1. Introduction: Is the EU a failure? The pessimistic approach of Jonathan Coe and Robert Menasse
After the first two compulsory readings, Middle England of Jonathan Coe (2018) and The Capital of Robert Menasse (2019) you might be convinced that either the EU is vowed to disappear or it is absolutely useless. A feeling that I am sure has been reaffirmed after the reaction of Communitarian Europe to the Covid19 Crisis. Every Nation-State care for itself and do not give a damn about how the others may get through this catastrophe. Northern Europe despise Southern Europeans that they consider disorganized, lazy, and professional cheaters on their taxes. This is why Mark Rutte the Netherlands Prime Minister is not willing to help anyone but its own Nation-state. And so think Austria, Germany and the Nordic countries. And if this is so: What is the Use of Europe?
They do not remember anymore than the Greek Crisis in 2007-2008 was a critical moment but thanks to the fact that the Populist Left Government of Tsipras accepted the constraints of the EU in exchange of receiving financial aid it worked, and Greece is back in business. Thanks also to the fact that the German Constitutional Court of Karlsruhe declared that it was constitutional to use the money of German tax payers to help the Greeks in the need. EU solidarity prevented the Bankruptcy of Greece and preserved European Integration. But with the Covid19 Crisis as it is more wide and general it might not work. And if this is the case : what is the sense of the constraints the EU impose on Member States, especially in those countries that have the euro?
However there is hope, the President of the German Republic Frank-Walter Stenmeier has strongly advocated that Germany should help Southern Europe in times of distress because if Spain or Italy are not fully recovered from Coronavirus, Germany will not be either. This has been said in his public speech to the nation on Saturday, 11th April.
In Middle England Coe deals with the risk of explosion of the EU after Brexit. Especially if the UK does much better out of Communitarian Europe than inside. Something that is hazardous and unclear. What is disturbing is that Coe explains how manipulation of the British Public Opinion through the Media led to the vote in favour of the Brexit in 2016 by quite a narrow margin and currently the UK and the EU are going through a lot of trouble., Just because as Coe shows short term political and economic interests of the wealthy British ruling class (to whom David Cameron and Boris Johnson belong) prevailed over midterm, long-term considerations, through misinformation and manipulation due in a large measure to Fake news. This is how Populists especially extreme-right convinced a majority of Brits that they will be better off on their own, isolated.
Are Brexiters right? Will the UK do better outside the EU? When you read Robert Menasse's book The Capital about what is going on in Brussels you are tempted to think that yes, because nationalistic narrative is far more efficient to convince people to fight for their country than for a EU that is nothing else that a huge Market which is a very poor narrative, with no charisma at all. The Member States Governments look only at their interest in this mean Cattle Market. Neither the Eurocrats believe in the European idea, as they only care about their promotion. Europe is about Pigs and not about preventing that the horror of Auschwitz could happen again. They just do not care. Culture is despised as the Commission allows a very low budget for everything who is not directly related to the Common Market. And an Europe of Merchants is a car with a big engine but no steering wheel. A situation that might led us to a frontal collision with the Wall of the Covid19 Crisis.
QUESTION:
Are the Brexiters right? Is it the EU an expensive and useless economic structure with neither a Spirit or a Soul? Because so far it is obvious that there is no a common European narrative that will push us to defend European integration beyond shabby material negotiations in the market dynamics. No business, no Europe. The paradox is that this is not exclusively a Liberal Capitalistic idea. The approach consisting in the fact that only economy matters started with Marxism, as its followers consider that everything is related and seen through the economic prism. The problem was that countries that followed the orthodox Marxist economic approach are much poorer than the ones that dealt with the Market approach. Even Communist China has become the leader of Market Economy. In the matter of economy Liberalism has absolutely defeated Marxism. And the decay of Marxism has provoked a situation in which economic and social differences are much wider today than in 1950 when the European Integration movement began. And it is terrifying to imagine what could happen with the huge Economic crisis provoked by the Covid19 Pandemia? Would it be the end of the EU? And of the Western World?
2. Here comes Houellebeq’s “Submission”
a) Economy might not be the answer
But what if Economy is not the answer? A question that Michel Houellebeq rises in his book Submission. I don't know if you have read others novels of this "enfant terrible" of the litterary world. Like The Elementary Particles (1998), Platform (2001), The map and the Territory that received the Goncourt price in 2010. But if you have not, something I strongly recommend, you will have missed that Houellebeq is one of the literary authors that best describes the Western decadence through an extremely intelligent and realistic nihilist approach. The West has lost its soul, and life for westerners has no existential purpose, besides keeping up to maintain our material standard of living, something that is more and more difficult. Even Sex, a reality that is extremely important in all Houellebeq's novels, as you have realized in Submission, is sad, gloomy and mechanic, as there is no love involved ever. It is just functional to ease a body need, but there is no joy in it, pure masturbation. Houellebeq's individuals are alone in a World that does not make sense any more. Western civilization is over and we can only assist to its agony.
