- Thank you, Dr. Zouaoui, for accepting our invitation to engage in this dialogue. We are interested in learning about your early experiences at university and what led you to pursue philosophy as your major field of study. Additionally, we would like to gain insight into the state of philosophical education in Algeria during the mid-1990s when you were working on your doctoral thesis.
I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to you for providing me with this valuable cultural opportunity to share a part of my academic and scholarly journey. I extend my best wishes to you and your esteemed philosophical platform in the Arab philosophical sphere, hoping for ongoing success and prosperity.
The decision to pursue philosophy was not presented to me as a choice. Ever since my early years in secondary school, I had a strong desire to study philosophy. In Algeria, the educational system at the end of the 1970s required students to choose between three main tracks: mathematics, science, or literature. Influenced by my religious upbringing, I decided to join the literature department. My family has been involved with the supervision of the Sidi Abdul Qadir Gilani zawiyah (a religious institution in the Maghreb countries that teaches the Holy Qur’an and religious sciences) since the 19th century. The zawiyah attracts students from various places who reside there and study until they receive permission from their imam. In the late 1960s, I established a ‘modern’ school in my remote village located in the Djurdjura Mountains. The term ‘modern’ was commonly used among villagers engaging in ongoing debates about the best form of education: traditional religious education or modern education. My late father strongly advocated for traditional education and wished for me to complete my religious studies and become an imam, succeeding my uncle Mustafa, who was an imam but passed away at a young age. Given my ability to memorize the Holy Quran, there was hope that I would assume the role of imam within the family. However, the establishment of the modern school created turmoil within my family. My late mother, driven by practical reasons, preferred the modern school. She believed that the state guaranteed the function of education, unlike the imamate, which relied on the desires of the villagers and their ability to secure an imam for their mosques. To put it in contemporary terms, being a teacher was a profession guaranteed by the state, while being an imam was a profession guaranteed by civil society. The two careers differed in material and symbolic aspects, which varied depending on individuals and their perspectives. I cannot say whether this was ultimately good or bad for me. My maternal grandfather, who was an imam himself, chose to immigrate to France for work. During one of his visits, he became aware of the ongoing discussion within the family. He convinced my father that I could pursue both forms of education simultaneously and that a judgment should be made based on the results I achieved at the end of the sixth year of primary school. Thus, I embarked on a schedule that involved starting my day with the dawn prayer and then attending school at 7:30 in the morning. Due to my advanced age and educational level, I joined the third grade or third year of schooling.
It is important here to highlight the distinction between the level of religious education I had attained and the commencement of my ‘modern’ education. In the zawiyah, I had memorized the Holy Quran and began listening to the imam of jurisprudence, a title given to the specialized Imam in the fundamentals of religion. I absorbed his teachings on the opinions of esteemed scholars of jurisprudence, alongside his constant criticism of the “people of innovations.” Meanwhile, in the modern school, I studied various literary texts (prose and poetry) through subjects such as composition or expression, Islamic education, history, and mathematics. These subjects came easily to me and did not pose the same challenges as understanding the concept of the “people of innovations” discussed by the imam of jurisprudence. I became increasingly curious about these “people of innovation” until one day, an imam casually mentioned them by name, referring to them as “the Mu’tazila, the followers of reason.” This statement sparked a strong desire within me to comprehend their significance. The only way I believed I could truly understand was by delving into philosophy, which I had opted for during my high school years and chose as my field of study in university. In 1981, I eagerly awaited the opening of the Philosophy Department at the University of Constantine. At that time, the sole department of philosophy existed at the University of Algiers. However, when I applied to register in the Philosophy Department in the capital, my application was rejected on the grounds that there was a department in the eastern region of Algeria, where I belonged geographically. However, my disappointment grew when I arrived at the University of Constantine and was told that the department’s opening was postponed until the following year. As per the regulations governing the baccalaureate degree at the time, I was advised to enroll in any available specialty. Consequently, I registered in the Psychology Department. After attending several lectures, I made the decision to return to my village and dedicate myself to philosophical readings while eagerly awaiting the arrival of the new academic year.
During that particular year, the Algerian Ministry of Education introduced a new primary education method called ‘basic education.’ This initiative created a demand for teachers with advanced degrees. The school administration reached out to me for this purpose, and I became a teacher for the first grade of primary school. Thus, I spent an entire year juggling between teaching at school and dedicating my free time at home to reading philosophical books and creating summaries, which I still possess to this day. The following year, I enrolled in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Constantine. I was part of the inaugural group of students who would teach philosophy in eastern Algeria. Our professors hailed from various Arab and European countries. Among them were Dr. Ahmed Fouad Kamel from Egypt, Dr. Abdul Muttalib Al-Husseini from Lebanon, Dr. Ali Ahmed Saeed from Iraq, and Dr. Claude Bernard from France. The education system in the department spanned three years, with each year divided into two semesters. Each semester encompasses several mandatory and elective courses. I performed well academically and ranked among the top ten students in the third year. I was poised to benefit from a scientific scholarship to Europe. However, in 1985, the year of my graduation, the Ministry of Higher Education unexpectedly decided that philosophy students would not receive scholarships until after completing the fourth year of the bachelor’s degree program. Consequently, I had to take the supplementary year entrance exam, which I passed at the end of the 1985-1986 academic year. Following the completion of the supplementary year, the Ministry decided not to grant scholarships to students, citing the economic crisis resulting from the decline in oil prices. This decision sparked protests among the students. In response, the university had no choice but to organize a competition for admission to graduate studies in scientific departments. Consequently, at the beginning of the 1986-1987 academic year, I took the postgraduate entrance examination for the second time along with the first batch of postgraduate students. After completing the theoretical coursework, I began preparing my master’s thesis under the guidance of Professor Dr. Ahmed Fouad Kamel Gad. My thesis was titled: The Structural Approach According to Claude Lévi-Strauss, Lucien Sebagh, and Maurice Godolier.
