The Burden of Responsibility: Blum, Camus, Aron, and the French Twentieth Century by Tony Judt

The Burden of Responsibility: Blum, Camus, Aron, and the French Twentieth Century Reviews

• 
  Jim Coughenour

  Like hundreds of other grateful readers, I mourn the loss this week of Tony Judt. I first read his Past Imperfect in the early 90s, a scathing analysis of Sartre & Co.'s support of Stalinism. This book could be considered a companion piece, offering three examples of intellectual integrity. Judt's study of Camus is inspiring but hardly hagiographic, and belongs in the high company of Ronald Aronson's book. But it was Judt's chapter on Raymond Aron that most impressed me – and encouraged me to purchase Aron's The Dawn of Universal History: Selected Essays from a Witness of the Twentieth Century, for which Judt provided the introduction.
  
  I've only dipped into Judt's collection, Reappraisals, and his monumental history of postwar Europe – but sooner or later I'll read them through. As his essays for the New York Review of Books have proved over the years, Judt was himself a public intellectual with a keen sense of responsibility and remarkable courage, even through the darkest days of his illness. He will be missed.
  
• 
  AC

  This is an excellent book, and is recommended. Judt reviews the moral and intellectual careers of three men of tangential centrality to European Modernity: Léon Blum, Albert Camus, and Raymond Aron.
  
  Judt attempts to show that each, while starting from the anti-fascist Left, had to come to grips with the totalitarian instincts that emerged in the postwar Left -- in the form of Stalinism, and tiers-mondisme (notably in Algeria, in the Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot...) -- and that each showed himself, in accepting this challenge that shirked by most of their contemporaries in the French Intelligensia (think Sartre...) as men of great moral courage and moral individuality.
  
  They were men, you might say, of the radical center -- men of political responsibility -- setting themselves consciously in revolt against cruelty, brutality, and extremism -- *wherever* it was found. What Judt understands by this term "political responsibility" is shown by the following passage:
  
  "Conceding to Necessity, aligning one's choices with those of History, in the sense used by Carl Schmitt (or by Hegel as interpreted by Alexandre Kojève) was a reactionary not a radical solution, and made no more appealing by the invocation of reason. In an early postwar essay Camus was to remark that what distinguished an ancien regime reactionary from a modern one (of Right and Left alike) was that the former claimed that reason determined nothing, whereas the latter thought that reason determined everything. In place of reason Camus invoked responsibility. Indeed, his writings bear witness to an ethic of responsibility deliberately set against the ethic of conviction..."
  
  Throughout, Judt seems to be expressing views to which he was himself committed.
  
  The writing is a bit sententious at times (for my taste) - hence the ranking -- but the book reads quickly and is of interest.
• 
  Ярослава

  У Джадта є дві книжки про французьких інтелектуалів - одна про мудаків (себто тих, хто виставляв своїй стороні й опонентам різні стандарти з низки принципових етичних питань штибу концтаборів чи використання тортур), друга про немудаків (тих, хто такого не робив). "Тягар відповідальності" - це як раз про немудаків у складі Леона Блюма, Альбера Камю й Реймона Арона. Як завжди, з чудовими джадтівськими формулюваннями штибу "The loyalty of French writers, thinkers, and professors to their ideas was only matched by their utter indifference to reality" (я хочу писати, як Джадт, коли виросту. Ви теж хочете писати, як Джадт, коли виростете). Як завжди, з типовим джадтівським песимізмом (послідовність у етичних стандартах до своєї сторони й іншої виявляють, по факту, найчастіше ті, хто з якихось причин не почувається повністю належним до жодної зі сторін).
• 
  Manuel J.

  I found this book very moving. The choice of persons Judt made is debatable, but each one is a person of interest, a real person, with good and bad points. The idea of perusing History through some of its actors' personal history is always interesting, even taking into account that it makes the book less an History book and more a book to read more like a novel. The advantage it is that the normal reader gets much more involved and, in a sense, learns more this way.
  There are points specially relevant to the world today: the capacity these three men to stand by themselves against the society, searching for what they thought right, even at a personal cost. We all should learn from them.
• 
  James Spencer

  Before Tony Judt switched his focus to Eastern Europe, his original doctoral work and interest was in 20th century French political and intellectual history. This little book comes from that earlier interest. It consists of three essays on three French thinkers, writers and (at least in Blum's case) politicians who Judt clearly admired even though all three took more than their share of criticism from the intellectual left (think Sartre) who dominated 20th century French thinking. These three along with Judt himself all leaned significantly left but that did not prevent them from recognizing the truth, in particular about Stalinism.
  
  Judt and his subjects believed that intellectuals, journalists, politicians etc. had an obligation, a responsibility to face truths and not to somehow justify unacceptable or irresponsible actions simply because one's emotions and desires would lead to a different conclusion. The prime example for Judt is Sartre, de Beauvoir, and most of the rest of the French left's insistence that Stalin's mass murders, show trials, etc. were acceptable because Marxism or Communism or whatever demanded it. To the bulk of French left wing intellectuals, the end justified the means even when the ends were nowhere in sight.
  
  While some 20 years old now, the relevance to today is as great as ever. As we listen to some Sanders supporters insist that they cannot support Hillary even though they must know that if she loses Donald Trump becomes president and even though their agenda is not practical or achievable is exactly the same as the issues that Blum, Camus, Aron, and Judt addressed throughout the 20th Century in France. I recommend this highly for those who are willing to do some serious thinking.
• 
  Ross

  Judt is a very attentive reader and a perceptive critic who clearly shows the difficulty of what each of these three tried to do: cut some kind of path between the Communist left and the liberal center. He also clearly describes the price they paid for much of their lives, almost in solitude, as he tells it, making enemies on all sides.
  
  This collection could have used more centrifugal force, or a little more clarity behind the notion of 'responsibility,' which seems straightforward but is actually a little elusive. The introductory essay comes closest when it criticizes the tendency of (other) 20th cent. French intellectuals to "merely reflect back into the public sphere the country's own long-standing political divisions." And: "Ideological warfare substituted for attention to local realities, so that everything was politicized while few paid serious attention to politics." This almost suggests a connection between 'responsibility' and a non-ideological pragmatism, but that doesn't square with the principled social-democratic stances that Judt wants to show the three taking (and suffering for).
  
  So, flawed but rewarding.
• 
  David

  Interesting angle - brief profiles of three prominent left-leaning 20th Century European anti-communists, one an academic, one a politiican, and one a popular writer. As flawed as they all were, their work holds up better than their opponents who seemingly triumphed at the time, which is more a result of the three's human qualities than personal brilliance. Could be a little tighter, but then these were originally written as speeches rather than as a single comparative essay.
• 
  Luis Cardenas

  La responsabilidad moral de los intelectuales es el centro de este maravilloso ensayo de Tony Judt, en dónde demuestra con tres ejemplos de Blum, Camus y Aron. Cómo la integridad de pensamiento independiente es la mejor fortaleza contra el totalitarismo y contra un status quo intelectual plagado de lugares comunes y facilismos.
• 
  Lazarus-II

  3.5/5 or 7/10
• 
  Tomé Andrade

  Muito boa introdução à obra e acção dos 3 monumentos do sec. XX francês. A não perder.
• 
  Jim

  What
• 
  Daniel1974nlgmail.com

  I thought especially the two chapters about Camus and Aron were very interesting.
• 
  Daniel1974nlgmail.com

  Very good sections on Camus and Aron.
• 
  Marcio Silva

  Judt merecia uma traduçãozinha melhor, hein? Que coisa terrível a desse livro.