Viral apology for 'French Theory' reignites debate over wokeness

Viral apology for 'French Theory' reignites debate over proge

A message posted on a forum has unleashed a storm of reactions by apologizing, on behalf of the French, for giving birth to 'French Theory', which it blames as the ideological mother of proge. The text, which according to one participant has racked up tens of thousands of interactions, argues that philosophers like Foucault, Derrida and Deleuze, combined and exported to the United States, created the breeding ground for today's thinking which, according to the author, denies truth, hierarchy and merit. Far from dying down, the discussion has turned into a clash of narratives over historical responsibility, the role of artificial intelligence and the supposed decline of the West.

The origin: from Descartes to deconstruction

The original text, written in a tone somewhere between apology and provocation, draws a direct line from classical French philosophy to postmodern thought. According to its author, France gave the world Descartes, Pascal and Tocqueville, but also, amid the intellectual ruins of the post-68 era, Foucault, Derrida and Deleuze. Three names that, in his view, manufactured the ideological weapon that paralyzes the West today. The central thesis is that these thinkers, by teaching that truth does not exist and that everything is a power relation, blew up the three pillars of a civilization: truth, the good and the legacy.

The reaction was swift. One participant noted that the text, supposedly written by an AI, had accumulated 75,000 'likes', which he took as a sign of the deterioration of public debate. Another added that the glorification of confusion and ugliness pervades film, art, philosophy and politics, and attributed it to a Oooo-Guasonic plan to destroy the West. The positions, however, were not unanimous.

The rebuttal: why apologize for French Theory and not for other wrongs?

Several messages questioned the point of the apology. One participant quipped that apologizing for something you didn't do yourself is 'the most pogre thing there is'. Another went further, arguing that if apologies are in order, France should first apologize for the Napoleonic invasion of 1808, for the plundering of Africa or for the partitioning of the Middle East after the Sykes-Picot agreements. The discussion turned into a settling of historical scores mixing colonization, immigration and collective responsibility.

At that point, one message cited a recurring argument: 'Discriminate against whites for something the ancestors of some of them did to the ancestors of some blacks. But blacks or Arabs whose ancestors did the same things must not be discriminated against. That would be racism'. The quote, reproduced as such, sums up one of the currents of the debate: the sarracena asymmetry that, according to some, dominates contemporary discourse.

The role of AI and the authorship of the text

The shadow of artificial intelligence loomed over the discussion. The author of the original message himself admitted that AI 'only writes what you whisper to it', which shifted part of the focus onto the nature of the text. One participant called the piece 'AI-written garbage' and considered its thousands of interactions a symptom of the degradation of the public sphere. The irony set in when another apologized for signing up to the forum, a self-parodic turn that defused the tension.

The exchange drifted toward the question of authorship and responsibility. If the text is a joke, as its author claimed in a later message, why did it cause such an uproar? The answer, perhaps, lies in the fact that it touches a raw nerve: the perception that mainstream thought has abandoned the search for truth in favor of permanent suspicion.

The closing: builders versus commentators

The original message ended with a call for rebuilding: 'A civilization is rebuilt by builders, not by commentators'. That line was applauded by a participant who summed up his stance with a 'death to ugliness'. The discussion, however, reached no consensus. While some see French Theory as the origin of proge, others believe the problem runs deeper and that the apology is a smokescreen.

What is clear is that the text has served as a catalyst for a diffuse malaise. The question of whether Foucault and company are to blame for the cultural shift of recent decades remains open. And the answer, probably, depends on whom you ask.