The reasons behind my choice of thesis topic are both subjective and objective. On a personal level, I found myself gravitating towards contemporary philosophy, although my initial motivation for pursuing philosophy was rooted in rhetorical issues. From an objective standpoint, the Department of Philosophy imposed certain conditions for scholarships, including the requirement to specialize in a particular area, given the department’s need for diverse philosophical specializations. However, my choice of thesis topic, whether for my master’s or doctorate, was not solely influenced by these reasons. There was a scientific and cultural rationale that guided my decision. The Faculty of Arts and Humanities at the University of Constantine, particularly in the mid-eighties, was characterized by vibrant debates and cultural discussions between the dominant Marxist current and the emerging structuralist current, particularly in the field of literature and literary criticism. I was deeply interested in these discussions and would attend the weekly seminars held in the university’s large lecture hall. An important cultural event that took place during this time was the international conference on Structuralism organized by the Arabic Language Department in November 1987. The conference drew researchers and professors from various countries, notably France, Belgium, Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. This was my first year in the master’s program, and at the request of Professor Claude Bernard, who taught us the epistemology course, I was working on preliminary research on the analysis of myths according to Claude Lévi-Strauss. Recognizing the merits of my research, Professor Bernard approached the conference president, Dr. Rachid Boual Shaair, about the possibility of presenting my research in one of the conference workshops. The idea was approved, and I had the opportunity to present my work to a group of researchers and professors. This experience had a profound impact on me, particularly the feedback I received from Professor Jamal Shahid from Syria, who even gave me his book on formative structuralism. In fact, whether it pertained to my master’s thesis or doctoral thesis, credit must be given to Professor Claude Bernard. He convinced me that an exploration of Foucault’s philosophy inevitably necessitated a study of structuralism, as founded by Claude Lévi-Strauss.
It must be mentioned here that the second research project I conducted in the epistemology course was focused on Michel Foucault’s concept of structure as discussed in one of the chapters of his book, The Order of Things. I found this chapter very challenging to comprehend, but it piqued my interest, leading me to specialize in Foucault’s philosophy upon completing my master’s thesis. Subsequently, I presented my doctoral thesis on this topic, benefiting from a fifteen-month scholarship spread over three consecutive years, from the academic year 1993-1994 to 1995-1996. It is worth noting that my master’s thesis, which I defended in December 1989, marked the first defense of a master’s thesis in philosophy at Constantine University. The same was true for my doctoral thesis, which I defended in May 1996. These milestones were celebrated by the university and garnered attention from the local press. I can say that they constituted a significant cultural event in Constantine. To this day, I cherish the articles and photographs capturing the large audience that filled the lecture hall at the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities during these defenses.
- Your doctoral thesis, titled The Concept of Discourse in the Philosophy of Michel Foucault, was published as a book in the early years of the new millennium. Could you share the story behind this thesis? What led you to choose Michel Foucault as your focus of study, especially considering your previous interest in anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss during your master’s degree, as you mentioned earlier?
As I said, the intellectual and scientific environment at Constantine University was characterized by a lively debate between two currents. The dominant current was Marxism, although signs of its waning influence were beginning to emerge. The other current, structuralism, was gaining traction mainly in literature and literary criticism. However, it’s important to note that the rest of the political and intellectual landscape was tightly controlled by the ideology of the ruling party, as well as the emerging ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood. At that time, the Brotherhood was represented by Egyptian Imam Muhammad al-Ghazali, who held the position of head of the Scientific Council at Prince Abdul Qadir Islamic University. He insisted on delivering public lectures at our university, which the Brotherhood derogatorily referred to as “the secular university.” During one of these lectures, two esteemed professors from the Philosophy Department faced consequences. The first was Dr. Ali Al-Nuqri, a Syrian philosopher known for his philosophical school of thought called ‘the vital school of thought.’ He specialized in teaching modern and contemporary Arab thought. Dr. Al-Nuqri attended one of Sheikh al-Ghazali’s lectures and had the audacity to pose a critical question. This act incited anger among the audience, leading to the forceful removal of the professor from the venue. The second professor, Dr. Talaat Murad Badr from Sudan, was expelled from the university for moral reasons, as we were informed.
