Can a portrait of the Western ideological landscape be painted? The uproar surrounding certain “cultural” or “civilizational” wars, the dire warnings against underhanded and harmful intrigues hatched by real or imaginary enemies, the anguished calls to defend one’s sacrosanct “values,” cannot leave us indifferent. While the sound of marching boots is heard internationally, economies falter, living conditions deteriorate and the massacre of a people takes place in Palestine in full view of the entire world, mental space is virtually monopolized by constructs that serve as explanations of reality. The categories are predefined for everyone, the labels are ready-made, the slogans well-prepared. We are supposed to understand everything by aligning ourselves with the Good Guys and to regulate our conduct accordingly. The positions adopted are predictable, stereotyped, and dictated. We go around in circles, while emotions, affects and condemnations chase away any thinking.
Cleavages and divisions
Divisions are nothing new. Every era has known them. What distinguishes ours (in a negative sense) is the artificial, superficial, and sometimes surreal nature of certain debates. We find ourselves in an ethereal atmosphere where topics discussed are only refracted images of what lies behind, where ideas appear as nothing more than a shadow theater, where tempers flare over phraseology that is most often void of substance, and where ostracism of others is based on abstractions supposedly essential to our being. Marxism described this state as “false consciousness.” In the Middle Ages, learned theologians and erudite clerics fought fiercely over subjects as relevant as angels and cherubs. Let us not mock them too much, however, because the scholasticism of our time, although more secular, is hardly less absurd.
Barely half a century ago, a different ideological, intellectual, political, and economic atmosphere prevailed. It was far more stimulating, substantial, and clearer than the sad muddle, a sort of bad kabuki theater, in which we are mired today. Capitalism and socialism clashed openly, each articulating its future project, displaying its achievements, taking into account all components of society. Claims were tangible, verifiable, and capable of being confirmed or refuted. Propaganda was not lacking, but it could be countered by the one coming from the other side. We know that this era ended with the victory by default (temporary? definitive?) of capitalism. Not that it was in good shape, but socialism was in a worse shape and it imploded, leaving behind disoriented and voiceless supporters. The transformation of the landscape led to the disappearance of the very concepts of socialism and capitalism, the former due to a lack of promoters, the latter because of the need to cover up words that offend and may provoke negative reactions. Capitalism took on softer names, such as ” market economy,” “liberal democracy,” and “globalization.”
An impoverishment of thought
Since the 1980s, the unsurpassable framework of all thinking has become capitalism, however it is dressed up. The very idea of transforming society is expelled beyond the realm of feasibility, ceasing even to be conceivable. Changes, to the extent that they are even possible, would occur within capitalism. They would now be about purely societal, essentializing, or moral matters. This period saw the advancement of an approach focusing exclusively on minority identity issues, replacing concepts of the nation and of social class. Society became segmented, passing from the more or less coherent whole that it used to be to a mosaic that more or less brought side by side disparate entities. Universalism was in decline, giving way to particularistic retrenchments, both defensive and assertive. Of course, ignoring this false “clash of civilizations” is no way to combat it. These divisions have to be thwarted and a policy of reciprocal recognition promoted. However, understanding of social structures, the functioning of economies, the mechanisms of ideological homogenization and international power relations must not fade away and be replaced by a jumble of impressions, beliefs and illusions.
The socialist left, weakened because it no longer has a global project, mute because it lacks operational theoretical instruments, no longer provides relevant analyses. As a substitute, part of the left migrated towards fragmented societal issues. Some express exclusively identity-based concerns, while others defend the environment. This “progressivism” combats racism and sexism according to imperatives of justice that too often ignore considerations related to distributive justice. Racism, sexism, and the environment are too often treated in isolation, eluding the challenge to capitalism. However, as Nancy Fraser has shown, any theory of justice must address not only recognition and political representation, but also distributive justice. (Nancy Fraser, ” Reframing Justice in a Globalizing World,” New Left Review , vol. 36, 2005, pp. 69-88). In a similar vein, Aurélie Trouvé of La France Insoumise also insisted on the importance of putting forward a left option that is open not only to the green of the ecologists, the yellow of the Yellow Vests and the different colors of identity groups, but also to the red of the working class. (Aurélie Trouvé, Le Bloc Arc-en-ciel, Paris, La Découverte, 2021). This is also the opinion of Chantal Mouffe, left-wing populist leader concerned with a national construction based on the recognition of all its components. (Chantal Mouffe and Íñigo Errejón, Construire un peuple, Paris, Cerf, 2017)
Artificial cultural appropriations
The neoliberal/neoconservative guardians of the capitalist order, on the other hand, strut their stuff and take pains not to draw attention to the system. All means are good to distract. Anything can be put to use. Since most of the demands of the post-socialist left are not of a nature to challenge capitalism, the ruling classes do not hesitate to filch ideas from it because organizations benefit from injecting themselves with antidotes. “Political correctness” and its vocabulary have long been integrated into the mainstream. More generally, the way of thinking, based on the fabrication of representations, perceptions and “images,” is borrowed from postmodernism, originally a product of left-wing intellectuals, today adopted by those in power. In a similar vein, the LGBTQ+ movement, fundamentally anti-establishment, is co-opted and normalized, to the point where it becomes a lever of the foreign policy of Western countries towards societies that they aim to destabilize. This cause, although just, is thus weaponized for imperialist ends. Similarly, DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) has also been co-opted to be turned into a management and branding gadget, as well as an official policy of states, institutions and businesses. “Wokism,” a pejorative label, is basically dissident because it implies an openness to various issues and carries the prospect of mutual recognition. However, with its appropriation by neoliberalism, it is one of the important aspects of a dominant sanitizing ideology, as well as a tool of recrimination, division and discord. Whatever truly progressive measures neoliberals/neoconservatives did apply are dismantled without niceties wherever right-wing populists gain access to positions of authority.
