Joel Zask, philosopher. “By observing foxes and seagulls, we can find neighborly solutions”

The philosopher is anchored in reality, interested as much in artistic practices as in the megafares of the world, in the place occupied by wild animals in the centers of cities, as in gatherings in public squares, in the streets with sculptures, which are the sights of his childhood Joel Zask. deploys stimulating thought on the ways we live, create and act. Attentive to all that is simultaneously vibrating and dying in our time, he makes the relationship between ecology and democracy one of the main subjects of his reflection. His sensitive look at specific experiences helps us better understand what is happening to us.

In the video: ecology. golden rules for going zero waste

The power of green democracy

Miss Figaro. –An environmental emergency will require an authoritarian force to deal with it, we hear more and more. However, you dispute this supposed incompatibility of ecology and democracy. For what ?
Joel Zask. – Expecting our governments to take the place of citizens and act decisively in favor of the environment is absurd for at least two reasons. and get sued for it. The second is that authoritarianism is defined without taking into account its environment. The dictator is alone against everyone, he forces the facts and does violence to the disobedient. Like Putin in his bunker, he batten down the hatches. There is an absolute contradiction between ecological thought, which implies taking into account what surrounds us, and despotism.

You can be a radical environmentalist while also being a radical democrat

Joel Zask

How do you understand that some environmentalists can preach “green dictatorship”? Does this mean that for them only a so-called punitive ecology can save us from danger?
It is important to make distinctions in this area. It is true that in the past fascism was interested in ecology, even to the point of creating a strong reactivated “eco-fascist” current today. But it should be understood that “eco-fascism” is fundamentally anti-humanist. He sees in nature the origin, the purity, the authenticity that we can find if we reconstruct the vital link between soil and blood. The ideal man is of “good race,” “rooted,” “at home” where his distant ancestors were born. But one can be a radical environmentalist while being a radical democrat, that is, agreeing with freedoms as an end and a means.

What do you think is so important between ecology and democracy? How does one necessarily imply the other?
Just as a natural ecosystem allows each being to complete its life cycle, democracy provides everyone with an environment through which they can develop what is unique to them, their individuality. This is his title. Democracy “ecologizes” people’s relationships with the world, and ecology invites democratic forms of exchange.
This can also be explained by going through the concept of experience defended by the American philosopher John Dewey. it is impossible to imagine that a child, or even an adult, can grow and realize their potential without gaining experience. Experience is not something that can be done for you. Either that’s your experience or it’s no experience at all. It engages you and transforms you, at the same time as it transforms the environment in which it takes place (for example, a child who builds a sandcastle grows as a result of this activity, while transforming the physiognomy of the beach in its own scale). But of course, if this environment is too harsh, or on the contrary, it is completely destroyed, then there is no possible experiment. Democracy, which I define as a system of equal distribution of experience, and therefore opportunities for personal development, occupies the space between these two extremes. We then transform the world while preserving it.

“Coin of Life”

But what is wrong with our current democracies in the face of an ecological emergency? Would a more “participatory” democracy be more effective?
Everyone’s participation is really important, much more than the fact of voting one at a time. To participate literally means to participate in the existence of an environment that is beyond us, to receive a part of this environment and to bring it. Ecological thinking (also known as environmental ethics) begins with these kinds of considerations. Therefore, the ecological turn requires a profound cultural change. The features of our culture that distract us from this are both those that lead us to take without giving (such as extractivism) and those that condemn us to give without getting anything in return (such as exploitation). : However, the only way to change our culture is for everyone to strive to “participate” in the full sense of the word at their level, at school, at work, behind the wheel of their car, during GA.

When we destroy a forest, monopolize fresh water supplies, or dump toxic products into a lake, for example, we also destroy the people who live there.

Joel Zask

Is this democratic “tipping point” the condition for the ecological turnaround essential to protecting Earth’s habitability?
I believe it. Large scale ecocidal practices (industrial agriculture, mass tourism industry, unlimited resource extraction) are all undemocratic. They are based on often inhumane working conditions and purport to enslave individuals to a fictitious desire for consumption that has no relation to real needs or meaning to people. There is a striking parallel between the mistreatment of nature and the mistreatment of humans. When you destroy a forest, monopolize fresh water supplies, or pour toxic products into a lake, for example, you also destroy the people who live there.

You also recommend paying attention to your “corner of life”, as if through concrete, sensitive gestures, democracy and ecology can finally progress together…
In fact, it seems to me that no “permanent” solution can come from anything other than a revision of the concept of citizenship. For too long, citizenship has been reduced to monitoring what governments do (what we call representative democracy) and discursive activities such as debating, debating, discussing, exchanging arguments. I think we should also include concrete, local initiatives, such as co-building a public space, cleaning the beach, “going to the fire” if it breaks out, maintaining our street, growing vegetables, counting birds, etc. Because all of this belongs to the city and allows it to be defined. A place of life is common only if it is jointly managed. In doing so, we gain a conscience that allows us to vote differently than if we are full of hate or feel like helpless victims. The ecological interest of this approach also lies in the fact that it extends democracy beyond interpersonal relations to the living environment. You can’t argue with foxes or seagulls, but you can watch them and find good neighborhood solutions.

It’s what you call an environmental “watchdog audience” that lobbies the wider debate. And what about all those who minimize ecological dangers among the people or the elites?
We know that we are at a crossroads. Nowhere is it written that the majority will want democratic freedoms and ecology at the same time. Everything I do at my level has as background the danger that we will run into a wall. But I also hope to tip the balance in the right direction.

Invited to the PhiloMonaco Week on June 13, Joel Zasky can be heard again on the microphone of Geraldine Muhlmann. in philosophy, About French culture, to the question Is nature destructive?

In the video: Sophie Marceau’s video against climate inaction