I opted for the structuralist approach of Claude Lévi-Strauss and his students, Sibagh and Godolier, as a pedagogical and academic choice. This recommendation came from Professor Claude Bernard, who taught us in French. However, university regulations stipulated that philosophical theses must be presented in Arabic. Consequently, I had no alternative but to propose my research topic to Dr. Ahmed Fouad Kamel, my professor during my bachelor’s and master’s studies, who specialized in analytical philosophy. He welcomed the idea of the thesis and collaboration with Professor Claude Bernard. As part of national service obligations for university students, except for those with special circumstances, I temporarily suspended formal scientific research between 1990 and 1992. During this period, Algeria experienced various political and social upheavals, referred to by the official discourse as the “war against terrorism.” As a result, no foreign professors remained in the department. A group of my colleagues and I took on the responsibility of teaching within the department, with me being the only one holding a master’s degree. At the start of the academic year 1993-1994, I was fortunate to receive a scholarship through a scientific exchange program between Algeria and France to complete my doctoral thesis. It is important to note that before my military service, the department had established a scientific agreement with the Department of Philosophy at the University of Paris VIII to facilitate visits and knowledge sharing. We hosted a group of French professors, some of whom I am still friends with today. Specifically, I would like to mention Professor Stephane Douillet, an expert in Greek philosophy, Patrice Vermerand, specializing in political philosophy, and Jacques Poulin, a philosopher specializing in the philosophy of language and pragmatics. Jacques Poulin would eventually become my thesis supervisor, alongside Professor Fathi Triki from Tunisia. This collaboration was made possible by a policy enforced by the Ministry of Higher Education at the time, which required enrollment in two universities: the home university, Constantine University, and the host university, Paris VIII. The purpose of this policy was to curb the ‘brain drain’ phenomenon. As part of this cooperation, I traveled to France as a young researcher to observe the progress of research in the philosophy department of the host university. During this scientific visit, I acquired the most significant books by Foucault and various studies about his work. Thus, most of my time between 1990 and 1992 was dedicated to studying these primary sources and references. It became evident to me during this period that the central theme in Michel Foucault’s philosophy was the concept of discourse. I extensively examined Foucault’s entire philosophical framework, as I discovered that his philosophy revolved around discourse in history, particularly cultural history.
- You had access to Michel Foucault’s archive. We would appreciate it if you could provide some insights into this archive, its background, and how it has shaped your scientific journey.
Certainly! My access to the Michel Foucault archive played a vital role not only in the preparation of my thesis centered around Foucault’s ideas but also in my ongoing research on his philosophy following the completion of my doctorate. This archive presented a truly exceptional and rare opportunity for me. It is worth noting that the scholarship I received would not have been sufficient to sustain my stay in Paris for more than two months, as per the Algerian embassy’s consul in Paris. However, I needed to spend five consecutive months to qualify for its renewal. The consul’s unexpected statement caught me off guard and disrupted my plans, particularly since I had intended to attend the lectures of my thesis supervisor, philosopher Jacques Poulain, at Paris VIII. These lectures, focused on the philosophy of language and pragmatism, including philosophical pragmatics, took place every Wednesday evening. Additionally, I had eagerly anticipated the lectures of philosopher Dominique Lecour, an expert in Foucault’s philosophy and a professor at the University of Paris, on the philosophy of science. Naturally, it was also essential for me to visit the National Library in Paris to study Foucault’s own works.
On one occasion, while visiting the National Library to complete the registration process and obtain an entry card, I had an encounter with a researcher who inquired about the focus of my research. Upon sharing my topic, he informed me that the National Library paled in comparison to the Bibliothèque du Saulchoir of the Dominican Brothers, situated on 16th Avenue in Glacier. He emphasized that the Bibliothèque du Saulchoir housed the Michel Foucault archive, which made it far more valuable. Intrigued by this revelation, I returned to my university and shared the incident with my professor. To my surprise, he expressed astonishment at my ignorance, as French universities had already begun implementing a system similar to the internet called the “Intranet.” This was a concept unfamiliar to our university in Algeria, and the internet had not yet gained widespread popularity at that time. Consequently, I remained unaware of the latest advancements in private research on Foucault and other philosophers. Initially, I assumed that the Bibliothèque du Saulchoir I intended to visit would have the same system in place. Therefore, I decided to test my research skills within the university library first. However, as soon as I entered the library, I was taken aback. The process of searching for books or journals had become automated and nearly instantaneous. Researchers were compelled to use computer-like devices mounted in the library’s lobby, where requests and inquiries were handled. I felt a sense of unease as the system appeared complex to me, and I anticipated that it would consume a significant amount of time to familiarize myself with its operation. If the same system were in place at the Bibliothèque du Saulchoir, my modest grant would not provide me with substantial benefits.
The following day, I proceeded to the library and was pleasantly surprised to discover that it retained a traditional format. Registering merely required presenting my passport, completing a straightforward card, and paying a nominal fee. The library operated from nine in the morning until nine in the evening, uninterrupted, throughout the week except on Sundays. Researchers enjoyed the privilege of ordering any desired books, receiving them in batches not exceeding ten volumes. Additionally, they were entitled to photocopy chapters from books or articles in magazines, limited to one article per issue, provided that the total number of copied pages did not exceed 150 pages per day. Other than the limited seating availability, the library proved highly conducive to research and reading. It encompassed six floors, with the front section of the ground floor dedicated to cabinets containing lists of book titles and authors’ names, as well as select encyclopedias. The rear portion served as the reading area, necessitating early arrival to secure a seat. Alternatively, one could patiently wait for a spot to become available. The hall overlooked a picturesque garden adjacent to the UNESCO University Residence. Foucault himself spent his final years at this library, driven by two primary reasons. Firstly, he found the National Library’s search system, which he previously relied upon daily, to be unsuitable due to its complexity. Secondly, the Bibliothèque du Saulchoir housed the most significant works and studies on ancient Greek and Roman civilizations, subjects he commenced studying and which featured prominently in his recent works on the history of sexuality. Prior to his passing, Foucault explicitly recommended that his works, lectures, and manuscripts be deposited within this library. Therefore, when I approached the library staff in pursuit of my research materials, the response was immediate: “You’ve hit the mark.” From that day forward, I immersed myself in this library, laboring within its walls until the defense of my thesis. Throughout my tenure, I meticulously examined Foucault’s published and unpublished books (manuscripts typewritten in a serialized manner, denoted by the letter ‘D’, and we were not allowed to acquire photographic copies of these manuscripts). Furthermore, I diligently listened to his lectures delivered at the Collège de France before their publication. Naturally, I also delved into numerous dissertations and studies exploring his philosophy in various languages from around the world. Moreover, I greatly benefited from the library’s occasional scientific gatherings, hosting esteemed researchers, scholars, and philosophers.
