CV
Name: Santiago Kovadloff
Born: 1946
Profession: Philosopher,
essayist, poet
Latest book published:
La extinción de la diáspora judía, Emecé Editores, 2013.
Membership: Argentine Academy of Letters, Argentine Academy of Moral and Political Sciences
Santiago Kovadloff is one of the most influential and renowned intellectuals of present-day Argentina and a staunch advocate of Republican democracy. Following the presentation of his latest book, La extinción de la diáspora judía (The extinction of the Jewish Diaspora) at the Jewish Book Fair in Buenos Aires, Kovadloff talked to the Herald about the religious crises of today, the challenges besetting Argentina and his hopes and expectations for the future.
You say in your book that the Jewish Diaspora reaches its end following the loss of a religious core. Where does that leave Jews today?
My book tries to show that the Diaspora responded to a need to find a context where Jews could lead a less agitated life than they did in the Middle East in times when Palestine was not yet Israel. However, if you ask me what lies ahead for post-Diaspora Jews, I don’t know. I believe this new reality has two distinctive features: the Jews’ persistence in identifying themselves as Jews and their impossibility to find a source of unity, since the Judaic studies have ceased to be the centre of interest of post-Diaspora Jews.
You say irreligion is the core of the crisis of the Jewish assimilation. Half a century ago, Hannah Arendt claimed assimilation was futile, for Jews would always be Jews. What has happened in between?
Globalization and secularization have happened. We can say that, after the creation of the State of Israel, Diaspora Jews chose not to be Israelis and decided that their national identities were French, Italian, Argentine, and so forth. However, they define themselves as Jews at the same time. After absorbing the global wave of secularism, this particular Judaism loses its religious core and is doomed to float between a memory which preserves the formal values of its ancient tradition and an experience which reaffirms that tradition as active source of the Jewish identity.
If we cannot longer speak of Judaism, following the loss of its identity core, but of separate Judaisms, how would you define the Argentine Judaism?
The Jewish community has a vibrant life in today’s Argentina: people go to the temples ( I am not saying their faith dwells therein), we have Jewish writers who identify themselves as such. We have Jewish journalists who play a pivotal role in building a national debate — such as Pepe Eliaschev or Pablo Mendelevich. We have notable Jews in many cultural fields and we mustn’t forget psychoanalysis, which is an extraordinary Jewish-Argentine product.
And where is your place within this Argentine Judaism?
Well, I’m trying to understand it. As a Jew, I love my traditions, the history of my people, Judaism’s conceptual and literary richness. Since I couldn’t be a Greek philosopher, I have the finite solace of being a Jewish philosopher (laughs).
You speak about a sense of confusion among today’s Jews but wouldn’t you say this is a more universal disarray, regardless of one’s religious affiliation?
I am profoundly relieved to hear you say so. Some of my non-Jewish readers have construed my book as a metaphor of the crisis plaguing contemporary monotheisms. During the presentation of the book at the Jewish Book Fair, Carlos Pagni said: “This is the book of an Argentine” and I think he meant “the book of a contemporary writer,” touched by the crisis of values which torments the West. In this case, the Jewish dilemma becomes a metaphor for non-Jewish predicaments.
The last century has seen a radical change of the relationship between religions, from the reassertion of Islamism to the rapprochement between Christianity and Judaism. In this context, how do you see Bergoglio’s papacy?
I believe Bergoglio has brought to the fore the Church’s need that Catholicism reclaim its universality. Because it has lost it, because the credibility of the Christian faith forces the Church to seek a repositioning in terms of its own crisis, it requires the ability to face this crisis openly. In Bergoglio’s choice of papal name and Franciscan behaviour I see his wish to strip the Catholic discourse of its anachronistic and implausible overtone. Pope Francis seems firmly set on the path of restoring credibility to Catholicism. I don’t know if he’ll achieve this goal, but I have no doubt whatsoever that he will try his best.
You’ve known the pope from when he was an archbishop. Do you see Francis as a political man or as someone trying to apply politics to carry on his religious objectives?
I think that Pope Francis has understood that politics is just a form on interaction between human beings and that it can generate solidarity when faith is added to the equation. Otherwise, it only produces a squabble for power. As such, I would say Francis is a pope born from Jorge Bergoglio’s political experience as long as we accept that said experience implies his persuasion that it is through the religious notion of ‘neighbour‘ that ethics can be ushered in the field of politics.
What would you say is Argentina’s main challenge at the moment?
Today, we have an ongoing debate in Argentina, between Republican democracy and plebiscitary democracy. If the latter wins, we will turn the Constitution into a mere pretext instead of a text. If the former triumphs, we would be starting a very long voyage, whose results will only be seen in decades because this would involve long-term social and political practices that have never been implemented here. In Argentina, we are not familiar with long or medium terms, we are ever reliant on the present, we worship the here-and-now and are inclined to embrace a hidden form of paganism which consists in revering political figures. What we lack in genuine religiosity we make for in devotion toward providential figures. I believe today’s Argentina is closer to the 19th century than the 21st.
The country is going to the polls soon. What do you think will come?
More Peronism. I believe that Peronism can now vanquish Peronism so that Peronism can reemerge.
Are you saying that you expect Kirchnerism, or Cristinism, to be followed by another ‘ism‘ of the Peronist sort?
Yes. It is what I believe, it is not what I wish. Fragmentation reigns inside the opposition which, therefore, would be incapable of generating the same diversity that the Peronist movement has achieved.
And where does that leave Argentina?
In the first half of the 20th century and, therefore, highly indebted to its future.
However, the Peronist movement has enjoyed wide public support. Don’t you find anything worth salvaging from the experience of the Kirchnerist decade?
Oh, quite a lot. I wouldn’t deny Kirchnerism its achievements: the welfare programmes introduced by the Kirchners in a time of crisis, many of the laws passed by Congress to provide legitimate and constitutional grounds for necessary social practices — the same sex marriage law, the Universal Child Allowance programme. I will censure it, though, for trying to subdue the Constitution so that the law abides by the political power instead of the politicians abiding by the law.
And what is your solution for this situation?
The transition to a Republican democracy. It is the only possibility — risky as it may be — if we wish to benefit from our own mistakes, if we want to leave behind this sense of repetition, this monotony of redundancy. Argentina has serious issues but it is not an interesting country precisely because it tends to repeat the solutions to its conflicts.