In recent months, the word “radicality” has often been used in the French media: in the campaign of the French presidential elections, extreme right-wing Canoes have more than used the term “consternation”, while those on the left have endorsed the “radicality” to point out that it is time to make revolutionary changes.

Especially among the majority of the left, “radicality” is today a connotation optimism, no longer associated with the condemnable actions of a violent minority. It seems that it is no more than moderate, reformist, progressive. Since it could not be otherwise, we are all aware of the enormous difficulties we are entering: destroying the environment, the collective survival of the human being has been called into question by children, the neoliberal system that has risen all over the world exploits individuals, breaks relationships and we have lost old ideologies that gave hope. The radical paths are therefore very urgent, because it is clear that we have no more time for commitments. In recent decades, all areas have been radicalized: feminism, post-colonialism, ecology -- because we believe it is necessary to eradicate social injustice, imperialism, great capitalism, mass pollution and the oppression of ecosystems. Because that is the optimistic “radicality” of today, in the line of Marx’s frog, which is to take things root and transform them.

In Bizkaia, these radicalizations can be intrinsic if they hinder the relationships between individuals and human groups. We have seen that in the campaign of the French presidential elections discussions between the candidates were impossible: the candidates were fired, used violent or humiliating words, to show that they could not talk to each other, with simple crowd codes. In society there has also been a reduction in the desire and ability to debate: there are issues like taboo (COVID-19 like crisis management), each one prefers to be with his ideas, stay alone in contact with the group that shares his ideas and not cross with the other people. In general, radical positions have the essence of hatred: patriarchal and sexism, neoliberalism, colonial. Despite the correctness, the risk is that radical contemporary ideologies will lead us back to new authoritarianism if they do not value respectful debate.

In fact, on the other hand, “radicality”, a common concept is introduced in the French media, as well as in higher university literary research: the need for “nuances”. It's a notion of fuzzy definition. Some of its supporters relate it to the concept of consensus of the philosopher Habermas in a neoliberal sense; others to the blind and pathetic concept of “care” (see Le Monde Diplomatique of May 2022 and the university seminar that has passed in Paris at the end of 2021: “Caring lit”). However, there is no way out of these “nuances” claims: the dramas we live will not be obstructed by minimal and warm superficial feelings.

I think we have the need for radical ideologies to denounce injustices, but we have to get more, more honestly and better to argue, to save ourselves together without denying ours, because collective salvation is desirable.