- At the outset of your doctoral thesis, you conducted a comprehensive examination of the translated works of Michel Foucault, as well as the extensive body of literature written about him. The abundance of available material pertaining to Foucault surpassed that of Derrida or Deleuze during that period. In your assessment, what factors contribute to the notable Arab interest in translating Foucault’s works, particularly his books? Furthermore, could you expound upon Foucault’s philosophical originality, specifically in relation to Arab thought?
Although my original intention was to research Foucault’s philosophy, I opted to present a broad research project encompassing the study of Foucault, Althusser, Muhammad Abed al-Jabri, and Muhammad Arkoun. These philosophers, despite their differences, are all associated with the structuralist school of thought in both French and Arab intellectual traditions. However, when I presented this project to a distinguished group of professors and prominent thinkers in the Arab world, they unanimously advised me to focus solely on Michel Foucault for my thesis. Notable individuals among this esteemed group included Dr. Adel Al-Awa from Damascus University, Dr. Fouad Zakaria from Kuwait University, Dr. Mahmoud Amin Al-Alam from Egypt, Mr. Hadi Al-Alawi from Iraq (who was residing in Syria), and Dr. Taha Abdel Rahman from Morocco. Additionally, my remote thesis supervisor in Algeria, Dr. Fathi Triki from Tunisia, played a crucial role in guiding my research. Upon considering the insights shared by these respected professors, I refrained from delving extensively into the collected works or recorded notes, which I later published in my book titled Michel Foucault in Arab Thought, released after the publication of my thesis.
In this book, my aim was to provide a comprehensive overview of Arab scholarship on Foucault. However, I now realize that the subject extends far beyond the work of a single researcher, given the abundance of theses submitted on Foucault in various Arab universities, the continuous stream of research and articles dedicated to his philosophy, and the ongoing translation efforts of his texts. Regarding translations alone, it is worth noting that all of Foucault’s published books have been translated into Arabic, with the exception of his first book, Mental Illness and Personality (1954). In terms of his lectures, to my knowledge, six have been translated, of which I personally translated five. Concerning his articles and research, which are compiled in the extensive four-volume collection titled Sayings and Writings, some articles have been translated, while the translation process for others remains ongoing. I must confess that I do not possess a definitive explanation for the profound interest in Foucault’s philosophy.
Here I may relate a funny incident that happened to me during my first visit to the University of Tunisia with the aim of meeting with my professor, Fathi Triki. I met a group of fellow professors to whom Dr. Fathi told them: I thought that I was preparing a thesis on Foucault, and more than one of them agreed that Foucault was over-researched, and his sayings had been used in the Arab heritage, so why should I waste my time researching his philosophy? Despite the arrogance and cruelty in their tone, my answer to them was very simple, as I told them: There is nothing wrong with that, because my thesis, if I succeed in completing it, will be the first thesis at the Algerian University in French philosophy, and specifically in Foucault. My response raised the astonishment of those professors who believed that our philosophical departments in Algeria were steeped in French philosophy, while the reality of the situation at that time was exactly the opposite. The various researches and dissertations completed revolved around Arab and Islamic thought and Islamic philosophy from a very conservative perspective, led by studies on Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, Ibn Taymiyyah, Malik ibn Nabi, and Abd al-Hamid ibn Badis, which I later explained in a field study on the reality of philosophical education in Algeria, which at that time was responsible for three sections: the main section in the capital, Algiers, the second section in the city of Constantine in eastern Algeria, and the third section in the city of Oran in western Algeria. Today, more than half a century has passed since the first article devoted to Foucault about his book Madness and Civilization, and that was in the early seventies, and to this day studies and translations are still ongoing about his philosophy.
This observation leads us to assert that Michel Foucault stands out as one of the Western philosophers who has garnered significant attention within contemporary Arab thought, surpassing even figures such as Descartes, Kant, Marx, and Jean-Paul Sartre. Consequently, your inquiry into the underlying reasons behind the Arab interest in Foucault becomes a fundamental question. In my view, a comprehensive analysis of this phenomenon must consider the following elements: Firstly, it is crucial to recognize that this interest transcends Arab borders and assumes a global dimension. English-language studies, for instance, exemplify this trend. Secondly, Foucault’s contributions primarily consist of historical analyses and examinations of specific historical experiences, rather than presenting a comprehensive theory that can be refuted or objected to. His work can be described as adopting a provisional and interim approach, lacking a rigidly defined framework. Thirdly, the critical and illuminating nature of his analyses is a key factor in their enduring significance. This quality allows his ideas to be applied to a wide range of past, present, and future contexts, both within Western and non-Western intellectual traditions. Indeed, his texts can genuinely be regarded as practical tools, as he himself described them. A prime example of this is his exploration of “biopolitics,” a concept that has been extensively employed in analyzing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, whose effects continue to resonate. The sheer volume of studies utilizing the concept of biopolitics is truly staggering. For instance, Italian researchers published a dictionary of biopolitics, comprising over 400 pages and involving the collaboration of more than thirty scholars.
- Your keen interest in translating Foucault’s lectures sets you apart from previous translators who primarily focused on translating his books or his renowned introductory lecture, The Discourse System. In 2003, you published your first translation of a lecture titled Society Must Be Defended, which Foucault delivered in 1976 at the Collège de France. More recently, you have also published a translation of his final lecture, The Courage of Truth, which he delivered shortly before his passing. This prompts the question: What motivated your special emphasis on translating his lectures, and what methodological and translational challenges arise when translating lectures as opposed to books?
