For thirty years, the economist and sociologist Eduardo Giante da Fonseca has taught at the University of Cambridge, UK, the School of Economics and Management at the University of the South Pacific, and in Inspire. Today, he’s 65 and lives in São Paulo, writes a new book and travels all over Brazil giving lectures. He also dedicates himself to activities at the Academia Brasileira de Letras, of which he became a member in August of this year.
Among his works stand out self deceptionAnd the happinessAnd the Tomorrow’s value And the Tropical Utopia. In his last book, trench ringIt discusses individual ethics. In a story that appears in the book Republic, by Plato, Giggs discovers that he has become invisible by turning the ring on his finger. Oblivious to rules or fame, he seduces the queen, kills the king, and takes the throne.
In an interview with CrusoeGiannetti compares the power of the Gyges circle to the privileged forum of politicians, explains the differences between Bolsonarista and PT’s concept of freedom, says intellectuals have always been used by governments and criticizes the educational policy of Dilma Rousseff’s government.
On October 2, Brazilians elected hundreds of politicians, who will soon receive a privileged position. Does it sound like they’ve won a Gyges ring with which they can do whatever they like?
I wouldn’t go that far. But there is a widespread fantasy in Brazil that the elected office affords its bearer a degree of descent and immunity from some transgression. The idea is that politicians, once elected, have the appropriate power and then can enjoy it. They get privileges and privileges that are not available to ordinary people. Word “honor“At this point enlightened. The term unites something private, private and legislative – a law that does not apply to everyone. In short, those with a privileged jurisdiction are subject to a different law. This is characteristic of the Ancien Régime. The aristocrats lived in France as if the law of the masses did not concern them. It took a revolution to establish the principle of equality before the law, something that is still far from being in Brazil. Our country, in the time of the old republic, had a motto enshrined: “Friends have everything. For enemies, the law“.
What drives politicians? Is it the will to be able to do what you want? To enjoy the force?
Talking about motivation is a step on slippery ground. We don’t know what’s on other people’s minds or our own. But it is inevitable that winning an elective office in Brazil will give an upside, and I think that is very motivating for a lot of people. The French philosopher Nicolas Malebranche said that the most powerful desire of men is to occupy a prominent place in the minds of their fellow men. This happens in different ways: for fame, for money, for power. In any society, there is social competition for these places of honor. Just see that when a billionaire or a powerful person appears somewhere, everyone is stunned, wanting to talk to them. This behavior has deep roots in the human psyche.
Will Lula and Bolsonaro compete in the second round for a place of honor in the minds of their teammates? Or do they want a ring of Gyges, to do with it as they please?
The two things go together I don’t think they want to go do it all with impunity. But I think they want to enjoy a certain privilege, so that they can favor their political groups. They also want to do the things they feel are right. I do not rule out that there are real motives. It is also true that they both have a lust for power. In fact, those who do not have this will, do not even enter politics. Some people have this feeling to an amazing degree. They want to exercise power over the budget, over the people, over the armies, over the bureaucracies. It is not a feeling evenly distributed among the population.
Speaking of real motives, Bolsonaro talks a lot about freedom. What is the freedom of Bolsonaristas?
They mainly advocate negative freedom. This concept was coined by the philosopher Isaiah Berlin, and means no restrictions. Positive freedom, on the other hand, means the ability to do something, that empowerment. What is the use of being free to read Machado de Assis if one is illiterate? Nobody prevents him from doing so, but if that individual does not have the positive freedom to read and enjoy it, it means absolutely nothing. You can’t tell a homeless person that they are free to go to the best restaurant in town. He sure is, but he won’t be able to exercise that freedom.
“The Labor Party is moving more towards positive freedom, Bolsonarist towards negative freedom”Cuba offers the opposite example, doesn’t it? On the communist island, everyone is educated but they can’t read the books they want.
yes. In Cuba, negative freedom is missing. I want both liberties. I would like to live in a world where people have few limitations, but also have the ability to exercise their choices. Otherwise we are talking about empty freedom.
Can you compare PT’s ethics with Bolsonarista’s?
The word ethics is very loaded. I prefer to talk about values. Labor looks more toward positive freedom, and Polsonarnism toward negativity. Looking critically at PTismo, it is worth talking about what has been accomplished with university education in the government of Dilma Rousseff. This can only be called higher education in Brazil. These are schools that are completely unprepared and unable to deliver what one would expect in terms of training. There has been an uncontrolled expansion of the private higher education network, without any quality control. As a result, we had an inflation of unsupported educational credentials.
like him?
Our students nominally finish primary school only because they do not acquire the corresponding skills, abilities and knowledge. Many of them attend high school and even college as functional illiterates. There is no real correspondence justifying these degrees.
Was there a failure to provide this positive freedom in the Dilma government?
yes. Moreover, it is a scam. Many humble families spent money that they would not have to pay for college for these young people, but these institutions often did not deliver what was expected of them. These young men, then, were deceived. With a diploma in hand, they cannot get a job, because they have not acquired the necessary skills and qualifications.
the master. He defended his doctoral thesis on the role of intellectuals in politics. How is their relationship with governments?
Contrary to what almost all intellectuals claim, I argue in my thesis that ideas do not rule the world. They almost always come. They are only used as a peel to legitimize energy projects. There are many examples of this throughout political history and philosophy. This delusion started way back, with Plato. At one time he thought that he could become the tutor to Dionysius II, tyrant of Syracuse on the island of Sicily. The Greek philosopher was so enthusiastic that he went there to advise him to implement an ideal model of property. No one really knows what happened, but things went so wrong that Plato became a slave. His friends in Athens had to buy it again. This delusion of the thinker that he will draw the head of the ruler is a fatal mistake. Another example is that of the American economist Milton Friedman. After taking the White House, Republican Richard Nixon promised to follow the theory of criticism at the Chicago School. Things went so wrong that Friedman declared: “If this is monetarism then I am not a monetarist“.I do not believe in rulers who hide behind great philosophies or ideologies. In fact, they use third party thinking to legitimize their projects.
the master. Quoted from Milton Friedman, how about talking about Olavo de Carvalho and his relationship with President Jair Bolsonaro?
Olavo de Carvalho ended his life saying that he had been used and disposed of. It’s another example from my group. Intellectuals have always believed that they can rule the world with their ideas. This ranges from Marxism to Austrian neoliberalism. But it is the politicians who use the intellectuals.
Is Fernando Henrique Cardoso an exception? He is an intellectual who ruled Brazil.
This is a very strange case. I really like the phrase:Forget what you wrote(Laugh). The power of ideas remains. We can’t imagine too much. Nor do I even think that it would be healthy to exercise this claim, to subject the government to a very strict and very demanding ideology, formulated by a scientist in his office.
Is Fernando Henrique’s file much different from that of Jair Bolsonaro?
Bolsonaro does not value knowledge, culture and education. He is proud of his ignorance. There is a resentment of the intellectual world, which I find very understandable. A large part of Brazilian society has been denied the opportunity to obtain a quality education. But I think resentment can be expressed in another way. Instead of wanting revenge and affirmation through ignorance, we can try to correct this deficiency.
