Bernard E. Harcourt is a critical theorist and a social justice advocate who tries to confront philosophical thought with political and legal action—and vice versa. He teaches political theory and law at Columbia University and at the École des hautes études en sciences sociales in Paris, and litigates active death penalty, Guantánamo, and right to protest cases. He’s also an editor of Michel Foucault’s lectures in French and English, and of the recent Pléiade edition of Surveiller et punir.
- What is your new book about?
The book, Critique & Praxis, is an urgent call to return critical philosophy to its original and central ambition: to change the world. I realize how formidable, and also presumptuous, that may sound, but I sincerely believe that these times of crisis—practically unparalleled in human history when you consider global climate change—demand that we all, as critical thinkers, turn our attention back to the most pressing question of all: how do we achieve a just society? And not just theorize about what justice is, but actually debate and contest and figure out how we are going to instantiate justice—racial justice, climate justice, economic justice, gender justice, and more. The most recent wave of renewed crises (from the COVID-19 pandemic and its disproportionate impact on persons of color and those who are incarcerated, to the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, and the police violence in response to predominantly peaceful protest) makes it all the more urgent that we address the praxis of justice.
The book, in effect, takes up the ancient tension between theoria and praxis, and urges us to reinfuse philosophical debate with a practical orientation toward changing the world. In the process, I try to lay a theoretical foundation for what I call a “radical theory of illusions,” but I also discuss extensively all the different types of critical practice that exist today to transform society. I explore and critique myriad forms of action, from left populism to civil and political disobedience, to assemblies, occupations, and temporary autonomous zones, to the #BlackLivesMatter movement, to hunger strikes and insurrectional direct action. My objective is to turn our philosophical inquiry onto modes of action, so that we can refocus our attention on what matters most today, in these times of crisis.
- How does this book fit in with your larger research project?
The book grows out of two long-standing research interests, the first concerning theories of illusion, ideology, false consciousness, or knowledge-power, the second concerning modes of governing in contemporary society. I had spent many years, actually several decades, struggling against illusions in a quixotic manner—well, I called them illusions even if others referred to them as ideologies or regimes of truth. My first book was titled Illusion of Order, and there I set out to unmask our dominant faith in order-maintenance, in law-and-order, in theories of broken-windows enforcement—the idea that minor forms of disorder are at the origin of all of our major problems; I showed how the very notion of order is constructed and how our faith in order creates a specter of the disorderly person and redistributes wealth and well-being in society. In another book, The Illusion of Free Markets, I set out to unmask the myth of natural order in economic thought—the idea that there could be such a thing as a “free market” that achieves some kind of equilibrium without any government regulation. There too, I demonstrated how the myth of natural order actually organizes society and hides wealth redistribution. All of that work tended toward a broader theory of illusions, and in this book, Critique & Praxis, I develop that theory as a way to get beyond pure contemplation to action and praxis. I suggest that we need to constantly unmask illusions, but nevertheless act and engage in praxis, knowing that we ourselves may be reconstructing new illusions. But I urge us not to be paralyzed by this, but instead to engage in praxis knowing that we will inevitably, in the future, need to critique our own actions. That ties directly to a second long-lasting research interest, which is how we govern ourselves today in the digital age and the post 9/11 era.
- How do you relate your work to other well-known philosophies?
In this book, I’m trying to renew the meaning of “critical philosophy,” so that it becomes once again “critical” in the sense of addressing a time of crises and seeking to get beyond the crises alive and well. Many philosophers associate the term “critical philosophy” exclusively with Kant and the three critiques. I argue instead that Kant’s critical method pointed in two different directions, almost orthogonal directions, one regarding the task of distinguishing between truth and illusions, the other regarding the conditions of possibility of the present. I propose that it is only the second of these directions that is truly critical, and that it bears a family resemblance to post-structuralist, post-colonial, and queer theory. The result is that a renewed critical philosophy, along the lines I propose in the book, resonates with contemporary critical thought and makes possible this engagement with contemporary forms of resistance, protest, and uprising. Another way to say this is that “critical philosophy” is best understood as the type of radical critical philosophy that was born in the wake of Marx’s eleventh thesis on Feuerbach—regardless of whether one embraces or not (and I do no) his philosophy of history. That is the origin of the modern critical attitude at the root of the ambition of critical philosophy: to change the world. I do not retain the qualifier, “radical,” anymore because I do not believe it is necessary: this method, the one I develop in my book, was always a central strand of critical philosophy. There is no need to add the word “radical,” and thereby disqualify it in the eyes of so many.
- Who has influenced this work the most?
