WHY GROW UP?
‘Why Grow Up? Subversive Thoughts for an Infantile Age’ is Dr Susan Neiman’s last book whose London’s launch I had the pleasure to attend. Along its pages, she firmly defends the ideas of the Age of the Enlightenment, takes us through the valuable intellectual work of Emmanuel Kant, and generously unveils the secrets to enjoy a committed, mature age without giving up any of our childhood dreams.
London’s weather cannot be said to be a delight. The city is absurdly expensive, and an astonishing number of her dwellers do not strike a smile from November to March. However, truth to be told, London’s cultural scene is barely comparable to any other major capital in the world. Eventually, every personality who has something meaningful to say, sing, showcase or sell ends up landing in the city that listens to the Big Ben marking the time. Our distinguished Dr Susan Neiman could not be an exception. She was born in Atlanta, Georgia. She studied philosophy at Harvard and Berlin’s Freie Universität. She was a professor at Yale and Tel Aviv universities and is now the Einstein Forum Director in Potsdam, Germany. Besides all this, she is invited to talk all over the world and is a prolific author.
FERNANDO LÓPEZ DEL PRADO: ‘Why grow up?’ is the title of your most recent book. Growing up, do we have an option to adopt optimism?
SUSAN NEIMAN: I think we do. We have an option to grow up well or to grow up miserably and resign. This is a theme I have written about extensively. [Emmanuel] Kant thought that we had a moral obligation which he refers to as ‘rational faith’. We cannot know the future, but if we do not believe that it is possible for the future to get better by people acting in righteous ways, things will not improve. And we will not be able to act in virtuous ways all the time, but we must believe that we have an obligation to do so.
We have an option to grow up well or to grow up miserably and resign.
FLdP: ‘Subversive Thoughts for an Infantile Age’, its subtitle would suggest you brand yourself as such. Do you think that writing about the real world in the way you do should be considered subversive?
SN: Maybe it is making too large a claim; in fact, the title itself was the result of a lot of back and forth between myself and my editor. However, what I mean by that title is that becoming a real adult would be something subversive. Actually, a number of friends of mine were somewhat horrified by that title. They would often say ‘why would I want to grow up?’ Moreover, say things like ‘my idol has always been Peter Pan’! By this, I think they mean to say that I am subversive by refusing to accept to grow up in the traditional sense: to stop dreaming, to take the world as it is, resigning yourself. Their idea behind valorising Peter Pan was an attempt to be subversive. What I realised was that it is the other way round. This rebellion against growing up is actually what the power structures that hinder the improvement of society want you to do — they want you to be more childish.
FLdP: ‘The right kind of travel is indeed a crucial part of reaching maturity.’ What is the right kind of travel?
SN: Seeing the world and experiencing other cultures really should be at the heart of purposeful travel. Only in this way can attempt to view our cultures from different viewpoints. Something truly changes when we get involved in other cultures and even more so when we learn another language. The more languages we learn, the more cultures we can connect to. When wealthy people travel, it is often a way of avoiding growing up. When you can be waited on hand and foot and avoid all responsibility, it is the ultimate way of disconnecting from cultures and societies and thus remaining infantile. As Wittgenstein commented, the beginning of philosophical thought comes from the statement ‘I do not know my way’. Landing in a foreign country and having to find your way around is when travel becomes something worth doing. Not all of us will be privileged enough to be able to pay our rent doing jobs we love and feel like our holidays should be a time to escape. However, I think that this is a missed opportunity to mature. We are not adults as long as we remain passive consumers.
FLdP: You mentioned the notion of Enlightenment in Kant’s work. Would you say that our times are enlightened?
SN: No, not at all.
FLdP: What do we need to do to get to that stage?
SN: We should stop bashing the ideas of the Enlightenment period. Many books are churned out that say that the Enlightenment was silly and naïve. I have argued that the Enlightenment should be defended. Many philosophers now argue that our pursuit of universal human rights has moved humanity beyond the period of Enlightenment. I completely disagree and believe that it is merely the latest manifestation of the teachings of the Enlightenment period. What has been taken for granted among left-leaning circles is that the Enlightenment was Euro-centric and a way of imposing Western ideals on the rest of the world in a colonial manner. I argue the complete opposite. Enlightenment resented the idea of Euro-centricity and tried to view European societies from an objective viewpoint and empathise with how non-Western societies see Europe. Montesquieu’s The Persians is an excellent example of an Enlightenment writer trying to understand Europe through the eyes of Islam. Many similar works were written about China and Africa at this time as well.
FLdP: But as we know, Enlightenment did not pose a compelling counterargument for Colonialism and many countries suffered for a long time as a result.
SN: No, it did not, but this was not for want of trying. Kant wrote extensively on the success Japan had at keeping out colonial powers during the Enlightenment period and wished that more countries have managed to do the same. This comes down to an old question: How much do thinkers move? I think blaming the Enlightenment thinkers for colonialism is baffling, yet it still happens often in contemporary philosophy. You may ask why does this matter, and the answer is, I believe, that we must use the right tools when we argue and engage in intellectual debate, and the reason is the most important instruments to have.
I believe that there are three primary ways of looking at the world. Pre-modern nostalgia which claims that things were better before and now we have become decadent; Post-modern irony which claims decadence is something that needs to be reconstructed and can be defended; or we can adopt a modern view that draws from the teachings of Enlightenment and has the possibility of genuine self-criticism, transformation and improvement — opportunities that I believe are not possible in the other two views. I am happy to consider a fourth view if someone were to offer one, but as of yet, I have not come across one!
