These three lectures were all delivered in South Africa, the first at the University of the Western Cape, School of government, and at the University of Capetown in 1998, the second at the Institut Français d’Afrique du Sud in Johannesburg in 1996, and the third one at the University of the Western Cape the same year. The first one corresponds to an article published in French in the Cahiers français, May-June 1997. Though the historical information is mainly the same in the two papers, the South African one is far clearer on the issue, which I find crucial, of « power-centered governance » and the cultural choice it involves. The reflexion on John Rawls’ Theory of justice did not initially take into account Political liberalism. I am not a « Rawls’ scholar » and my focus in this article is more a concept, the veil of ignorance, than the complete works of John Rawls. However I have added a few references to Political liberalism. I do believe my line of argumentation is still valid, while the lesser importance given to the veil of ignorance in Political liberalism sounds like a confirmation of my conclusion. Whatsoever, I do not think that the omission of Political liberalism is more serious than, say, from a historical perspective omitting the French Revolution when sketching the historical developpments that influenced the moral and political philosophy of modern times, as John Rawls does, in the introduction of Political liberalism. I do not have the same problem with the paper on free market since, obviously, Aristotle has published nothing new for these two last years.

These lectures will probably appear very different in nature, since they range from a philosophical commentary on John Rawls’ Theory of justice to a piece on the history of ideas about citizenship and governance. The article about « Free market and democracy » is intermediary : it both takes into account the so called « lessons of history » and theoretical aspects of economy and politics. In their very variety, these lectures reflect my own practice of philosophy and political theory, but also the claims that underline it. I am convinced that we should stop opposing empirical (either historical or sociological or anything else) research on politics to philosophical or even metaphysical inquiries. Societies, or so is my belief, are shaped by ideas for which we have to give an account in terms of logic and philosophy. They are also shaped by facts, empirical necessities, but also contingencies, which as such, are different from, and sometimes (but not systematically) opposed to, theoretical views. This circle, once described in one of his letters by the great « historian philosopher » Elie Halevy, is the very essence of politics.

Such a circle is to be considered in the second article, which deals with free market and democracy. Free market is the kind of things one regards as an object of empirical studies, basically the object of « economy ». There is a temptation to consider its relation to politics only as a matter of effects. Good economy makes good societies, and good societies are good democracies. Now, while debating upon the advantages and the drawbacks of free market and economic policies -and since the end of Marxism, we less and less debate of the drawbacks- we forget that such relations hide an important claim : the statement of the importance of economical issues for societies. Stepping back to Aristotle’s analysis allows to understand that such an importance has not always been perceived : a coherent perspective on society might not consider economics as a legitimate political concern. What modern economy takes as an empirical evidence, is, from a historical and philosophical standpoint, an intellectual construction.

To that extent, the separation of academic fields is both a matter of division of labour and a little more than that. Diversity in scientific approaches brings conflicting datas about what (social) reality is or is not. No approach will ever give the full picture of reality. On top of this, we should understand that the foggiest ideas about how such a picture would look are deeply different from disciplin to disciplin. The paper on John Rawls’ Theory of justice is related with this issue : theories are comprehensive views, refering to very different worlds, very different realities. In the world of modern economy, free market is real ; in the world of the history of ideas, it is just an arbitrary creation of human history. That is why between experience and theory there is a circle, rather than a « coincidence ». It should not drive us to be restrictive in the use of datas and statements coming from other disciplins. On the contrary, being aware of, and opened to, the variety of possible approaches, looking for different perspectives, allow us to pass over the picture and stay alert to what it is supposed to represent, in our case, human life tied by social bonds.

Cultures are also ways of depicting and creating reality, and behaving accordingly. I do not believe in the clash of civilizations, as I put it in the first chapter, no more than in the clash of academic fields. There is no way that I believe radical differences in cultures should systematically turn into a struggle for life. Two world wars, totalitarianisms, have shown that great scale slaughters happen between fellow cultures also. Westerners have shown such a talent in intra-cultural extermination in this century that I am amazed that we should feel compelled to think that the greatest dangers come from other civilizations. As regards different cultures (should I add that I am not entirely convinced that such an expression means much ?), indifference and mutual understanding are also possible behaviors. The priviledge of strife in modern political studies only prooves that modern philosophers and political scientists enjoy a depressive conception of humanity. Nietzsche is probably right : reflection in modern times is not unlike an immense nervous breakdown.

As a matter of fact, the attention paid to clashes, struggles, wars, in cultural relations, and more broadly in political attitudes, should stand as a form of caution rather than be taken as an accurate description of interhuman relationships. Tensions must be closely watched for since it might help prevent conflicts. It is not a reason to negate or despise benevolent positions. Moreover, diversity and separation might not be the ultimate knowledge about politics. The concern for universal values, for universal rights, just happens to exist. My position might not be depicted as « universalist » (actually in the French context I am a die hard relativist) as I do not think that universalism is or should be universal, while I am ready to support the view that the concern for universal values is just a concern among others. It does not follow that such a concern does not exist, nor is of less value than any other one. Man is curious about man. This old aristotelician wisdom is of better value in my opinion than all those modern barbarian praises of violence and so called « realitistic » theories about politics.

There is some kind of multiculturalism in these lectures, also, since they are published thanks to UWC’s School of Government in South Africa and to the support of the French Embassy which allowed me to travel to South Africa on a regular basis. Thinking, writing, teaching and speaking in English for someone that has no native acquaintance with this language is a deep cultural experience. Doing so in South Africa is also special. Among the powers of the world, South Africa has a special place for she has given the XXth century a most outstanding example of a democratic change. I do not underestimate difficulties, uncertainties, political struggles, social tragedies, and still-to-come challenges. However, the country incarnates through its achievements the democratic faith of our time.

There is a great deal of friendship, too, and as I mention in the article about citizenship, friendship is an intermediate experience between the life of gods and mere political existence. So, I thank, from the deepest of my heart, my South African friends and more specially Lisa Thompson and Tony Holiday, who took the pain of rereading these lectures, and whose conversations are... divine.