“Wookie speech is dangerous”

Xavier-Laurent Salvador is Associate Professor of Modern Literature and Lecturer in Medieval Language and Literature. He is also the co-founder of the Observatory on Decolonization and Ideologies of Identity.

Le Figaro. In your book, you analyze the spread of the awakening ideology in the French university. What is woki?

Xavier Laurent Salvador. – Under the name “wokism” hides the phenomenon of penetration of critical theories of race and gender in the university. And this is, particularly in disciplines where these concepts should not have a storefront, such as the LSHS (Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences), which relate to literature, linguistics, history and geography, but also the hard sciences.

“Deconstruction”, “white privilege” … Was it thanks to these words that these American theories managed to cross the Atlantic, to be taught in France?

These simple expressions Qualify concepts that seem too deep. But in fact, the latter allows researchers to save themselves from overly complex reasoning. This results in making awakening theories key reading for other disciplines. However, if there is a reading network, it means that there is no longer any topic for research. The term “white privilege,” coined in the United States by Peggy McIntosh, for example, certainly has its place in sociology and is worth exploring and discussing. But the problem lies in the science of semantic discourse, which some researchers have stemmed from. In their mouths, and in front of their students, the words they use to talk about these concepts become hollow, giving themselves the appearance of scholars.

“From the moment Wokism provides keywords that serve as political signals, it creates a divide between those who belong to this clan and those who oppose it.”

If the jargon that the promoters of these theories spread does not have a universal reading network, can we say that it makes language a dangerous tool?

Language in itself is not dangerous, and rhetoric is. The awakened theorists are the first to fill their texts with dialectical fantasies, with learned words that are not understood by the general public. This rhetoric, which aims to mimic scientific discourse, is clearly dangerous. This is the principle of sophistry. And under the cover of academic rhetoric, there is in fact political rhetoric that leads straight down a very slippery slope. From the moment Wokism introduces keywords that serve as political signals, there is a way to create a divide between those who belong to this clan and those who oppose it. We are, in a way, inviting students to position themselves in relation to a political opinion. This is where this comment, which I deplore, comes into play.

Read alsoAre you talking “woke up”?

Institutions like Inspé where Wokism is rampant, and which promote inclusive writing in particular, are training the teachers of tomorrow. Is there a danger that the French language as we learned it will disappear?

Comprehensive writingThe one you cite as an example that may seem harmless is a military and political signal that exploits spelling because people have decided that language belongs to them. This is the subject of a book by linguist Eliane Vinot. He says: “The language is ours.” But this “us” has not yet been defined. Who is against? Who speaks French, for academics, for science? It is, in fact, a kind of anti-Villers-Cotterêts, a desire to reform the language of the state, that which concerns the private and public administrations. In short, they make language a divisive tool, in the service of an ideology that forces individuals into the camp of the good or the camp of the damned.

“According to the Woccian experts, seeing French is antithetical to literature and poetry. If they could exclude poets from the Republic, they would undoubtedly do so.”

In your book, you call on “post-linguists” to consider the fact that language is not just a process of encoding and decoding messages. Do you think these strip all the language of her poetry?

Since Butler, wokie purists believe in a kind of language magic. They think what they say will happen and what they think can happen when they say it. They are actually afraid of language. Therefore, they deprive him of his ability to exit from a system other than the political one. In this sense, their view of the French is at odds with literature and poetry. If they could exclude poets from the Republic, perhaps they would.

Finally, can we still respond, debate, with the pan owners?

It is clear that dialogue is cut off with those ideologues who have decided to be political actors. With them, we cannot fight because the basis of their existence is based on their adherence to this misleading vision of science and ideology. On the other hand, it is necessary to discuss it with the young students, the adults of the future who are wondering about the society of tomorrow. It is vital. We can’t give it up. The general public, as a third-party observer, must also be informed so that they do not shy away from talking about it in the public debate. It is the duty of the republic and democracy to organize this dialogue.