Joan Vergés Gifra: “It is a drama that people with a lot of money are leftists”

Joan Vergés Gifra (Banyoles, 1972) has written an essay that just with the title invites you to think. ‘The protest and the queixa’ [La protesta y la queja] Published only in Catalan by Arcàdia, it delves into uncomfortable territory, that of differentiating both concepts although they are often linked and in fact sometimes one leads to the other.

This professor of Moral and Political Philosophy at the University of Girona and director of the Ferrater Mora Chair of Contemporary Thought argues that democracy handles protest better than complaint. Probably because protest is easier to define and identify. He also explains that the left has largely monopolized many of the protests, but not only the left protests. So does the right. He protests and complains, both.

And as a third reflection, which also fits as a provocation, he warns of a complex phenomenon that once raised does not leave anyone indifferent: “That there is a left-wing vote in rich neighborhoods is a drama. In the same way that in neighborhoods where there is poverty people do not vote left. It means that there is some problem and that the traditional perception of what it means to be left has changed.”

The conversation with the author has been edited to reduce its length and facilitate reading.

Why isn’t protest the same as complaint?

Protest is an act of public response with a series of characteristics that make it different from complaint. It is an act of public and intentional response by people who consider a situation unfair, who understand that someone is responsible for changing it and demand that they act. This actor does not necessarily have to be the one who caused the unjust situation because, for example, sometimes we demand that governments solve issues that they have not caused.

It appeals to a kind of methodology to differentiate them. In the case of the protest and in summary it would be to perceive the grievance, the claim in order to obtain a response and the effects that are achieved.

Yes, there are a series of criteria. A protest is a public exercise and there is an actor. The complaint does not necessarily have to be an act of public response, without directly complaining to someone. It can be associated with the concept of discomfort.

In fact, it explains that complaint and protest can be connected and one can lead to another.

One does not always lead to the other. Sometimes from one protest another arises and we must keep in mind that not only the left protests, even if it has had the capacity to hegemonize it.

That is, people on the right also complain.

When it appears in surveys that many people point to immigration as a problem, what lies behind it is discomfort. It is a situation generated by the media and the question is how it is channeled.

He cites the media as responsible. I understand that it is because what some also do is present the phenomenon as a problem and, furthermore, amplify it.

And they try to transform that discomfort into a determined protest. This is where the ideological battles are played. Some will try to make the discomfort go one way and others the other.

And as he comments in the book, being outraged does not necessarily mean that you are right.

Clear. People standing in front of a mosque asking for it to be closed are also outraged. And there may also be another act, for example by anti-fascist groups, against the first protest. That is, one protest that generates another. This happens in public spaces.

How do you know that a protest has been worth it?

On the one hand there are the historians who, if necessary, are the ones who will be able to tell us. An act of public protest response may have some elements to assess whether it has been successful or unsuccessful, but in any case they are internal, criteria specific to the movement. Regardless of whether a historian analyzes it and says ‘they thought they had failed but in reality they brought about all these changes’.

Therefore often what is needed is a certain perspective.

Many times. Social movements are usually historical events.

In one of the chapters you wonder why there aren’t more demands. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that it is easier to put a message online than to go out into the streets to demonstrate.

It was also said that with the networks there would be more response, if the Arab springs were cited as examples, and later it turned out that not. Rather, you have the feeling that the networks lull us to sleep.

In rich countries it is easier to protest. Remembering it may seem obvious but it is not.

Yes, in the book I point out the studies with data that support this perception. To be able to demonstrate publicly and vindicate a situation that you consider unjust to others, you need a certain capacity, an ideological vision, to be able to mobilize…

Among the common complaints is that of excessive bureaucracy. But as he theorizes in one of the chapters, it is the water in which we swim. It can overwhelm us but we need it to function.

The thing about the water in which we swim is an expression of Graeber. A regime that does not need bureaucracy is aristocratic or oligarchic. In democracy there is an objective system for processing requests from social sectors to the authorities. Now, we should also be able to demand a more Nordic and less imbecilic bureaucracy than the one we have. The regime, just as it gives you, can also make you very dizzy. And we must remember that when we talk about bureaucracy we are also referring to the private sector, for example, banks.

Democracy lives on protest, it encourages it. But at the same time it has a counterproductive effect and that is that it tends to moralize to get people’s support.

There is a phrase in the book that catches quite a bit of attention. He says that morality is the erotics of democracy. What does this mean?

It means that the democratic regime, ‘democratism’, needs to seduce. It is presented as an ideal state, it is heaven or earth in political terms and that is part of the drama. For example, it is cited as a synonym for justice.

And democracy is not synonymous with justice?

No, it’s not. We live in a democracy, to varying degrees, but it is. You can say ‘what a shit house’, but it is a house. The same can happen with democracy. It is a regime that tends to idealize.

It’s the cliché: the least bad system.

Aristotle explains it when he says that democracy is a bad regime but it is the best of bad regimes. Democracy needs to seduce, to get people involved, to protest to improve. Democracy lives on protest, it encourages it. But at the same time it has a counterproductive effect and that is that it tends to moralize to get people’s support.

Aristotle also referred to inequality as the origin of protest. With fewer inequalities there would be fewer protests or would this not necessarily be the case?

Not necessarily. Who do you protest against the most? The North Africans and Senegalese of Salt receive beatings from those who are right above them in their buildings, not from those who live in a high neighborhood of Barcelona. In well-established neighborhoods, migrants take care of the elderly or clean houses, but they do not live together. Tensions are between social strata. The perception of inequality is what you consider significant. You don’t care if Bill Gates has a million or so. What will really upset you is if the person who works with you has a salary increase that you don’t have. Therefore, the discourse against racism and inequality is capitalized on by people who do not actually experience it. It is a drama that people with a lot of money are leftists. It is a drama for the left.

Because?

Because it will not experience or be credible. Being leftist is very burdensome because it requires a series of moral commitments. It is very demanding. That there is a left-wing vote in rich neighborhoods is a drama. In the same way that in neighborhoods where there is poverty people do not vote left. It means that there is some problem and that the traditionally had perception of what it means to be left-wing has changed. What has happened is that the left has been mutating towards a cultural left. It is something that has happened in a very significant way in France.

So what you are saying is that to be leftist you have to be poor?

No, what I’m saying is that you have to be honest. I didn’t say you have to be poor. But you can’t stay away from poor people. All leftist movements that have triumphed identify a collective. If your wallet is full, it will be very difficult for you to identify with the one who has it empty. We can say it and it’s very cool but the difficult thing is to do it, to really feel it, to share a table.