Despite receiving praise from the discussion committee and generating demand from readers, my thesis underwent some changes in its third edition, published by Dar Al-Rawafed. The title was slightly modified to The Discourse: A Study of its Structure, Relationship, and Place in Foucault’s Philosophy. However, I remained unconvinced that my presentation adequately encompassed the various aspects of Foucault’s philosophy. On one hand, during the committee’s discussion, one member focused on my translation of certain concepts coined by Foucault. I disagreed with Professor Salem Yafout, who translated the book The Archeology of Knowledge but as The Excavations of Knowledge. In response, I published a detailed study highlighting some of the errors made by Professor Yafout. Nevertheless, I believe that the book still requires retranslation. However, retranslating already translated texts necessitates a scientific explanation of the original translations and their limitations. It is a challenging process, and Arab publishing houses rarely accept such retranslation requests. Therefore, I opted to translate Foucault’s lectures instead. I began with his lecture titled Society Must Be Defended” which, in my estimation, resonated with the experiences of Algerian society during the ‘Black Decade’ or the ‘National Tragedy.’ These lectures delve into the role of warfare in relation to power.
Through the translation of various lectures, including those I have personally translated, I have discovered essential aspects of Foucault’s philosophy. These lectures, not only the ones he delivered at the Collège de France starting in 1971 but also those from much earlier periods, hold the key to comprehending his books published during his lifetime. This is exemplified by the recent publication of works such as Discourse and Sexuality: Claremont-Ferrot University Lectures 1962, released in 2018; Phenomenology and Psychology: Lectures 1953-1954, published last year in 2021; and The Anthropological Question: Lectures 1954-1955, which came out this year in 2022. These publications highlight that Foucault’s philosophical corpus is not yet fully assembled, and the process of bringing it to light is an ongoing endeavor.
Regarding the challenges encountered in translating Foucault’s lectures, I can summarize them into three main difficulties. Firstly, the lectures were originally delivered orally, making it challenging to capture and convey the dynamic nature, vitality, and gestures present in the spoken text. Secondly, Foucault’s lectures touch on historical topics familiar to Western audiences and interconnected with issues prevalent in contemporary Western intellectual discourse. It is important to bear in mind that Foucault intended his philosophy to serve as a critical diagnosis of the present, addressing its issues, crises, and dilemmas. However, when conveying these ideas to Arab readers, it becomes necessary to provide relevant contextual information and offer clarifications to bridge potential gaps in understanding. Thirdly, Foucault frequently introduces new terminology throughout his lectures. Each lecture is replete with these novel terms, placing an additional burden on the translator to undertake a similar process of neologism in the target language, which may not always have the linguistic resources readily available to accommodate such conceptual innovations.
- It appears that you have a keen interest in equipping Arab readers with the necessary tools to engage with philosophical works. This is evident in your efforts related to Foucault, whether through explanations or translations. Another notable example of this commitment is your translation of Michel Foucault’s Dictionary by Judith Revel. Similarly, there are several significant dictionaries available for specific philosophers, such as Heidegger’s Dictionary, Derrida’s Dictionary, and Hegel’s Dictionary, the latter having been translated by the late Imam Abdel Fattah Imam. In your perspective, what is the significance of these dictionaries in enhancing and evaluating our comprehension of philosophical works?
Philosophy, as you are aware, is a discipline taught in secondary schools and universities, much like other fields of knowledge. It requires specific conditions and relies on essential resources, including the texts of philosophers, which we refer to as primary sources, as well as specialized studies and foundational references such as encyclopedias and dictionaries. These resources enable us to define terms, concepts, and categories within the realm of philosophy. Within this framework, I undertook the translation of the dictionary you mentioned. However, it is important to note that in my university teaching, I often emphasize the importance of terminology. In fact, my published thesis included a dictionary encompassing all the terms related to discourse and history. It is worth noting that in Western countries, teaching philosophy places significant emphasis on these aspects, particularly dictionaries, encyclopedias, and specialized references that cater to the works of various philosophers, both ancient and modern. It can be said that researchers in the West have dedicated dictionaries to almost every prominent Western philosopher. However, in the Arab world, we still face a significant shortage in these three areas, despite the efforts of Arab researchers and translators. My translation of this dictionary, along with the other studies I have devoted to Foucault and other philosophers, is merely an attempt to contribute to this necessary academic endeavor. It is no secret that philosophy holds a distinctive position within our Arab culture. Unfortunately, it is often subject to negative judgments and preconceived notions. One common claim is that its language, terminology, and phrases are overly complex compared to other scientific disciplines. Therefore, dictionaries, including Michel Foucault’s Dictionary, play a vital role in the process of clarification and verification, particularly because the terminology employed by contemporary philosophers may be unfamiliar to the Arab reader.
- In the latter part of 2005, you wrote about and pondered upon what has been commonly referred to since the mid-1960s as the linguistic turn. What exactly characterizes this turn? How does this turn in analysis diverge between the analytical and continental contexts?
Thank you for asking this question, as it provides an opportunity to address a common oversight made by certain readers and commentators. They tend to confine their focus solely to my expertise in Michel Foucault’s philosophy, disregarding or neglecting the broader scope of my research and work. This includes not only my writings and translations but also this book, which I consider to be a significant contribution to the examination of philosophy of language and a new addition to my research of discourse-related subjects.
