborating an abstract and omni explicative theory, I wanted to highlight those things that are closer to people and, to some extent, compose peopleʼs basic experiences. In fact, I consider that people connect with this philosophy. However, it isnʼt a simple disseminating discourse, but a dialogue with contemporary philosophy. It is not about giving lessons or recipes. Attention leads you towards the entry; and time and resistance are two of the most radical characteristics of human condition.

The book attacks current times, the equivalent to “the piped music of the seventies and the eighties”, a continuum of information that confuses us, but which has been acceptedby the media in quite a good way. What reasons are there?

There are people who read very well. Luckily, the words and criteria of some people who are part of the media —they write, they speak, they make interviews— are well worth. I think that this is the main reason. Obviously, the media have not censured contents as it would be totally inappropriatetoday. The media accepts criticism, thatʼs good. However, the imperialism of current times is so evident that it is particularly difficult to turn your back on it.

In the chapter “No cedir al dogmatisme de lʼactualitat”, you say: “There are institutions like the University which, instead of remaining out of current affairs, have surrendered to current news with predisposition”. What would be the intimate resistance of the University? And the proximity to be defended? What tools are available?

The idea is: there are things that wear us out, damage us and impoverish us. A way of impoverishment is homogenization. When a situation in which anything matters happens, nothing is worth. Therefore, it is important to pay special attention to popular trends that search for hegemony. The University has been really University when it has been able to maintain the difference, when it has not wanted to mix with the rest of the society, but it has made an effort to keep the difference that brings benefits for everyone. To be at the service of society, the University must not adapt or yield. It must keep the difference in order to contribute to the social transformation, by questioning in a critical way. 

And how can be the essence recovered? Without it meaning to turn away from society. I imagine that one thing is not opposite to the other...

Of course! In fact, to be strict, we do not have to speak about the University on the one hand, and the society, on the other. The society is composed by institutions. When institutions maintain their singularity, the society is rich and not banal or uniform. The school, the University, justice institutions, political institutions... all these institutions must maintain their singularity, their particular features. The more they maintain it, the more mature and healthier would be the society created by all them. This is not taking place now. What must the University do? Just to be more University. Whatʼs the point in so much bureaucracy? In so much empty methodology? In so much showy research? In so much scientific spirit applied to every field of knowledge? And in so much neglect of teaching? The quality of teaching and studying is decreasing —and I say specifically “studying” to not refer only to “research”— because established criteria are common to every place and they only seem to guarantee university quality and scientific nature. The University does not work like that; I am sure because I have been giving lectures for many years, because the University of Barcelona is my home —my second home—, because I have a good relationship with students, and because I devote myself to peopleʼs education. I am able to differentiate between what educates and what produces the opposite effect.

Iʼm talking about the shows where people speak about everything without knowing nearly anything; they are like constant chatter. In our society, there is too much speaking, but little silence and scarce reflection. On the contrary, there is too much uninterrupted and superficial chatter. And to get it worse, those who speak like that are considered “experts”.

The book emphasizes the strength of resistance, of the simple purpose of life, of “getting by” and of “parrhesia”, a particularly beautiful word because it defends rhetoric and opposes to demagogy. Can you explain this a bit more?

Foucault worked with this term, which can be translated as frankness, for many years. After having devoted himself to develop a critic discourse denouncing power and those dominance structures which seem to not exist, he focused himself on some Hellenic schools and the Early Christianity. In philosophy, practice was the priority, in other words, it was the purpose of life. It was important how some people take care of the others, how masters guide and help their students. At that moment, it was not relevant to write a book or have a long CV; the crucial aspect was the relationship between the master and the student. Foucault pays attention to a very simple aspect: frankness. It is fundamental to relate with others freely and not act driven by personal interests. You can only think truly if you are frank with yourself. You can only think about the other if there is frankness.

It is necessary to teach and write about those aspects in which you are truly interested. I do not wonder what could have brougth me more success. I am happy of having done something that is having a social impact, but I wrote this book because I really wanted, because it was the result of a long career and because thatʼs me on it. When you explain or write about what you really love, connection is assured. Moreover, true interest in what you are doing is the best way to create a community. Passion is contagious and it creates a community which shares an interest. This is frankness too.

In your book, you make clear that everything lies on “the way things are done”. Are you speaking about values and principles?

I try to free myself from typical advice and recommendations on how things must be done. However, to share a reflection lead to a better understanding; comprehension leads to a certain attitude and a certain practice. When things are understood in a certain way, your behaviour will be consistent with your understanding. I focus myself on the first part, not on the second, but I consider that the height of the process is in action.

You also stress that “it is revealing that all established powers are getting nervous about a strange presence that is dismantling them without violence”...

When something valuable does not fit in the system, the system gets nervous. A different opinion makes the group feel uncomfortable. Sometimes, marginal situations are fecund and this is what makes the system getting nervous. This is resistance. The person who resists is not the one who escapes or quit, but the one who resists and acts from marginalization. Now imagine that from this marginal position, that person shakes the system. Maybe, he/she does not have a position of power or speakers to make his/her voice louder, but consistency and faithfulness will give him/her strength. In the society of consumption, headlines are fleeting. Frank marginality does not seek a headline; on the contrary, it aims at continuing believing in which is worth and resisting.