The Endless Crisis as an Instrument of Power: In conversation with Giorgio

Agamben
By / 04 June 2013

A Latin empire against the German dominance? The Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben
explains his much-discussed thesis. Apparently, he had been misunderstood.
Professor Agamben, when you floated the idea in March of a Latin imperium against Germanic
domination in Europe, could you have imagined the powerful resonance this contention would
have? In the meantime your essay has been translated into countless languages and passionately
discussed across half the continent
No, I didnt expect this. But I believe in the power of words, when they are spoken at the right
time.
Is the fracture in the European Union really between the economies and ways of life of the
Germanic north and the Latin south?
I would like to make clear right away that my thesis has been exaggerated by journalists and
therefore misrepresented. Its title, The Latin empire should start a counter-attack, was supplied
by the editors of Libration and was taken up by the German media. Its not something I ever
said. How could I counterpose Latin culture to German, when any intelligent European knows
that Italian culture of the Renaissance or the culture of classical Greece is today completely part
of German culture, which reconceived it and appropriated it!
So, no dominant Latin empire? No uncultivated Germans?

In Europe, the identity of every culture always lies at the frontiers. A German such as
Winckelmann or Hlderlin could be more Greek than the Greeks. And a Florentine like Dante
could feel just as German as the Swabian emperor Frederick II. That is precisely what makes up
Europe: a particularity that time and again oversteps national and cultural frontiers. The object of
my criticism was not Germany, but rather the way in which the European Union has been
constructed, that is, on an exclusively economic basis. So not only have our spiritual and cultural
roots been ignored, but also our political and legal ones. If this was heard as a criticism of
Germany, it is only because Germany, because of its dominant position and despite its
exceptional philosophical tradition, appears unable at the present time to conceive of a Europe
based on anything more than just the euro and economics.
In what way has the EU denied its political and legal roots?
When we speak of Europe today, we are faced with the gigantic repression of a painful and yet
obvious truth: Europes so-called constitution is illegitimate. The text that was put through under
this name was never voted by the peoples. Or when it was put to a vote, as in France and the
Netherlands in 2005, it was frontally rejected. Legally speaking, therefore, what we have here is
not a constitution, but on the contrary a treaty between governments: international law, not
constitutional law. Just recently, the very respected German legal scholar Dieter Grimm recalled
the fact that a European constitution lacks the fundamental, democratic element, since the
European citizens were not allowed to decide on it. And now the whole project of ratification by
the peoples has been silently put on ice.
That is indeed the famous democratic deficit in the European system
We shouldnt lose sight of this. Journalists, particularly in Germany, have reproached me with
understanding nothing of democracy, but they should consider first of all that the EU is a
community based on treaties between states, and simply disguised with a democratic
constitution. The idea of Europe as a constitution-giving power is a spectre that no one ventures
to conjure up any more. But only with a valid constitution could European institutions regain
their legitimacy.
Does this mean that you see the European Union as an illegal body?
Not illegal, but illegitimate. Legality is a question of the rules of exertion of power; legitimacy is
the principle that underlies these rules. Legal treaties are certainly not just formalities, but they
reflect a social reality. It is understandable therefore that an institution without a constitution
cannot follow a genuine policy, but that each European state continues acting according to its
egoistic interest and today this evidently means above all economic interest. The lowest
common denominator of unity is achieved when Europe appears as a vassal of the United States
and takes part in wars that in no way lie in the common interest, to say nothing of the will of the
people. A number of the founding states of the EU such as Italy with its many American
military bases are more in the way of protectorates than sovereign states. In politics and
militarily there is an Atlantic alliance, but certainly no Europe.