That’s an interesting question! One major influence, actually, was a book by Richard J. Bernstein, Praxis and Action, which I first read in college in around 1983 or 1984. Sheldon Wolin, my thesis advisor, had recommended it to me in connection with my own writings at the time on political violence. Over the course of the next couple of decades, I would often return to that book, feeling that I wasn’t satisfied, but that somehow it contained a key to resolving my problematics. At the time, I was consumed by existential philosophy and the writings and actions of Jean-Paul Sartre, and as I look back on that period, I realize now that Sartre’s persistent way of confronting theory with praxis has had a lasting influence on me. I also did much of the thinking and writing of this book while I was editing lectures by Michel Foucault and writing about his own political interventions, for instance his militancy in the Groupe d’information sur les prisons (The Prisons Information Group). Foucault often spoke in interviews about his relationship to praxis, and although I always felt some resonance, I also often felt that Foucault’s approach nevertheless remained too contemplative or discursive. So, along many dimensions, it was often slight feelings of dissatisfaction that influenced me most. The book developed for me as a counter-point to Foucault, as a counterpoint as well to the Frankfurt School, all the while being in conversation with their writings and approaches to praxis.
- Do you see any connections between your academic work and your professional life?
Yes, certainly. I’ve only mentioned so far the philosophical or theoretical context for the book, but it grows out equally if not more from my years of litigation and political interventions, and my long struggle to reconcile these practices with critical theory. And while I originally tried to keep myself and my litigation out of the book, it became clear to me that it was at the heart of the enterprise. Over time, I realized I could not answer the question “What is to be done?”—that the very question is ill-suited to these times and this era in which we can no longer go around telling others what to do, but instead must turn the question back on ourselves. So eventually, the question I had to pose was “What more am I to do?” And that, of course, turned the question of praxis back onto myself.
It forced me to be far more introspective about my own litigation and political practice. I had represented men on death row in Alabama for three decades, and as I began to reflect on what more I had to do, I began to realize or reimagine my own praxis within the broader arc of abolition democracy, as W.E.B. Du Bois had written—of abolition not only of capital punishment or of prisons, and not only negatively, but of aboltion of our punitive society more broadly and of the positive project of constructing a just society and new institutions. And this ties directly to my professional engagements now.
- Has your work influenced your teaching as well?
Oh my, so directly! This term, in fact, I’m teaching exclusively on the topic of abolition. I am teaching two courses this Fall, one more philosophical about abolitionist movements and practices, and one more practical—it’s actually a “practicum” with an extraordinary colleague who joined me from the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Alexis Hoag—in which we engage in abolitionist legal practice, working with teams of law and undergraduate students on death penalty cases and other litigation and political strategies.
The first course, Abolition 13/13, explores the current social movements for the abolition of the police, of prisons, and of capital punishment within the broader framework of the history of the abolition of slavery, and also studies other abolitionist movements concerning for example the abolition of property, borders, oil, and gender dominance, among other things. We just had the launch of the first seminar, Abolition 1/13, with an incredible set of musical performances, poetry, and visual art by remarkable artists who are presently or formerly incarcerated. The second course, Abolition: A Social Justice Practicum, involves a number of practical sites of intervention, such as death penalty cases, efforts to end qualified immunity, or ways to redress intimate partner violence outside the punitive paradigm.
- What’s next for you?
As I have been thinking more about abolition democracy and, especially, the links between our punitive society and the extractive nature of our economic system today—and the inextricable link between the two—I’ve begun to think more critically about the importance of abolishing one particular form of property, namely equity capital. I’ve been trying to imagine an alternative to the worn utopias of the nineteenth century, a way to construct a future society on the basis of true coöperation. I wrote a short piece about that, in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic plague that has accompanied the pandemic, and I published it in Critical Inquiry. I then began writing a longer text called For Coöperation and the Abolition of Capital, and as I did so, got the same feeling of urgency that I had with the first draft of Critique & Praxis. So I have put that draft up on a similar open access and open review website, in order to get as much feedback and comments as possible from anyone who might be interested in reading the first draft. I hope that some of you will be interested in engaging that work!
H. L. Schmidt
H. L. Schmidt currently holds the Becker Fellowship. She has worked as an editor or writer at multiple publications, including Qu, City Magazine, and The Verve. Schmidt is SOPHIA’s Chapter Development Officer and is a doctoral student in the University of Kentucky’s Educational Policy Studies and Evaluation Ph.D. program in Philosophical and Cultural Inquiry, where she focuses on how we develop, communicate, and sustain a personal moral code. She founded the Roanoke chapter of SOPHIA, has presented at a number of conferences, including Philosophy of the City’s 2019 Conference where she presented her research on the role of the public library in a just city. She is part of the leadership of the Philosophers for Sustainability group, where she co-leads the Social Media & Outreach team. At the APA Blog, she edits the Research beat, conducts interviews for the Recent Book Spotlight, and oversees the Diversity & Inclusion beat, which features the Women in Philosophy and Black Issues series. She hosted the Civic Connections podcast featuring conversations with local public policy officials about justice and public affairs. She holds a Master’s in the Humanities from Hollins University where she studied ethics and public policy under Lawrence C. Becker and a Masters of Fine Arts degree in Creative Writing from Queens University of Charlotte. Her interests include practical ethics, public policy, existentialism, and utilitarianism. You can follow her on Twitter @theheidifeed.
Thank you, Heidi, for posting this. Really exciting things here & via the embedded links!