And then here comes Submission which tell us a story in which a moderate Muslim leader, Mohammed Ben Abbes becomes the President of France. An Utopia or a Distopia? Is this a good thing or it is a disaster? As westerners used to Human Rights and Constitutions the idea seems initially frightening. And in the first part of the book you see how effectively France gets to a lot of trouble due to the political situation with a rising extreme right National Front, with its "identitarian" ideology, very close to the one of Brexiters. A situation you see through the protagonist François a University Professor of Literature in La Sorbonne, the top French University in Humanities. He is a good intellectual, that has dedicated most of its life to study the works of XIXth century French Author Joris-Karl Huysmans. The problem is that nobody cares about culture in France anymore. And the only students that follow François lectures are Chinese or Muslims. Westerners only care about economics.
After the Muslim takeover of the French Government, Public universities become confessional and atheists, catholics, protestants or agnostics are expelled, with a very generous pension. Money is not the problem when the main issue is to convert the country to Islamic faith. The problem is that only bad professors remain, because they are the only ones that accept fully to be "submitted" to the new regime. The world "Muslim" means "submitted" to Alah. They do not care because they are mediocre professionals. François is a good one and this is why he retires and try to renew with its spiritual origins visiting the Abbey in the Spiritual Town Rocamadour where Huysmans retired, a place where he had stayed when he was writing his 7 year long PHD thesis. But getting back to French Catholicism makes no sense to him anymore. And then is when the President of the Sorbonne Robert Rediger a sly intellectual and an able politician try to convince François to come back to teach. Economical conditions are great but there is a problem. He would only be accepted on the condition that he should convert to Islam.
One would imagine that the nihilist François will say no way. That if Huysman's Catholicism does not make sense anymore, it would be completely useless to get François to become a Muslim. But here is where Houellebeq's book is deeply disturbing. In a very intelligent approach that he conducts to the bright Rediger he manages to convince intellectually François that embracing Islam makes totally sense. Of course the abundant money coming from Petromonarchies make life for converted muslims of high professional level as Rediger or François much easier. But the appeal of becoming "submited" to the islamic faith is not only due to material benefits. And here is where the book of Houellebq is absolutely brilliant. As he describes an Islamic universe that makes sense, compared to the empty, dry and nihilist Western civilization that is dying.
What this has to do with the EU? A lot. As one of the aims of the Muslim French President Mohamed Ben Abbes, an extremely brilliant and charismatic politician is build a Dar al Islam as the new Roman Empire. Pushing the EU to integrate Muslim countries as Turkey, Egypt and some Petromonarchies to create a World power that could face China or the US. Not only because of economic reasons, but because the Islamic EU would have a soul and a powerful narrative that will bring all its inhabitants together believing in something strong and motivating.
QUESTION:
Do you agree with the statement that our western civilization is dying from nihilism? That materialism is killing our way of life? Do you think that regaining the spiritual path of us might save us? Do you think that believing in something gives sense to our existence? Do you think yourself capable of becoming spiritual, or a believer?
b) A new conception of marriage
Of course this powerful narrative has a strong price to be paid. First of all, women. They are deprived of their jobs and more or less sent home to put in place a strong patriarchal system based on traditional family values. In this sense, the favoured economic system will be the one focused on family companies and manual activities far from the abstract economy models based on fake money and fake economy that have led the world to the terrible 2008 crisis. Houellebecq hates this kind of economy, based on computer mathematic models, he often praises in his articles and interviews George Orwell’s concept of “common decency” equivalent to people living decently of their own work.
Houellebecq strongly believes that market economy has won the bodies and that relationships are totally ruled by interest- That is why love does not exist anymore. In that sense Ben Abbes advocates for “marriages of reason” that is man and woman do not have to be in love, marriage turns out to be a contract on which depends society’s well-being. The aim is to have children and to strengthen society ties. This is the successful marriage, one that does not fulfill individual aspirations but social benefit. This is sustained in Submission by a sociologist, a certain DaSilva, who also considers that marriage of reason will transmit through families the heritage of the know-how in a still and for ever unchanged society.
