Published on July 1, 2024
–
A
+
This summer, Contrepoints offers you a series of interviews on liberalism with several of our authors and special guests. Chantal Delsol is a philosopher and writer. She is a member of the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences.
How do you define liberalism?
It is a polysemous term, which has been left in the dust for so long that it has become almost unrecognizable. The desire for freedom can be applied in all areas of life – economic freedom, freedom of thought, moral freedom etc. We can consider that a society is liberal when it lets individuals decide on their economic, ethical and political choices. Liberalism is therefore necessarily linked, in one way or another, to individualism, and its main characteristic is to challenge traditional holism in all cultures.
Do you consider yourself liberal and why?
Yes, I consider myself liberal, because I do not want a society that imposes their life choices on individuals. I am also conservative because I believe that freedom cannot be unlimited – there are limits, always to be sought and discussed, linked to responsibilities and the human condition.
Who are your reference liberal authors?
Stuart Mill et Tocqueville.
Why is liberalism so poorly understood in France?
France is a deeply socialist country, that is to say, it largely prefers equality to freedom. Also, as soon as freedom is praised, the French immediately see the inequalities that this will engender. This is why local powers are so hated there, as well as economic freedom.
What would be the benefits of liberal reforms in France?
France has only begun to liberalize in recent decades thanks to Europe. Previously, it was the country of the Plan and imposed prices, that is to say a socialist country. But liberalizations are very badly experienced by a part of the population, which makes the fortune of the Insoumis.
Two priority liberal reforms to put in place?
For French liberals who are residual, the priority would first be to clarify their doctrine. Because liberalism has profoundly changed in a few decades, that is to say since it was taken over by the old socialist elites disappointed by the fall of the Wall. These elites became liberals almost overnight, much like in Russia Soviet agents became oligarchs. But it is now a dogmatic liberalism/libertarianism, against which classical liberals should position themselves. Everything happens as if another face of liberalism had appeared, which blurs all the lines and all the definitions.
Read also :
Hatred of the World, by Chantal Delsol