The term ‘the linguistic turn’ was initially introduced by Gustav Bergman, the positivist philosopher. However, it gained widespread popularity when American philosopher Richard Rorty used it as the title of a collection of texts that he curated, wrote an introduction for, and published in 1967. This phrase denotes a shift in philosophy during the twentieth century, where language became the focal point of philosophical inquiry. This transformation affected analytical or Anglo-Saxon philosophy, as commonly believed, and impacted various currents within continental European philosophy, particularly the interpretive and structuralist ones. The move towards language as a subject of philosophy manifested in diverse ways, contrary to the portrayal by proponents of analytical philosophy, including the originator of the term linguistic turn. In my book, I aimed to analyze and critique this phenomenon by examining the linguistic aspect in the history of philosophy. I delved into works such as Plato’s Cratylus, Aristotle’s The Rhetoric, Al-Farabi’s The Letters, and Ibn Rushd’s commentaries, as well as exploring modern and contemporary philosophy with thinkers like Ernst Cassirer, Karl Popper, Paul Ricoeur, Chomsky, and Bourdieu. Through this exploration, I demonstrated that the so-called linguistic turn underwent a fundamental shift, progressing from linguistic philosophy to the philosophy of language. The latter field possesses its own concepts, issues, theories, and philosophers, and extends its scope beyond language to encompass political, social, and artistic domains, all within a functional and pragmatic linguistic framework. Undoubtedly, the linguistic turn in continental philosophy diverges from its manifestation in Anglo-Saxon analytical philosophy, particularly in its early stages from the 1920s to the mid-twentieth century, when the analytical movement was predominantly influenced by its logical aspect, as exemplified in logical positivism. On the other hand, the continental tradition comprises two major trends. The first is the interpretive trend, with its roots in religious and legal reform, championed by philosophers such as Schleiermacher, Dilthey, and originating with Martin Heidegger, Gadamer, Paul Ricoeur, among others, emphasizing the utmost significance of meaning. The second trend, the linguistic trend, emerged initially from the structuralist school, followed by subsequent linguistic schools that aimed to establish a scientific perspective on language within the domain of linguistic sciences. However, it is crucial to note, and even emphasize, that the distinction between the two philosophical traditions, analytical and continental, no longer holds true, as contemporary philosophers have transcended this divide. A prime example of this is Michel Foucault, who presented a discourse analysis approach drawing on Wittgenstein’s theory of games as developed in Philosophical Investigations, further expanded upon by John Austin and John Searle in the realm of speech acts. Correspondence between Foucault and the American philosopher John Searle on this matter further supports this claim, and the reader can discover this connection in Foucault’s final lecture titled The Courage of Truth, in discourse pragmatics.
- Dr. Zouaoui Beghoura, I kindly request your insights on the prevailing interpretations of Michel Foucault in both the continental and analytical contexts. Also, could you explain why Foucault continues to hold significance in philosophy and the humanities?
The most prominent of these readings can be limited to what was presented by the American philosophers Paul Rabinow and Hubert Dreyfus in their book that was translated into Arabic under the title: Michel Foucault: A Philosophical Journey, the Italian philosophers Giorgio Agamben and Antonio Negri in their many studies, and the German philosophers Axel Honneth and Thomas Lemick about power, and a group of contemporary French philosophers, including Judith Revel, Frédéric Gros, and Guillaume Lebleu. I analyzed the work of these philosophers and others in my recently published book, Biopolitics from the Perspective of Social Philosophy.
Regarding the continued relevance of Michel Foucault’s philosophy in the fields of philosophy, as well as the human and social sciences, the points previously mentioned concerning the interest of Arab thought in this philosophy are also applicable in these two contexts. However, I would like to add four distinguishing aspects of Foucault’s philosophy. Firstly, Foucault’s philosophy emphasizes historical practices and experiences, aligning well with the human sciences. Secondly, it demonstrates an openness to addressing the concerns raised by the humanities and social sciences. As we are aware, Foucault extensively studied socially marginalized groups such as the insane, the sick, deviants, and criminals, all of which fall within the purview of the humanities and social sciences. Thirdly, Foucault’s philosophy exhibits a willingness to engage with various disciplines within the humanities and social sciences, including history, economics, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and others. Finally, Foucault’s approach is characterized by analysis rather than synthesis, prioritizing practical applications over theoretical frameworks. In other words, his focus was not on presenting a comprehensive theory, but rather on addressing specific and partial issues. This aligns with the overarching trend in the human and social sciences and characterizes contemporary philosophy. However, it is crucial to note that Western studies on Foucault also possess a critical nature, aiming to reveal the limitations of his philosophy. This critical perspective has been a focal point of my research since my thesis on Foucault.
- The term ‘postmodernism’ has acquired a negative reputation among many, often conjuring associations with various forms of relativism and undesirable consequences. For instance, Michel Foucault’s frequently cited phrase ‘the death of man’ is often overused in this context. Furthermore, it is common to find diverse philosophers like Derrida, Deleuze, Foucault, and Lyotard being grouped together as representatives of postmodernism. However, in your extensive body of work, you have effectively demonstrated the superficiality of such a viewpoint and emphasized the underlying complexities involved. In light of this, I would like to inquire about your perspective on how we can engage with philosophy and philosophical works in a critical manner that avoids oversimplification and cognitive complacency. How can we approach these subjects without resorting to disruptive simplifications or intellectual laziness?