Eva Illouz, an israelian sociologist has also studied the impact of liberal economy in western societies and has led to more or less the same conclusions as Michel Houellebecq. This is very significant since they do not belong to the same circles.
As you can easily see, in the era of #Metoo that seems totally unacceptable but you have to remember that this concept of marriage has prevailed until practically the XXth century.
Houellebecq is very perceptive, he shows how this mentality could lead for instance to forced marriages with minors to assure lots of children. This is a forbidden practice by the OUN but largely performed in strict Muslim countries. For example, Rediger’s second wife, barely a teenager, wearing a Hello Kitty shirt and her belly expoded. Of course only at home and for Rediger’s eyes. When seen by François, she immediately tries to hide.
QUESTION:
You should bear in mind that love marriage has been a recent issue brought by Romanticism in the 19th century. In most of Western history marriage was something negotitated by the families to strenghthen their position in society. I know it sounds shocking, but try, after reading Submission, to put yourself on the other side. I don’t mean you to defend marriage by reason, but to understand its possible advantages. Think specially that actually 2 on 3 love marriages end in divorce in the wealthy West and all the disruptions it causes. The exercise is: explain why Houellebeq’s novel on this point could be convincing.
c) And women in all this?
However, not everything is husband, children, cooking and praying in a contemporary version of Hitler’s KKK (Kinder, Küche, Kirchen) for women in Ben Abbes’ era. They can access to another job: matchmakers. This job has done marvels for Prof. Loiseleur, an old professor, scholar on Leconte de Lisle who, in order to work at the Muslim Sorbonne had to convert to Islam. Always untidy, when François meets him he looks different, matchmakers have found him a wife that has turned him upside down and with a more acceptable look. It is very likely this is going to happen to François, probably one of the reasons why he accepts the job at Sorbonne plus the considerable economic benefits.
In Margaret Atwood’s recent book The testaments, sequel to the dystopia The Handmaid’s Tale we can read about matchmakers, essential to society’s stability. Houellebecq and Atwood together!!!! That is certainly one of Houellebecq’s outstanding achievements and a proof of his insight.
Woman’s work is described as a very negative fact for a successful family life. That is done through the characters of Bruno and Annelise. Bruno is a tax inspector and Annelise works as a marketing manager for a phone company. Houellebecq shows a woman totally stressed, starting her day at 8 a.m. when leaving children at kindergarten and arriving at home at 9 p.m., completely worn out only capable of sitting and watching tv, no time available to pay any attention to her husband. A working woman that dresses sexy for the work but wears at home a hideous tracksuit forgetting to be sexy for him until they are too old for sex if they don’t divorce. Houellebecq states it is the opposite with Muslim women, dressed with their strict burkas during the day, but becoming “Paradise birds” at night wearing very sexy underwear.
As far as women are concerned, Houellebeq is absolutely polemic. Some Freudian psychiatrists would say that the core of the problem is his very complicated relationship with his mother, an awful lady that did not hesitate to appear in the media despising his own son calling him a fascist, a term very often applied to Houellebecq. In Submission for instance, François’ mother dies but he does not give any sign so she is buried in a common grave.
The truth is women are not very nicely portrayed in Houellebecq’s work and we could say that he is a deep mysoginist.
Myriam, the Jewish student is possibly better presented in the book. Forced to emigrate to Israel, exactly as the Nazis asked the Jews at the beginning of Hitler’s government, she will finally behave as François has expected, leaving him and not remaining faithful to their love. The other sympathetic character is Marie-Françoise Tanneur, a Literature professor, Balzac’s scholar, put to retirement by Ben Abbes’ policy and married to a sort of secret service agent also retired. But Marie-Françoise is elderly and does not represent any threat to men’s sexuality. She is a good cook which seems another of the duties and qualities attributed to women. Following Huysman’s work when sexuality is impossible in a couple out of lack of desire and body’s decadence, cooking becomes the new interest that reinforces old bonds.
Prostitution is also a way for men to have contact with women but naturally love or affection is not at stake, it is just an economic exchange. Submission has a description of François with two prostitutes, Nadia “la beurette” a despising adjective to define a person of Arabic origin and Babette “la salope”, Babette “the bitch” specialized in orgies. These two experiences are everything but satisfactory.
Another female character that can be found in the academic sphere is Chantal Delouze, Sorbonne’s rector. According to François, she is a lesbian with an aggressive look and is Steve’s lover, the mediocre professor that has seen his career climbing by being supposedly Delouze’s sexual toy. She is specialized in gender studies which are fiercely despised by the enemies of the politically correct. Houellebecq is certainly among them. But Delouze will be replaced by Rediger, a notorious pro-Palestinian and responsible for the boycott of Israeli Universities in France.
