To be radical

PalmaEtymologically, ‘radical’ comes from the Latin ‘radicalis’ which means ‘relating to the root’. It is a term linked to plant biology, and more specifically, to plants. In principle, it does not have a symbolic character. It refers directly to the lower part of a plant, generally underground, which anchors it to the soil and absorbs water and nutrients. Initially, therefore, ‘radical’ has a neutral, apolitical meaning, far from any ideology.

Within the realm of philosophy, the root is a concept that has a long tradition beginning with the first philosophers, the pre-Socratics. Philosophers before Socrates used the word ‘root’ to refer to the first principles of reality, to the causes that constitute nature and the ultimate foundations of existing things, that is, to what things really are and what, moreover, explains their existence. Skeptics, like Pyrrho, apply doubt with radicalism, to the point of becoming so stuck in their distrust that they have to suspend judgment and remain silent. For his part, Descartes, the father of modern philosophy, is radical in a methodical sense, that is, he systematically applies doubt in a radical way to all inherited knowledge. In this way, he distrusts everything, and leaves nothing unquestioned (not the senses, nor reason, nor the existence of the world). But he does not remain paralyzed in doubt, because precisely extreme doubt is the path that the rationalist philosopher follows to find with the utmost certainty and security the radical and indubitable principle of his existence, the thinking self, the cogito.

Later, Kant introduces the concept ‘radical’ in his ethics, and speaks of ‘radical evil’. He refers to extreme evil that has to do with the decision to act wrongly with full knowledge, with malicious intent, for selfish interest, knowing that what one has thought to do will be harmful to others. The Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset closely links philosophy with the literal meaning of radical when he says that “the philosopher is a specialist in roots”, because he goes to the roots of things, and is not content with a superficial glance, because he has the will to go to what is hidden and seek what sustains all that is visible.

Identity

‘Radical’ has often been linked to an attitude, a characteristic way of being in philosophy, but also to an identity within the realm of politics and feminism.

It is said (and rightly so) that philosophy is radical. In what sense is it? To be radical in philosophy means to have the courage to get to the root of problems and concepts. Not to be content with initial and immediate answers, with partial and improvised solutions, nor to accept anything as obvious that has not been examined in detail, from all angles. To be radical in philosophy means to carry out research to its ultimate consequences, to think things through. It also means to go to the foundations, to what things actually are. To be radical in philosophy is opposed to being superficial and to being content with appearances. In fact, philosophy defines itself by being radical. This is its true meaning and its main reason for being. Philosophy would not be philosophy if it did not go to the roots of problems. Being radical is a permanent requirement that must be continuously applied to any investigation that wishes to be called philosophical.

However, over time, ‘radical’ has acquired a political meaning. The political turn of the word ‘radical’ occurred during the French Revolution. At that time, being radical came to characterize revolutionaries, people who wanted to make profound and immediate changes. Thus, ‘radical’ can be understood as opposed to conservative. This revolutionary conception of radicalism is philosophically consolidated with Marx, with a philosophy oriented towards action and dedicated to promoting the transformation of reality. With Marx, being radical implies being politically committed to the liberation of the oppressed class from the chains that prevent them from escaping oppression and to being in favor of human emancipation.

Today, being radical in politics means having a profoundly nonconformist and critical position in relation to social reality. It is about being discontented and acting to transform society, although ‘radical’ has ceased to be the exclusive domain of the left and one can be ultra and radical (ultra-radical) and even radically liberal and centrist. There has been a significant shift, a deactivation of the concept’s transformative weight.

Radicalism has a bad press and worse public opinion. Being radical has ended up being an insult, a disqualification that is associated with a minority ideology of extremist groups and collectives that are dangerous and act violently. Radical is thus confused with violent, with the imposition of ideas by force. The example of football is clear. The radicals of a team are its most violent and aggressive followers.

Today, radical ideologies are spoken of to refer to dogmatic and intransigent, inflexible, unthinking, too rigid and closed ideas, immune to any criticism, which reject dialogue and changes, as well as questioning and innovations.

It is said that someone has become radicalized when they position themselves in an extreme, unbalanced, and very little shared position. Aristotle would say that it would be a vicious position, far from virtue, which is the mean between two extremes. Aristotle is not radical at all, he opts for moderation, because he believes it is the surest path to happiness.

There is a feminism that is radical that emerged in the 60s and 70s of the 20th century, during the second feminist wave, as a response to liberal feminism for considering it too moderate, that does not get to the root of inequality, and settles for formal equality. Radical feminism identifies the existence of permanent and structural inequality, which does not disappear just like that, neither by goodwill nor by magic. It is the feminism that identifies patriarchy as the system that oppresses women and maintains structural inequality with men, which permeates all areas of personal and social life, and is present in culture, economy, language, family, conventions, customs, sexuality, the body, the gaze... Radical feminism historically led by Kate Millett and Shulamith Firestone had in its agenda of struggle against patriarchy the abolition of prostitution and the traditional family, and the promotion of collective child-rearing, among other demands.

Engine of history

Be that as it may, we must recognize that we are all a bit radical when we defend our own ideas with conviction and vehemence, because precisely, radical ideas are the engine of history. We must also confess that too often we remain silent when we should raise our voice against intolerant and absolutely unacceptable attitudes and behaviors, just to avoid conflict. Sincerely, I believe that we should be more intolerant of the intolerant, and dare to be more radical in defending just causes, to commit ourselves radically to peace and democracy, and to be radically against corruption, against militarism that continuously creates new enemies, and against neo-fascisms that point to foreigners as the culprits of all present and future evils.