We all have such an overload of bad news, and it is also seen as a sign of stupidity to talk about people who are doing things right. I often feel like we are among the last optimists.
FLdP: Do you believe that philosophy can help relaunch the Enlightenment for the 21st century?
SN: It is one of the things that myself and others are trying to do. When you say philosophy, I would rather talk about thinkers in the 21st century. Adam Curtis is one such thinker making fantastic and thought-provoking documentaries for the BBC that I think can help improve the world. He is exceptional at deconstructing complicated structures and ideas and presenting them to the general public in an accessible way — something that, as we mentioned earlier, is hard to come by these days. Similarly, many artists and scientists are currently talking about the Anthropocene: the idea that you can no longer look at nature without taking into account the overwhelming influence that human beings have on the environment. Some of the work that is being produced is truly fascinating and is breaking down the traditional barriers that have divided disciplines. So when you ask if philosophers can help improve the world, my answer would be that all these disciplines are interlinked, mutually influential and equally important. My hope is that serious film-makers, artists, philosophers, scientists, economists and everyone else can push the global conversation in a more positive direction. Thomas Piketty’s work is a fabulous example of a conservative field such as economics being led in a new direction. Disciplinary boundaries and segregation are as trivial as sports team rivalries! We are going to have to work very hard because Counter-Enlightenment forces are stronger now than ever.
FLdP: What are the primary roles of a philosopher in this day and age? How do you think philosophy can help overcome social evils?
SN: I do not believe that any interesting problem can be solved with a single recipe. Everything needs to be looked at case by case. What philosophers can do is provide orientation, a set of ideals that guide you in looking at particular cases and saying how it ought to be done. I am researching my next book which will cover the different ways nations come to terms with international crimes that have been committed in their territories or by their power structures in the past. Germany is the most prominent example for many, but other good examples would include the struggle of Spain to overcome the horrors of its fascist past. There are countless cases around the world. I will focus my book on the United States of America and its recent past dealing with the aftermath of segregation. As a philosopher who has been observing this for a long time, I can help provide orientation and perspective. This is an example of one of many things that philosophy can and should do. The problem is that there are very few contemporary philosophers who are interested in writing on truth and reconciliation in appropriate ways. Indeed, in all areas, there is a big gap between academic philosophy and the rest of the world.
It is one of the reasons I am very happy to be part of the Einstein Forum whose task it is to present challenging, cutting edge, complex areas to a general audience without talking down to them. It has given me the opportunity to learn from many people from different fields which is something that, unfortunately, many philosophers simply do not do. What is sad is that if philosophers do not provide this, then there are some outspoken, often unqualified people who will intentionally try to lead people down what I would consider to be the wrong path. Nietzsche had a wonderful phrase that I often keep in mind: ‘People muddy the waters in order to make them seem deeper.’
There is a considerable need for theory, but what appears to be the trend is not exactly what I would call well-thought-out concise theory. That is partly all of our fault as those that have been in a position to research this theory have often abdicated that role. It is one of the reasons why I got so hung up on the Enlightenment philosophers. Not many of them were university academics but were writing for the general public — that was their natural audience. They were not trying to impress their colleagues and muddy the waters to add false depth to their research; they were writing for clarity and accessibility.
Global capitalism and its relationship with the advertising industry is, I believe, the most dangerous threaten our freedom at the moment. It is quite simple really.
FLdP: How is the Einstein Forum different from other think-tanks?
SN: The Einstein Forum was founded in 1992 in Germany in the town of Potsdam. People were worried that reunification would set off another wave of Nationalism, and there was a massive investment in culture and science to try to counter this threat. The Minister of Culture and Science identified that renovating an old cottage owned by the Einstein family would be an opportunity to mark a turning point for the new Germany. A significant number of significant thinkers were willing to come to the forum and engage in what they thought at the time to be a worthy institution. When I came to the forum, I was keen to give it a very definite direction. Potsdam was a key centre during the Enlightenment movement, and this created an undeniable fit with my interests. I was also determined to focus on the inter-disciplinary reputation that the Einstein Forum had created. I think that everyone who works at the Einstein Forum is immensely enriched intellectually by the range of disciplines that influence the work. I feel that my work has become much better since I have been exposed to other disciplines.
If the world had not been as divided as it was after 9/11, the Einstein Forum definitely might have taken a different path. I moved to Israel in 1995 for a variety of reasons and felt responsible for bringing in voices from the Israel peace movement. We have supported many critical Israeli voices to give a voice to the other side of the Israel-Palestine conflict. We have a lot of freedom to take our work and research in any direction we like as we are not affiliated with any university or institution. We try to keep the think-tank as democratic as possible, which is not always the case with similar think-tanks around the globe.
FLdP: Why do you think Erikson’s concept of generativity is so important?
SN: Generativity is the practice of giving back to the world and the satisfaction that is derived from it. No psychological study claims that generativity is a harmful practice; quite simply, it makes us happier people. Interestingly enough, and disturbingly enough, studies show that materially poorer people give proportionally more back to society. I think satisfaction primarily comes from the feeling of solidarity with your fellow human and recognising the ability to aid someone in need.
FLdP: What are the main threats to freedom in our age?
SN: Global capitalism and its relationship with the advertising industry is, I believe, the most dangerous threaten our freedom at the moment. It is quite simple, really.
FLdP: Thank you so much for taking the time to talk to me.
SN: It is so important to pass on good news; we all have such an overload of bad news, and it is also seen as a sign of stupidity to talk about people who are doing things right. I often feel like we are among the last optimists.
This is the first time during the whole interview, where I do not agree with the Professor.