QUESTION:
I want you to think in what measure this vision of men and women relationships are totally opposite of the politically correct actual approach to sex, love, gender identity. What part of this has pushed Western civilization to the present nihilism? Please do not give your personal opinions, do not get involved tray just to analyze coldly the two approaches. This is what is really enrichin about Houellebeq’s books, it stricke us because he says the opposite to the common politically correct approach. Even if you dislike him this is a great exercise of free thinking.
d) Religion in the 21st century
Today it is fashionable to be atheist or at least agnostic, word that means that you do not give a damn about religion. But this does not change the fact that religion has been so far the most powerful narrative in Human history. I give to religion a very large sense, the one you will find in Harari’s books, which includes socialism and neoliberalism. Because they defend “dogmas” that you should believe firmly. Houellebeq writes about what it used to be call religion, the narrative that gives you the idea that God has created the world and that obeying to his commandments you will be happy in this world and after life.
Submission is built around the idea of a religious president who turns his religion, Islam and its legal principles, the sharia, into the official law. That is a very gripping idea since France is a country where laicism is a very strong pillar that vertebrates society. France has forbidden any religious sign in public places, for instance. But Houellebecq shows a country where a practicing muslim candidate has been elected. What is also very surprising is that he has been so by the Left to counteract Lepen’s party. As Tanneur says: “Perhaps it is time to make an alliance with Islam”. Houellebecq shows in Submission the deep contradictions in French left parties that have led to the implosion of Socialist party resulting in the victory of Emmanuel Macron in 2017.
Another fact also contributed to the polemic and the big success of Submission. On the 7th January 2015 the terrorist attack against the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo took place, exactly the same day of Submission’s publication in France. Some journalist and literary critics defined the book as prophetic but many as outrageous too.
Houellebecq has always been confronted with controversy, it is part of his success and he admits it willingly. He has participated in a movie called “L’enlèvement de Michel Houellebecq” (The Michel Houellebecq’s kidnapping) where acting as himself he was involved in his kidnapping for non specified reasons but it was an opportunity to talk about his work from the point of view of a non specialist reader plus having intercourse with a very young prostitute. The result was amazing and hilarious too. We hardly imagine any Spanish writer accepting to perform in a movie where his or her work would be put into question. Houellebecq has a strong sense of humour and the ability of self-derision which is a very nihilist characteristic.
QUESTION:
Ben Abbes in his election programs advocates for a compulsory religious tuition in order to achieve a spiritual dimension of French citizens. Do you agree with that? Please, again, try not to get personally involved. Give objective arguments for and against.
e) Fiction or reality?
One of the features that makes this frightening book plausible is that Houellebecq mixes with an extraordinary talent imaginary and real characters. We can find Manuel Valls, François Hollande, François Bayrou and of course Marine Lepen on the political side and David Pujadas on the media specter. We can also find references to current TV programmes. French readers were appalled because of it.
QUESTION:
Imagine if Pablo Iglesias, Pablo Casado, Santiago Abascal, Pedro Sánchez, Iñaki Gabilondo or Jordi Evole were characters of a book. Would it be more appealing to you. Explain why.
f) The character and the program of Mohammed Ben Abbes
Mohammed Ben Abbes is a very ambiguous character and Houellebecq portrays him very accurately. Ben Abbes openly states his options since his party is named “Muslim Fraternity”.
Who is Ben Abbes?: of modest origins, his father was a shopkeeper, Ben Abbes took advantage of the democratic meritocratic system to study Polytechnique and afterwards joined the ENA (Ecole Nationale d’Administration), almost compulsory to become President of France with the sole exception of Nicolas Sarkozy. So, in spite of using the opportunities brought about by public French education system, Ben Abbes has in its plans to privatize Education that will be funded by petromonarchies to use this money to make women stay at home in his own words: “to give its place and its value to the family, our society’s basic cell”.
He certainly does not want a cultured society, academic upgrade are strictly reserved and a religious upbringing avoiding any kind of opposition.
On the economic he is distributive, that is a separation between capital and work, totally opposite to liberal economy which strongly relates both. Houellebecq is very interested in economic processes and in every of his works we can find numerous references to economy. In this book, following Chesterton and Belloch’s ideas, he would finance family companies, little producers and handcraft. No help to the big industrial emporiums. That is as the book says, widely welcome by the EU which is in a fight against big corporations like Google because of the taxes.
On the personal side Ben Abbes sees himself as the contemporary embodiment of the Emperor Augustus, one of the most outstanding Emperors in Roman Empire. This is a blink on the part of Houellebecq to Napoleon, the embodiment of Revolution ideas.