I examine this very issue in my book titled Postmodernism and Enlightenment: A Critical Study of Historical Ontology. In this work, I argue that postmodernism does not stray from the longstanding conflict between the ancients and the moderns in cultural history. This conflict raises fundamental questions about the profound changes that Western society and culture, as well as contemporary global cultures and societies, have undergone due to Western culture’s influence since the 18th century. In my view, it is imperative for historians of ideas to approach this issue with objectivity and seriousness by posing several essential methodological inquiries. Specifically, we must ask whether postmodernism is an idea, a cultural experience, a social and economic condition, or a historical epoch with a discernible beginning and end. Furthermore, we need to ascertain what is the nature of its relationship with modernity and the Enlightenment?
In my estimation, an initial analysis suggests that if we engage in the classification of periods and the characterization of the social and economic landscape, we can unequivocally assert that postmodernism primarily constitutes an aesthetic and philosophical idea. This idea emerged within artistic and philosophical works that reflect the state of contemporary Western culture and the transformative experiences it underwent following World War II. Importantly, this idea cannot be dissociated from modernity and the Enlightenment; it represents a cultural expression of the present condition and its relationship with the past embodied by modernity and the Enlightenment. When we consider postmodernism in its intellectual dimension as the philosophy of the latter part of the 20th century, it presented a radical and critically new perspective on reason, science, history, and freedom when compared to modernity and the Enlightenment. Hence, an essential question arises: What characterizes the nature of postmodernism’s critique of modernity and the Enlightenment? It is crucial to acknowledge that the legitimacy of postmodernism’s critique of the Enlightenment stems from the Enlightenment’s own critical nature. Consequently, positing that Enlightenment values prevailed during one phase and declined in the postmodern phase would be an overly simplistic statement. Western intellectual history demonstrates that these two movements exist interdependently, although they may manifest differently. A noteworthy example is the French philosopher Jean-François Lyotard, who popularized the term ‘postmodernism’ and offered comprehensive and radical criticism and rejection of Enlightenment values. This, in turn, prompted the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas to undertake a comprehensive critique of this postmodernist critical movement, which he referred to as ‘neoconservatives.’
In my assessment, the tendency towards “simplification and laziness” that you refer to is a prevalent phenomenon within contemporary culture. This can be attributed to the influence of mass media and the inclination to rely on facile classifications to achieve persuasion and guidance. It is important to recognize that cultural conflict is just one facet of a complex social conflict. To overcome this situation, we require a critical movement that provides a broader perspective, as well as independent scientific and academic institutions capable of conducting rigorous research and in-depth studies. While we encounter similar classifications in Western culture, the key distinction lies in the presence of diligent and rigorous researchers, scientists, and scientific institutions in the West. They possess the capacity to discern between what is true and false, and to differentiate between what is real and imaginary. Unfortunately, we often lack such resources and institutions within our contemporary Arab culture, particularly in the realm of the humanities and philosophy.
- You have written an introduction to the ‘philosophical’ narrative of Hayy ibn Yaqzan, which potentially signifies a philosophical advancement predating Kierkegaard by Ibn Tufayl. How can we approach the reading of this piece through a modern lens? What do you find significant about rediscovering the works of Arab philosophers?
Thank you for your question and for your attentive consideration of my work. Indeed, I wrote an introduction to this remarkable text within a specific Algerian cultural context. The overall theme of the project was the transition from a culture defined by singular perspectives to one characterized by democracy and pluralism. This endeavor took place in the early 1990s, when the Al-Kitab Foundation, under the Algerian Ministry of Culture, sought to publish heritage and international texts under the unifying title: “A book is the best companion.” On one hand, it is worth mentioning that while my specialization lies in contemporary philosophy, I have also had the privilege of teaching a course that holds great significance to me personally and intellectually. This course, on Islamic philosophy, is offered at Kuwait University, both at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels. Over the course of my academic career, I have conducted research on prominent figures such as Al-Farabi, Al-Tawhidi, Ibn Rushd, and Ibn Khaldun. Now, addressing your question about how to approach the reading of this work through a contemporary lens, I would say that there are various interpretive approaches available, including structural, semiotic, and other analytical frameworks. If I were to revisit this text, I would likely employ the tools of discourse analysis to inform my reading.
Regarding the concept of “returning to the Arab heritage,” it appears that there might be some confusion in the terminology. It is not so much a matter of the heritage leaving us or us leaving it, but rather the recognition that the heritage resides within us, whether consciously or unconsciously. Merely establishing methodological rules or conducting analyses is insufficient to signify a complete departure from it. Instead, it necessitates an awareness of the heritage and its limitations. Contemporary Arab thought has placed significant emphasis on the issue of heritage, seeking to comprehend it for scientific or ideological reasons. Simultaneously, there is an effort to disengage from the religious aspect of heritage, which represents a living force within us. The works of Islamic philosophers, writers, and scholars do not pose a problem or dilemma, as their contributions have been extensively documented in global intellectual history. However, it is the religious heritage that has profoundly influenced contemporary Arab thought and necessitates thoughtful, rational, and critical discussion.
- Dr. Zouaoui Beghoura, in this context, how can we address the issue often referred to as the lack of a modern Arab philosopher? Additionally, who, in your opinion, embodies the role of a philosopher? Moreover, what steps can we take to rejuvenate the practice of philosophy within our present-day Arab society?
