Praxis and the Philosophy of Liberation

In this meeting we discussed the “Appendix: Philosophy and Praxis” from Enrique Dussel’s Philosophy of Liberation. Puja presented a brief overview of this section emphasizing the role of philosophy with ideology and praxis, the influence and relative determination of praxis in shaping a philosophical system, the role of the organic philosopher converting through critical thinking in a philosopher of liberation and Dussel’s use of Nicaragua as a geopolitical example of an affirmation of a political exteriority. The discussion started with the question of the relationship of nationalism in the example of Nicaragua as an exteriority. We asked: In what sense is Nicaragua an exteriority? What is been affirmed? Is exteriority part of dialectic? In what consist the liberation of Nicaragua? How the liberation of Nicaragua expresses a form of analectic affirmation? We asked if this liberation and affirmation was an expression of hope at the beginning of the Sardinista’s Revolution in Nicaragua at the end of the 70s, considering this appendix was an address given in the 1980. In this sense, we discuss the geopolitics of the relationship of Nicaragua and the US, and whether is in this context that one can read a relationship of the new revolutionary movement as a form of political exteriority. Part of the struggle of discussing this section is to understand the relationship between totality and exteriority, and in what degree Dussel differs from Levinas philosophy of alterity.

 

The discussion moved to question Dussel category of utopia, its role, meaning and potential danger of falling in the future in reinstituting a new system of domination of one group over another. Besides the question and the critique, we also attempted to understand the relationship of utopia with Dussel’s Proyecto and praxis. In this sense, utopia can be understood as a necessary moment of affirmation that opens the possibility of working towards a proyecto.

 

One question that arise in the discussion was whether Dussel’s conceptualization of totality is encompassing and universal, or whether one can read Dussel’s metaphysical system as composed of different systems of totality. Is Dussel’s conceptualization of totality undermining the existence of multiple systems of oppressions and their intersections? There is space, however, to interpret Dussel as opening the possibility of a more intersectional analysis of systems of oppression as seen in page 188 when he asserts: “The oppressed are considered historically and socially as a class, geopolitically as a nation, sexually as repressed by macho ideology and practices, pedagogically as alienated and completely enclosed by an idolatrous fetishism.”

 

We close the discussion with questions about the relationship of the organic intellectual with the oppressed, and specifically we questioned Dussel’s claim that an organic intellectual, once converted to the liberation of the oppressed assumes their class. The discussion stem from this passage: “To be ‘organic’ (arrow e) with the historical subject means to resolutely acquire a class position with an oppressed people; it means to become involved in and form part of the popular movement of the working class or of marginal groups […]” (p.190) We questioned: In what sense Dussel means that the organic philosopher assumes the class of the oppressed? Is it in a Marxist sense? Does this requires to give up privileges and what type of commitment, risk and sacrifices this entails? Additionally, we questioned and discussed the relationship of the intellectual with communities and social movements. Does being an organic intellectual means the philosopher needs to belong or be in a committed relationship with the oppressed?