Enlightenment is very faw away from Ben Abbes’ ideology. The slow growing apart in French society of Enlightenment has been a source of worries for many French intellectuals like Tzvetan Todorov in his book L’esprit des Lumières who claim that losing the Enlightenment values are a danger for democracy.
Ben Abbes’ idea of a European Union gives the prevalence to an alliance in Southern Europe favouring union with Maghreb countries and Turkey, this latter a “bête noire” for current UE.
QUESTION:
Is the program of Ben Abbes appealing to you? Make a list of points you agree with and of aspects you disagree. Give objective reasons.
g) Other characters
Rediger is an exquisite intellectual, who has surpassed “the clash of civilizations” to give place to only Islam. Rediger is the person in charge of reforming Education. Rediger a former traditionalist, has evolved especially in his religious vision, leaving aside Christianism, a milder form of religion, too adaptative and permissive to embrace Islam, much more attached to principles and rules and above all much more focused on everyday life. Fierce anti-semite, Houellebecq very cleverly relates Islamic hardening to the turmoil of Israeli politics towards Palestinian.
Traditionalists are portrayed by Lempereur, another Literature professor scholar on Léon Bloy, a Catholic fundamentalist. He sympathizes with a group called “Les indigènes de la République” (The Republic Indigenous) which advocates for Civil War. His long-term plan is to come back to extremely traditional values. They consider atheism as responsible for extreme individualism and great tolerance. In order to expel Muslims from Europe it is necessary to have an army educated in Christian values ready to fight. Multiculturalism is the enemy and this war could start in countries where tolerance is very strong like Scandinavia. It is very significant since Norway had a horrible terrorist attack at Utoya Island perpetrated by Anders Breivink, a Christian fundamentalist.
We can only admire Houellebecq’s discernment. It looks as if for some people in Europe we are living in a Crusade era, like in the Middle Ages.
As a matter of fact, some French intellectuals assert that we are living in new Middle Ages, from the strong revival of local nationalisms to the isolation of individuals including the contemporary plague, Covid-19. In “Libération”, a left-sided newspaper, there is a blog where medieval historians establish parallels between our times and Middle Age ones.
Why submission?: according to Redinger, this is the aim of every human being, to be submitted. Houellebecq may not have attended University but he is a very well-read writer and he surely has read Erich Fromm, the German psychologist who studied very closely the relationship between totalitarianism and monotheist religions. Men would submit very easily because freedom needs creativity and so represents an extra work. It is easier to be told what to do than deciding by oneself what has to be done. Men are prone to leave aside freedom in exchange of security. Religions give a perfect narrative on world, with very definite categories: good and evil, right and wrong, righteous and sinner. These are categories easily understood, no nuances, no deep analysis is needed and thus are more easily admitted.
François, the main character of the book is totally uninteresting and although capable of reflection, he is incapable of action and thus Ben Abbes’ regime is perfect for him since his sexual and domestic needs will be taken care of and his academic career which has zero interest for him will be boosted with a minimum effort. And what is more François will never regret his decision because great feelings and emotions are totally out of his range.
FINAL QUESTIONS:
1. I will ask you after reading Submission : Does Rediger and Ben Abbes seem convincing? Do you think François conversion and submission is plausible? I would like you to explain clearly why or why not.
2. Do you think the EU could survive getting back to a religious and spiritual narrative that could give existential sense to the life of Europeans?
3. Do you consider a party including the word “Muslim” could have any chance in today’s Europe bearing in mind the name given to the pig in Menasse’s The Capital?
4. Houellebecq considers that intellectuals have failed in their mission because they were irresponsible, it was not in their nature. It is also a very direct criticism to education, if University is filled with Steve and academics do not feel the vocation to teach, how can young generations be critic? How can they get the ability to think by themselves? Do you agree with that?
5. Do you think it is credible that a Westerner might be tempted by converting to Islam? Think of all young westerners that have even been enroled by ISIS. Please stress the arguments that in the book makes it convincing for a great intellectual as Rediger.
FINAL ADVISE:
Attending to the present circumstances of confinement I cannot tell you how important is that you take the Book Reports very seriously. Please read well, think about your readings according to our comments and do an intelligent, personal, well structured and well written Report. It will be an important part of your final mark.
Take advantage of the fact that confinement gives you a lot of time to devote to intellectual work. Make a virtue of necessity!
All Book reports should be sent by May 16th. We will not consider the ones sent after that.
Come on! Cheer up and go for it!
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario