English translation of the French transcript, made with AI and not yet proofread — click a paragraph to jump to it. Show the French original
Epistemological break: from Althusser to Lévy-Bruhl 0:00 The NS is not at all, and the Althusserian propaedeutic is completely external to the problematic of the book. That's actually the question. Where is there a correlation?
0:35 I don't know. I was with him all the time. I was a bit like his little brother. There weren't many of us at the school. There were only two black students. And then afterward, I was his student. I was a philosopher. What's amusing is that I recently reread it, several times actually, in order to edit it, and I remember what you say — you speak of an epistemological break when talking about Lévy-Bruhl. Well, perhaps the paradox today is that there's no longer an attested epistemological break in Lévy-Bruhl. It's obvious between primitive thought and the notebooks.
1:11 That's just it, he comes back on it himself. He would no longer say emotion is Negro, my reason is Hellenic. He could no longer say that. He realized it. The lines have shifted. Exactly, that's it. And indeed, the paradox is that in the end, the epistemological break in Althusser kept receding. I was his student as... it's a concept of a concept. But I tell him, my book, well, I've often talked about the epistemological break. So in that sense, I had... I had absorbed those concepts. That's clear.
1:45 I never told you this, it just occurred to me — I must have been 17, that goes way back. And the first time I heard about your book was from someone who was an Althusserian, an executive at the Paris social security funds, but who had a good philosophical culture, who told me: you, who know Africa, you absolutely must read Adotevi. Right? Because it's going to change your... It's true his influence was... He had a great influence on me, that's certain. That's certain, but I don't know if... But not at all with, neither the concept of négritude which you gave us a brief history of, nor the controversy which is a bit...
Senghor, Pompidou and de Gaulle at the École normale 2:24 He wasn't... of course, he knew... well, yes. Senghor, that's... Senghor, that is, in fact, he had never been a Senghorian, he didn't think much of Senghor. He felt Senghor should have been something other than what he was. There was also, let's not forget, Pompidou, there was a whole story too... Not complicated, very simple, as you know. Pompidou, who had become, I think, prime minister or something, or was actually still at Rothschild's.
2:56 When de Gaulle came to power, he wanted de Gaulle to visit the school. So de Gaulle arrived at the school, there was a blockade, he wanted to shake hands, and de Gaulle's people were sent packing, insulted — we won't shake your hand, the hand of your policy... Anyway, it caused a big scandal afterward, I think... I still remember, it was still in the news. So, but that — in the end, it's true the school wasn't...
Althusser as professor and African philosophers 3:28 very Gaullist. Yes, there was... that's the least one can say. That's the least one can say. That's what has been called since the Middle Ages the franchises universitaires [university privileges/autonomy]. Maybe now there are... We said we'd hand the floor over for questions from the audience. Yes, one last thing, just very quickly — as an outside reader, I don't really see a conceptual influence of Althusser in the structure of the book. Yes, yes, no... Even if on the human level you knew him much better. Yes, he was someone who was...
3:58 He was a professor... My professor, well, it's obvious that... esteemed... his style, because Althusser was not a tragic philosopher. He was a poet. I don't know if what I'm saying is clear, but anyway... Well, he was a professor. It's obvious that... it's instructive, at any rate, it's illuminating, let's say. It's clear. It's clear, okay. It's so clear... It's clear. He taught his method, he took soundings into the thinking of authors, he did a kind of probe, in fact that's what he did...
4:28 Well, it's a bit odd — in The Future Lasts a Long Time, where he actually says... The future lasts a long time. Yes, when he talks about psychoanalysis and Marxism, he says, well, Freud — actually I didn't know him very well, but thanks to my students... You see, he had brilliant students, so that also served him to... I was saying, maybe he also used you to help rewrite his books. It could go the other way too, I believe. Did you know Linhart? Yes. You won't say anything about it or something? No. Of course. No, no, not at all. No, I don't know, I don't know. What do you think of the new generation of African Marxist philosophers?
5:01 I think, well, Souleymane Bachir Diagne, who introduced me to your friend here present — what about your contemporary, Hountondji, for example? Hountondji? Well, they come well after us, don't they? Yes, younger than you. Well, first of all, they're normaliens, like our friend here is a normalien, but he too was surely influenced by the spirit of the school.
5:31 And Bachir Diagne, he's not a normalien, but he passed the agrégation. He's more, let's say, on the side of... I just thought discourse and action go together. I don't know, it's not... Bachir believes...
6:06 A theory, he's a theorist. Bachir is somewhat of a theorist. But Bachir is not a reactionary. He doesn't prefer himself. I don't know. Maybe the audience will enlighten us on that. Well, are there any questions from the audience? If not, we have more in reserve. No, they seem to be under the spell. So, yes, regarding... I'd like to go back a little bit to the context.
The 1972 book and the intellectuals who fell in line 6:43 So, this context is the 1970s, right after '68, at the École Normale Supérieure. For me, it's '58. Yes. No, but the one we were just talking about — the book. Yes, that's it. What year was the first edition of the book? '72, yes. '72, that's it. There were five editions. There was the Algiers Congress in '69. There was the Algiers Congress in '69. I think that's maybe when it took hold. There you go, yes. Because I understood. So, in the interlude of your former Normale Sup colleague Pompidou becoming prime minister and then President of the Republic, shortly after he would pass away and be replaced by Giscard d'Estaing.
7:26 Historically, the book appears then... The first publication is in '72. Yes, yes, under Pompidou. Under Pompidou, right. In a context where what's now called Françafrique was already starting to transform a bit, since under Giscard it would already be completely different. It would really be completely different from what it was in de Gaulle's time. Under Pompidou, the relations of power precisely with the... With Senghor. With Senghor, with the people we talked about, the political or intellectual elite of the newly...
8:00 independent countries of the former community. Does... Does the book also fit into this... this situation of ideological debate, and debate, precisely, between the... How to put it... Well, that is to say, I... the book is addressed to all those who have... traitors. I leave you entirely free to... choose your own epithets.
8:31 Well yes, to all those people who are looking for a place, even people who are very brilliant, very intelligent, who nonetheless had had strong words, and suddenly, isn't it. At a time when there were other students, weren't there, who left for Guinea to help Guinea. Like... David Diop. All those people. What's his name? Ki-Zerbo... Ah well, all those people.
The meeting with Césaire 9:01 It's still not normal that people who were great revolutionaries, some of them, should suddenly find themselves somewhere they shouldn't be, right? It's not normal. It's normal. Ah, no, no. What do you say about that, exactly? Me, I'm not normal. It's not normal. Claire, do you know how Senghor and Césaire received the book? Ah, ah, a question. I was at... Ah, good, ah good... I was at Paris VII, and I had as an assistant, uh...
9:35 a friend of... of Césaire. What's that? Who wrote a book... What was it? Lilyan. Lilyan Kesteloot. Who... who insisted that I meet... He himself asked to meet me. I met him, we talked at length. And... He first told me... He reproached me for a number of things.
10:05 Why do you go after this person, that person, Lilyan, etc. And... Thank God, he didn't talk about... the father... Senghor? No, no. The...
10:36 And these people said things that we learned and that afterward... And so, I think you went too far. I told him, yes, fine, but in any case I didn't go further than you did, because in the end there's a kind of vociferation in you that goes much further than my poor little outcries. And there, he smiled and we embraced. That must have pleased him. Yes.
11:06 That's all. Then I saw him again later in the United States. No, actually, in Martinique. He must have embraced me in the hall and all that. After that, unfortunately, we didn't keep in touch. In writing. No. I really regret it because we could have continued the debate, the conversation, because he was giving me complete credit.
11:36 And it's obvious he made me understand that Senghor represented a happy form of writing. And in the end he even criticized his behavior toward his entourage. No. And did Senghor ever agree to see you? How did he react? No, he was his old friend. You know, relations among them are difficult. But... They were poor together at one time. They were both black.
Senghor, formal democracy and the welcome in Dakar 12:07 Well. No, I mean, Senghor took... Did that lead to some fallout? Except that it surely didn't please him. No, but there you go. There's one thing too. I already explained this. I don't know if I said this earlier. Senghor, after all... He believes in formal democracy, doesn't he? Senghor is an intellectual who... compared to other heads of state. Someone who believes in Greco-Latin principles, all that.
12:41 Montesquieu. And so, he was never a brutal head of state. Throughout his time, there was only one death. And that was Marc-Saint-Hélène, his interior minister, who was French. Colin. Colin, exactly. So, in the end, he always wanted... he had a kind of rapprochement with intellectuals. But of course, his discourse was so...
13:12 so close to colonial discourse that most intellectuals rejected him. He was rejected. And so many of them said that... I was supposed to come teach or give a course at... at Cheikh Anta Diop [University]?
13:42 No, that wasn't it yet. Not yet? Not yet. And people advised me not to go. Well, I said, there's no reason for me not to go. But it's clear that if it turns out... So I arrived, normally, there was no problem at customs, at the airport. No problem, it went very well. Of course, I took a lot of precautions. I wrote to everyone as soon as I arrived. Well, anyway. I land. And the next day, he sends... So there was a young man who played a very important role.
14:13 He was his journalist, what's his name? Not Georgie. No, the head of Le Soleil. Ah yes, Le Quotidien, yes, yes. Le Soleil. Le Soleil de Dakar. From Dakar, almost. He was really interested in the book. But being too close to Senghor, he didn't dare admit it. So he had me... And the next day, the next day, he learned, of course, that I had arrived.
14:46 He had me come to his place at 5 o'clock. We talked, mused, until 11 at night. He explained all sorts of things to me. So there were things like that. Afterward, I would go see him often. And he would tell me: you see, Adotevi, you're right. You're right to denounce the négrologues. So I don't know, whether by négrologues he meant whites who didn't understand, or I don't know who he meant, but in any case, I'm telling you you're right.
The civilization of the universal and the question of color 15:17 You did well to attack the négrologues. And then, well, one day he talked to me about the civilization of the universal. I told him I disagreed, saying that... there can be no civilization of the universal as long as there is domination — whether of one culture over another. He told me, it's up to you to carry on that work. And then, well, he decided to come to my place. It was the first time, the very first time he had done that, that he had visited a private individual.
15:51 And so, he came to my place in the afternoon. We spent a long time talking, discussing the future of Africa. At that time, there was... That's me. Yes, but at your place, where exactly? In Dakar. In Dakar, at the time. And then afterward, there's a rather curious story. He tells me, you know, when we were students, we were very racist. Césaire and I, we wanted... He had married the daughter of Éboué.
16:24 Governor Éboué. Ah, Éboué. That's Éboué. And when he divorced, they had had three children who died. Because there were many personal tragedies. So, when I was a student — because people criticized him for it, isn't it true — for divorcing a black woman to marry a black woman, all while talking about négritude, right, that's true. And he tells me, we didn't want to marry white women, etc.
16:56 So I told him, but Mr. President, that's not a matter of color at all. You marry whoever you can. He burst out laughing. That's the voice from the hall. But that's all. When you love someone, you marry them, and that's it. You don't need to check their color. It has nothing to do with it. So he fell silent for a long while. So, that's quite something. He fell silent. And then, well, it was through an intermediary, a week later, that he came to my place.
A complex man, Catholic and in love with French 17:29 That means he was a rather complex man, rather complicated, rather... perhaps even... perhaps a tormented one, I don't know. He had... because he... Or else he was a politician who knew his limits. He knew that... well, he needed French cooperation and all that. And so there was a limit he couldn't cross. That's it. Maybe. No, it's true. In any case, I have to testify that he was different from other African heads of state who turned reactionary and threw me in prison.
18:05 Since later, in my own country, isn't it, I was thrown in prison, beaten by soldiers, and then... Well, so... And the history of Senegal... Ah, no, that's not what I meant... The history of Senegal proves you right. The history of Senegal after independence proves you right. Absolutely. It's a country with a democratic life above the regional average. Yes, a higher level of life. The history of multipartyism, that's him. So we have to look somewhere. He has qualities that must be acknowledged.
18:38 But I think his real concern, his truth, was European culture, practically French culture. The French language. And he believed in it. He at least believed in it. He was one of the greatest lovers of the language. But without essentializing it, he was also a Serer and a Catholic in Senegal. Ah, well, there you go. Senegal is a rather peculiar country, indeed.
19:10 Here's a fellow who is Christian, Catholic, but a believer. Because in the end there was a whole story, because for the divorce, and to be able to marry again later, he had to go through the Rota, the Rota — not Rome — which decides, which validates the divorce, confirms the divorce, or rejects it. The annulment of the previous marriage. So, and one of the grounds was that he had had no sexual relations with his spouse.
19:45 Ah, come on. There were still three children after all. But it was difficult. Well, anyway, never mind. I say this for the young people — we're talking about a Catholic president in a country that's 90%... So, entirely, a country that's 90%. Yes, because for instance, Senegal's situation in that regard is not at all the same as Côte d'Ivoire's. Côte d'Ivoire, over there. Like other Sahel countries, more than 80% of people [are Muslim]. Well, so, Senghor. Now there's a question here. Ah, a question. About time.
Objection: the opponents broken by Senghor 20:15 Allow me to react when I hear it said — I'm of Senegalese origin — that Senegal is some other thing, etc. It raises the hackles, so to speak, of Senegalese people to hear that. Certainly. It's a way, if you will, of promoting the type of regime that existed in Senegal, particularly under Senghor. Because let's not forget, when you say Senghor was committed to democracy, it pains me to hear that.
20:46 Senghor... I won't speak about literature, because I don't know it very well, but what I do know is that he had very high-level figures in the country whom he helped destroy. Well then — not physically, exactly, but there were communist militants who were harshly repressed... Actually, he crushed, in the most ferocious way, the communist movement in Senegal, partly from France...
21:18 Majhmout, Majhmout, for example. And on the cultural level, to stay on the cultural plane on which he prides himself on much debate, he was nonetheless a fierce opponent of Ousmane Sembène. Ousmane Sembène, the filmmaker, who nonetheless developed universal theses on women, on economic development, on independence, etc. He crushed him to the very end.
21:49 Cheikh Anta, whom you doubtless know, who was reconciled in that period as well, Cheikh Anta, who is considered a scholar, at least of that era, who was never given, under Senghor, the possibility of teaching at the church, and even having his name recognized. It was only when Senghor died — well, when Senghor resigned — that he was rehabilitated, that he was given the possibility to work, etc. They named the university after him, etc.
22:22 So there you have two figures. Pathé Diagne too, a linguist, who worked on languages, who therefore favored the development of national languages, and who was likewise eliminated by Senghor. So we said Senghor really broke all the intellectual resources that Senegal had available — not to mention Mamadou Dia, of course, Mamadou Dia who defended another economic thesis, for the economic development of Senegal. You doubtless know the fate Senghor had in store for him.
22:54 as a democrat, whom he nonetheless accused of, it was a coup d'état, imprisoned him for I don't know how many years, and crushed all these aspirations toward independence and nation-building. Well, what must also be said, when speaking of democracy in Senegal, is that this was a country which, at the time of independence, already had democratic pluralism. There were several parties competing in elections, etc. And Senghor put a stop to all that until the 1980s, when it was allowed again — well, actually it wasn't even Senghor, it was Abdou Diouf, under pressure, if you will, from the Senegalese population demanding democracy, freedom and so on — that's how his resignation is explained.
23:43 He could no longer hold on. He was forced to resign. We saw that once he resigned, he put his chosen successor in place, but that successor was forced to open the floodgates, to allow all the parties to express themselves, the unions to express themselves, etc. No, no, no, no. Two parties, no, no. Multipartyism, starting with Senghor. Yes, that's a caricature. No, no, go on, go on, go on. No, go on, go on. Yes, Senghor, for him, pluralism was — well, he explained it to us in his way of making poetry, for Catholic matters, for economic matters, for political matters, he turned it into poetry.
Three authorized political currents 24:21 He told us that, in Senegal, three currents of thought were enough. I'm a socialist, he'd say. Yes, he was a socialist. And then afterward, he allowed... the business lawyer... No, the lawyer of... No, the lawyer, yes. Yes, the corporate lawyer... of companies. Companies. He created a liberal party, he called it liberal, and then he went to fetch... The lawyer, there. ...who had been rejected by the communist party, Majhmout Diop. He went and got him out of clandestinity, opened a pharmacy for him, etc.
A democracy relative to the regional average 24:52 And he told him, right, now, you create your communist party. There you go. Those are the three political currents he authorized up until his resignation. For an anticommunist, there's nothing better than a communist under one's thumb. Very good, sir, thank you, Adotevi. If you don't mind, allow me to respond briefly, because I feel somewhat responsible for having alluded to the period of democracy that existed after independence in Senegal. I'm very, very glad to hear you, and to hear you recall the struggle that was silenced — you're quite right — of the opponents of that regime whose democratic reputation meant that the battles that took place, in particular around the Senegalese communist party, were ignored.
25:33 So, really, that's entirely to the honor of their memory, and I'm glad to hear you say it. It's simply that, what I was saying, and I stand by it, is that, alas, I'm speaking in terms of a regional average, and I've known such horror elsewhere that I don't... That's it, it's in terms... It's relative. When Stanislas Spero says he felt safe, notwithstanding the precautions he had taken beforehand, this is nonetheless someone who knows the region far better than I do, and who is speaking, I presume, in comparative terms, relative to other countries, unfortunately.
26:06 Otherwise, you're quite right to say that this wasn't 'happy négritude' either, to borrow an expression. I think — I believe. I can say we agree. Absolutely. There you go. Let me explain. I did part of my studies at the Van Vollenhoven lycée. I was at the Van Vollenhoven lycée, I belong to that generation. It was also the generation of... the old man, the great socialist, what's his name again?
Eliminating is not killing: Adotevi's response 26:40 There was the period of Béchard and all the rest. There was indeed... someone said there was a kind of democracy that preceded this... Multipartyism. Fine. We won't get into that right now. But what he's telling me, and I said it in my talk, is that his political and cultural stance caused many intellectuals to distance themselves from him.
27:18 We agree on that. Second thing: when you said he killed intellectuals, etc., you mean killed, not physically. That's very important. I don't want to argue with what you're the author of... A dead man is a dead man, we don't do accounting, do we? So, he didn't kill. He eliminated them, and I know — Cheikh Anta Diop was a great friend of mine when he was in Paris.
27:53 I was in Caen at one point, and he would come when he came there. In Caen, it was to get a degree in physics. And he stayed at my place, in Dakar. We remained great friends throughout the time I was there, even the whole time I was in Dakar. And every friend — every, Cheikh Anta Diop, was he opposed to Senghor? Opposed definitively. And there's Majhmout Diop.
28:25 Well, that description is fine, no problem. I'm simply saying that during the whole time Senghor was in power, the only death was the Diop child, I believe, what's his name already — Blondin Diop. And, for reasons we now know, I believe Collin had something to do with that affair. What I was saying is simply that Senghor, compared to others, and given his culture — to show that his culture is good — was certainly by far less, less diabolical, if one can put it that way, than the other African heads of state.
A head of state who did not use power for himself 29:19 In that period, it was the single party, the party-state, in every country. People were thrown in prison, on trumped-up charges; in Benin, there were deaths, throughout the region, indeed — if you tally it up, it's regrettable to tally up the dead, my goodness. But what's certain is that, when you compare, there is nonetheless a difference relative to the others.
29:54 He had all the powers, and he never used any of them against the meaning — he had all the powers, but he never, mind you, he never wanted to use that power for himself. It reminds me of a discussion between President Zinsou and him, about the famous house, 'the shark's teeth,' I don't know, 'Jaws.'
30:29 Former president, 'Jaws' — it was amusing because he was trying to find a way, wanted to arrange things so as to get a loan somewhere so that no one could accuse him of having taken money from the treasury. I witnessed that myself. So, that's the man I want to describe. I don't want to turn him into — I don't want to make him a saint, I know, I believe it's certainly him — in fact, when people read the book, they say your book is anti-Senghor.
31:04 And it's true, many people feel it as an anti-Senghor book. Well, it's not him. I'm simply describing the shortcomings of a discourse. Now, when it comes to multipartyism, if he had been less Senghorist-saintly, that is, less pro-négritude, less pro-négritude, he would have been less protected. And there were, among many people around him, many intellectuals who were ready to work with him.
31:40 So, I grant you that, it's true. But he's not a killer. Second thing — oh, excuse me, second thing: when it comes to establishing pluralism, his position was clear. Well, look, we'll do it like in the United States, that's the Western way, let's say. Well, like in England, there will be a socialist party — that's me, you know what his socialism means.
32:12 Then there will be a somewhat muddled party, on the right, and then there's a far-left party — and what you say about Majhmout is quite true. But he believed in it. And that's where many pushed back at him, because Diagne is a great friend, Pathé Diagne is a great friend, and he and I have always held the same positions on Senghor.
32:42 We never considered Senghor to be, how should I put it, a village chief. Mind you, a chief, how should I say — we've heard that before — he was different from the others, in the end, even though, even though Pathé Diagne suffered because of him. So, your criticisms are fair, but what's certain is that the Senghor we're talking about is something other than — Senghor pursued a necessary policy of cooperation, not for himself, quite simply, because he had no wish to go elsewhere.
33:30 He spoke of radical anticommunism; he was never anything but, he never hid it. That was his issue, because he said, for strange, Catholic reasons — it wasn't because — so, for Catholic reasons, he could not understand how one could not go to church, even though divorced, mind you, that's not — well, that's the fellow we were dealing with. So on many points — and besides, when some people read my book, they say it's the anti-Senghor book, whereas that's not true.
Who are the negrologues? An open négritude 34:04 I think I've answered the questions. There, there's another question. So I wanted — the book is called Négritude et négrologues. So I'd like to know whether 'négrologues,' in the end, simply means the ideologues of négritude, or whether it covers something else too. Does it go beyond the ideology of négritude, shall we say?
34:34 And then, second question: we understand the book is, ultimately, a critique of négritude as an anti-universalist concept, let's say. But is there something to be salvaged, precisely from the standpoint of emancipation, that this concept of négritude brought — or not? The first question is: is négritude an ideology?
35:07 No, is it — if you will, because the title is Négritude et négrologues. Are the négrologues simply the ideologues of négritude, or are they the négrologues of négritude plus others? Because it's true one might think, indeed, that French academia started to... I'll answer that question. The original title of the book was Négritude, négrologues et négrologation. I think my friend Bourbois found that too much.
35:37 Emancipation. When I wanted — I said, well, négrologue and négrologue, I mean, mind you, all those who flounder about in the machine. Fine, I didn't... And so, we removed the 'irritation' [the extra term]. But for me, it's everyone, not only Blacks who talk about négrologie, but everyone who grants themselves the right to speak of négritude in order to justify... Whatever their color? Whatever their color. That's it, for me. It's their business model.
36:08 There. That's my position. And, secondly, for me, négritude must not be a place of confinement. Négritude must be open. It must be open. And Césaire says it very well, doesn't he? Opening the hand, opening... A man who has suffered what the Black man has suffered must be capable of opening up, of giving his hand, of reaching out to everyone.
The book owes nothing to Fanon; conclusion 36:41 It's a will toward the universal, in my thinking. There, I think I've answered the question. One last question, because time is running short — Grégory? There's a man we haven't yet talked about, but who appears in the book. I'd like to know what, in your view, the book owes to Fanon. Nothing. No, nothing, because, quite simply, well, I cite Fanon, because the book came out well before, it's Fanon's.
37:16 No, the book came out almost at the same time as Fanon's. That is, Sartre wrote the preface to that book at the very moment I finished mine. And so, but I hadn't read the book — it wasn't finished — but I had, afterward, quotations to justify a certain number of things. It owes nothing to it.
37:47 The book was already put together before that happened. I understand. Fine. Have you ever heard of the agrégé, there — well, I don't know, maybe they were intimidated — but I'm going to invite you, if there are no other questions, to a conclusion, because we promised not to run over certain hours, still — I don't know, you may have — me, just, one last question, but you don't have to answer if you'd rather bring your conclusion to bear on something else entirely. I'll go back to the very beginning of the conversation, we touched on this question because it is topical in the current ideological debate in France, that is, what about the relationship between — you already answered, so you may skip it, but it could also serve as a conclusion — between the current communitarian, identitarian ideology, which claims to be, supposedly, progressive, emancipatory today, and, on the other hand, the way you critique, in the Marxist sense, the ideology of négritude.
38:52 There, we know the problem that exists today. Today, mind you, it's globalization — sorry, globalization that kills. For me — that's my problem — the rest, whether I'm Breton or whatever, that's not my problem. For me, it's a political struggle against everything that destroys man. There. That seems to me a good conclusion. Thank you. Thank you very much.
39:23 Thank you.