The existence of a contemporary Arab philosopher is contingent upon the interpretation we assign to the term ‘philosopher,’ the purpose it serves, and the objectives we aim to achieve. It is worth noting that we readily confer titles such as doctor, engineer, lawyer, or judge upon individuals who have attained relevant academic degrees. Similarly, once an individual publishes a written work, we do not hesitate to categorize them as a writer, novelist, poet, or critic. However, we often exhibit hesitancy when it comes to labeling someone a philosopher, even if they possess an academic degree in philosophy or have authored philosophical texts. This hesitation can be attributed to two main factors. Firstly, there is a historical dimension rooted in the ethical traditions of philosophy. Since the time of Pythagoras, researchers and professors have exercised caution in bestowing the title of philosopher upon individuals engaged in philosophical pursuits. This caution can be seen as a moral aspect. Secondly, the association of certain names and characteristics has become deeply ingrained in our collective consciousness, particularly in discussions concerning Arab and Islamic thought, both ancient and modern, in comparison to ancient Greek thought and contemporary Western thought. This phenomenon can be attributed to a prevailing traditional reading approach prevalent in Arab culture, which governs the dynamics of “influence transmission” and establishes criteria related to ‘authenticity’ and ‘creativity.’ However, contemporary reading curricula have transcended this approach. This element can be identified as the cultural and ideological aspect. Consequently, if we adhere to the traditional reading approach, which adheres to the principle of the original model, then there is no contemporary Arab philosopher. According to this perspective, a philosopher must resemble figures like Plato or Aristotle from the past, or Kant and Hegel from more recent times, or even Bertrand Russell, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Derrida, Habermas, or any of the numerous names in contemporary philosophy. From this standpoint, the developments in Arab thought are merely considered imitations, neither more nor less. However, if we adopt new reading methodologies, the situation changes. We can assert that contemporary Arab philosophical thought has indeed witnessed and continues to witness the philosophical contributions of numerous philosophers. These contributions are presented within their cultural context, intellectual references, and methodological approaches as they endeavor to address the intellectual and philosophical challenges confronted by them and their Arab societies.
Regarding the notion of revitalizing the practice of philosophizing, I believe it necessitates consideration of two key factors. Firstly, we must consider the current reality, as reflected in the educational experiences across various Arab societies. In recent years, notable advancements have been made in education, particularly in the Arabian Gulf region, with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia being a prominent example. Undoubtedly, this rich educational landscape, be it at the secondary school or university level, requires a process of continuous renewal and keeping pace with global scientific and philosophical advancements. Secondly, it is imperative to engage in rational and critical discussions pertaining to our intellectual and cultural challenges. By doing so, we can actively contribute to addressing the issues we encounter, both those stemming from our heritage and those arising in our present reality. In this regard, I must emphasize that we, as Arab philosophers, ought to follow in the footsteps of our predecessors, led by figures like Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali, who recognized the importance of exerting effort and displaying courage in speaking the truth. Furthermore, we must advocate for a certain degree of freedom of expression, as without it, the philosophical endeavor, which relies on the faculties of the mind and thrives on critical contributions, cannot fully flourish. This freedom of expression is essential for the growth of our culture and the advancement of our societies.
- In your book Recognition: Towards a New Concept of Justice, published by Dar Al-Tali’a in 2012, you argued that recognition is a significant component of contemporary social philosophy. Could you elaborate on the significance of this concept from your perspective? Moreover, how can we foster its development within our Arab context? Additionally, what are the potential connections between hospitality and recognition in this context?
I can say that this book marked a shift in my philosophical writings and, in a way, determined my philosophical orientation. Before this book, I was interested in translating and writing Foucault, and after the writing of the book I moved to issues of political, moral, and social philosophy, and I try to provide critical analyzes of some of the issues raised in our contemporary Arab thought, including the issue of language, and the Arabic language. This is what I studied, for example, in my book: Language and Power: Critical Research into Managing Difference and Achieving Fairness. If, in my book: Philosophy and Language: Criticism of the Linguistic Turn in Contemporary Philosophy, I adhered to the functional view of language in general, and of pragmatics in particular; in this book, I discussed the political issue of language considering linguistic justice, which means, among other things, respect for linguistic diversity and multilingualism. I was not concerned with championing the opinion that says there is absolute authority for language, nor with the opinion that language is nothing but a means by which we do whatever we want. Rather, what concerned me was examining the issues closely and concluding what I saw as being consistent with the data, evidence, and scientific facts, and at the same time, agreeing with the idea of linguistic justice, which is part of the idea of symbolic justice compared to material justice, and whose features I discussed in my book Recognition: Towards a New Concept of Justice, as you kindly said.
- Finally, Dr. Zouaoui Beghoura, what are you working on these days, and where does your research compass point?
At present, I do not adhere to a specific compass or engage in predefined, ready-made projects. Instead, I conduct research based on the questions and issues that are presented to me. This approach does not imply a lack of vision or goals; rather, it signifies my reluctance to adopt a predetermined scholarly program. In line with this approach, I recently published a book titled Biopolitics from the Perspective of Social Philosophy. In this work, I examined the concept of biopolitics through the lens of contemporary philosophers, exploring topics such as the body, disease, isolation, populism, racism, and health justice within the framework of the new international order. I consider this book to be a philosophical contribution to the ongoing discourse surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic and its related issues, particularly the crucial matter of health justice, which is an integral aspect of distributive justice. Currently, I am involved in editing, revising, and enhancing a collection of research on social philosophy in contemporary Arab thought. Additionally, I am working on completing a book titled Dictionary of Identity, which encompasses essential concepts, texts, and figures related to the subject. I firmly believe that adopting an encyclopedic method, accompanied by a critical perspective that explores the various dimensions, historical evolution, and inherent challenges of identity, is the most effective way to address this central concept within philosophy and contemporary Arab thought.
T1716
