{"id":532064,"date":"2026-04-11T08:30:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-11T06:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/leregardlibre.com\/?p=532064"},"modified":"2026-04-15T11:55:54","modified_gmt":"2026-04-15T09:55:54","slug":"my-latest-column-for-le-regard-libre","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/leregardlibre.com\/en\/company\/my-latest-column-for-le-regard-libre\/","title":{"rendered":"My latest column for \u00abLe Regard Libre\u00bb"},"content":{"rendered":"

As we leave Le Regard Libre<\/em> after four years of columns, video artist Ralph M\u00fcller reflects on the limits of political commentary, and praises \u00abinitiatives such as this magazine to encourage the circulation of ideas and reading\u00bb.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

As I write my final column for Le Regard Libre<\/em>, I'd like to share with you a few thoughts that have occurred to me over the last few weeks. Stepping back from my work as a videographer and from the practice of those who comment on and analyze social and cultural events, I've gradually been won over by a strange feeling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bad faith on both left and right<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

After six years spent producing videos and keeping abreast of debates in the French-speaking world (in particular), I'm feeling a kind of resignation; an ambiguous mixture of weariness and appeasement. I've come to question the relevance of a certain kind of struggle. Is there any point in defending a political color? Do we commentators and \u00abinfluencers\u00bb have any substantial impact on the course of events? Undoubtedly, to a certain extent. At the same time, we have to admit that polarization is on the rise, that the \u00abcamps\u00bb are increasingly incapable of dialogue with each other, and that I find it hard to see, in the current situation, the virtuous effects of our comments and analyses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More often than not, all we're doing is preaching to the convinced and consolidating beliefs, if not unshakeable faith. Incidentally, the more politically identifiable we are, the more inaudible we are guaranteed to be for our \u00abopponents\u00bb. The more you also run the risk of succumbing to the perverse mechanisms of digital platforms. As we all know by now, you need to be radical if you want to make a splash on a large scale. Hence the inevitable destination of many commentators and activists: bad faith.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Read also | She's not left-wing, he's not right-wing<\/a><\/h6>\n\n\n\n

It all seems increasingly futile. I believe more and more in what might be called an oblique commitment: that the benefits in the field of political ideas of an intellectual discourse are all the greater when the discourse is not directly political. For politics and ideology are rooted in the depths of the human being, in the meanders of psychology, of life in society, and of all the minute, unconscious parameters that determine a vision of the world. I believe that this is where we need to act. That means reflecting, weighing up, criticizing in the etymological sense: sorting things out. To highlight the mechanisms that move us, to shed light on reflexes that appear to be convictions. To put ourselves, as far as possible, at the service of the truth before taking up a cause.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Circulation of ideas and reading<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

I repeat: you can't achieve your aims by speaking on behalf of one side, because speaking on behalf of one side necessarily means counting on the other side's mistakes, and therefore secretly wishing that nothing would change - or even that things would get worse. The other side's downfall enhances my own position. Your degradation is my glory. The alternative is for the other to disappear. Two wishes unlikely to improve our life together. As I like to say now: seeing politics as a battle is the best way to lose it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n