Youd therefore prefer a Latin imperium, whose way of life the Germans would have to adapt
to, to the EU
No, it was perhaps rather provocatively that I took up Alexandre Kojves project of a Latin
imperium. In the Middle Ages people at least knew that a unity of different political societies
had to mean more than a purely political society. At that time, the uniting bond was sought in
Christianity. Today I believe that this legitimation must be sought in Europes history and its
cultural traditions. In contrast to Asians and Americans, for whom history means something
completely different, Europeans always encounter their truth in a dialogue with their past. The
past for us means not only a cultural inheritance and tradition, but a basic anthropological
condition. If we were to ignore our own history, we could only penetrate into the past
archeologically. The past for us would become a distinct life form. Europe has a special
relationship to its cities, its artistic treasures, its landscapes. This is what Europe really consists
of. And this is where the survival of Europe lies.
So Europe is first of all a life form, a historical life feeling?
Yes, that is why in my article I insisted that we have unconditionally to preserve our distinctive
forms of life. When they bombed the German cities, the Allies also knew that they could destroy
German identity. In the same way, speculators are destroying the Italian landscape today with
concrete, motorways and expressways. This does not just mean robbing us of our property, but of
our historical identity.
So should the EU emphasize differences rather than harmonization?
Perhaps there is nowhere else in the world, apart from Europe, where such a variety of cultures
and life forms is perceptible at least at valuable moments. Earlier on, as I see it, politics was
expressed in the idea of the Roman empire, later the Roman-German empire. The whole however
always left the particularities of the peoples intact. It is not easy to say what could emerge today
in place of this. But quite certainly a political entity by the name of Europe can only proceed
from this awareness of the past. It is precisely for this reason that the present crisis strikes me as
so dangerous. We have to imagine unity first of all under an awareness of differences. But quite
contrary to this, in the European states, schools and universities are being demolished and
financially undermined, the very institutions that should perpetuate our culture and arouse living
contact between past and present. This undermining goes together with a growing
museumification of the past. We have the beginning of this in many cities that are transformed
into historical zones, and in which the inhabitants are forced to feel themselves tourists in their
own life world.
Is this creeping museumification the counterpart of a creeping impoverishment?
It is quite clear that we are not just faced with economic problems, but with the existence of
Europe as a whole starting with our relationship to the past. The only place in which the past
can live is the present. And if the present no longer perceives its own past as something living,
then universities and museums become problematic. It is quite evident that there are forces at
work in Europe today that seek to manipulate our identity, by breaking the umbilical cord that

still links us with our past. Differences are rather being levelled out. But Europe can only be our
future if we make clear to ourselves that this means first of all our past. And this past is being
increasingly liquidated.
Is the crisis that is present on all sides then the form of expression of a whole system of rule,
directed at our everyday life?
The concept crisis has indeed become a motto of modern politics, and for a long time it has
been part of normality in any segment of social life. The very word expresses two semantic roots:
the medical one, referring to the course of an illness, and the theological one of the Last
Judgement. Both meanings, however, have undergone a transformation today, taking away their
relation to time. Crisis in ancient medicine meant a judgement, when the doctor noted at the
decisive moment whether the sick person would survive or die. The present understanding of
crisis, on the other hand, refers to an enduring state. So this uncertainty is extended into the
future, indefinitely. It is exactly the same with the theological sense; the Last Judgement was
inseparable from the end of time. Today, however, judgement is divorced from the idea of
resolution and repeatedly postponed. So the prospect of a decision is ever less, and an endless
process of decision never concludes.
Does this mean that the debt crisis, the crisis of state finance, of currency, of the EU, is never
ending?
Today crisis has become an instrument of rule. It serves to legitimize political and economic
decisions that in fact dispossess citizens and deprive them of any possibility of decision. In Italy
this is very clear. Here a government was formed in the name of the crisis and Berlusconi
brought back to power despite this being basically against the will of the electorate. This
government is just as illegitimate as the so-called European constitution. The citizens of Europe
must make clear to themselves that this unending crisis just like a state of emergency is
incompatible with democracy.
What perspectives then remain for Europe?
We must start by restoring the original meaning of the word crisis, as a moment of judgement
and choice. For Europe we cannot postpone this to the indefinite future. Many years ago a high
official of the then embryonic Europe, the philosopher Alexandre Kojve, assumed that homo
sapiens had come to the end of history and that there were now only two possibilities left. Either
the American way of life, which Kojve saw as posthistoric vegetation. Or Japanese snobbery,
simply going on celebrating the empty rituals of tradition now robbed of any historical meaning.
I believe that Europe could however realize the alternative of a culture that remains at the same
time human and vital, because it stands in dialogue with its own history and thereby acquires
new life.
Europe, understood as culture and not only as economic space, could therefore provide an
answer to the crisis?
For more than two hundred years, human energies have been focused on economics. Many

things indicate that the moment has perhaps arrived for homo sapiens to organize human action
afresh, beyond this single dimension. Old Europe can precisely make a decisive contribution to
the future here.
Translated from German. Visit Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 24 May 2013, to read the
original article.
More in #Interviews #Articles