An unhealthy situation
And so, the ideological camps of our time take shape. The left is confined to the margins by its adversaries, but also because of its shortcomings. Fully in charge, the neoliberal camp calls the shots. Its media and other broadcasting outlets are constantly active, rendering any other voice inaudible and drilling into the public’s head a constantly updated set of established dogmas. The goal is anything but subtle: to impose conformity, to prohibit any approach that is in the slightest fashion critical. The muzzling of entire groups of the population at the simple request of a person claiming to be offended, indisposed, or threatened, even the criminalization of points of view that are distasteful to those in power, are now practiced. The air is permeated with a single way of thinking made up of “story-telling” and “narratives” that bear no relation to reality. Sugary and manipulative, the language used is that of “communications” and public relations, derived from commercial advertising and political marketing. The demagoguery, self-congratulation for (ostentatious) righteousness and displays of the (selective) morality of “democracies” flow freely. Cheap jabs and pontificating lessons are delivered in a disparaging manner and at every opportunity to foreign countries guilty of not following the West.
The misfortune for neoliberalism is that, despite all efforts at concealment, all the sound and light shows, the phantasmagoria it creates eventually collides with stubborn realities. The 2008 economic crisis, in particular, delivered a terrible blow that shattered the soothing fables of a brave new world. The much-vaunted globalization proved disastrous. Millions saw their living standards plummet and their prospects dim. In the past, the left channeled discontent toward specific economic and political goals. Today, the left is “elsewhere,” even though conditions should have provided it with a vast audience. Its absence paves the way for the undisguised right. Since a powerful movement cannot remain without leadership, it is the right that has filled the void.
This explains the rise of right-wing populisms (calling themselves nationalist or sovereignist) in the West and the role that as fallen to them as the most prominent opponents of the established order. They occupy a space left vacant by the anti-nationalist left. They expose the socioeconomic flaws and dysfunctions that official thinking obscures, but, lacking solutions or programs worthy of the name, they play the identity card of a majority weary of “minority-centrism” and draw on an old reservoir of xenophobia that attributes all problems to immigrants or to some group. Having no grasp of reality, lacking serious analysis, their message boils down to the exasperation of a section of the population penalized by the normal evolution of capitalism towards size and multinationalization. This Right does not understand the capitalist system and does not challenge it, probably because it counts entrepreneurs in its ranks. Mistaking the shadow for the prey, it rails against symptoms and ignores their causes. Reacting to the haughty arrogance and ideological bludgeoning of those in power, this Right resorts to “alternative facts,” which exposes it to the mockery of those who charge it with spreading “conspiracy theories.”
Conclusion
Neoliberals/neoconservatives assiduously present the “far right” as their only opposition in the hope that the repelling effect would consolidate their electorate behind them. With both camps dismissing the underlying causes, the pathetic political struggles that ensue then appear as epic battles for “values” where the neoliberals/neoconservatives have an easy task of setting themselves up as defenders of virtue. This artificial polarization pays off. It is a technique for constructing a binary center-right/right political universe that has been in use in France since the presidency of François Mitterrand. Still, rapprochements with the neoliberals/neoconservatives are not excluded and, if necessary, the latter borrow their xenophobic repertoire from the ethnonationalists, notably to entice their voters.
Such is the dismal political landscape facing the populations of Western countries. The impasse is complete and the disaffection is widespread. They are primarily due to the decline of the left and will only be overcome when it finds its bearings again, by tackling economic, social, and political dysfunctions head-on, drawing convincing analyses, and outlining an innovative social project for the community. The conditions call for such a transformation.
