In the spirit of the Rosicrucian manifestos published 400 years ago, Swiss journalist Martin Bernard published Plaidoyer pour un renouveau européen [Plea for European renewal] in 2024. He takes a historical look at Europe as a cultural space with materialism as its backbone—and calls for a renewal of science and humanism. Louis Defèche spoke with him about his vision of Europe today.
Louis Defèche: You’ve stated, in your book, that Europe is in decline. Why?
Martin Bernard: The European states had to admit their failure in the First World War since they were unable to prevent this massacre. They even provoked it. Oswald Spengler (1880–1936) regarded the First World War as a turning point that marked the decline of European civilization.1 And today, the same structures continue to exist. States strive to organize society but face challenges they can’t overcome.
Geopolitical Perspectives
Your book emphasizes the influence of the U.S. on Europe’s destiny in the twentieth century.
It began with Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points, which provided a model for Europe’s political and social development. But it was after 1945, with the Marshall Plan, that Europe became truly Americanized. Under the guise of rebuilding, European countries were forced to buy American products and establish an American material culture. This Americanization was clearly evident during our “Thirty Glorious Years.” Jean Monnet, who was in the United States during the Second World War, worked closely with American leaders to build the European order together with Robert Schuman and others. The basis for European integration was the desire to link Western Europe to the Atlantic region. Especially since the USSR was on the other side. Western Europe was not to fall into Soviet hands at any cost.
Why should the American model be bad?
This model enabled the creation of a maritime power that conquered the world and a material civilization that spread and captivated a large part of the world’s population. But today, it’s the Western country that is most clearly in decline. Emmanuel Todd shows this very clearly in his latest book.2 We have demographic indicators that are disastrous for a so-called “developed” country. Public infrastructure is dilapidated. The rise of Trump is a symptom of this. The population, especially in rural areas, cannot accept this state of affairs with its glaring inequalities, which are even greater than in Europe. From this point of view, the United States is not a model to follow.
At the same time, Europe sees itself as sharing common values with the United States.
Historically speaking, it is the same civilization that has just developed in a different way across the Atlantic. There are certain conceptions of human rights and democracy that are considered Western, European values. But these are also the main arguments used by American neoconservative forces to conceal their military ambitions and imperialism behind democratic and human rights pretexts in order to sell wars to the people that would never be accepted in their true form. Whether in Iraq, Libya, Syria, or Ukraine. One month after the start of the war, the Ukrainians were ready to sign a peace treaty, but were prevented from doing so by the Americans and British with the illusory promise that they would defend them. They were deceived. The real idea is to contain and destabilize Russia. This can be seen, for example, in a 2019 report by the RAND Corporation3 that outlines specific options for pursuing this goal.
Preventing Europe from expanding its collaboration with Russia is a very old strategy of the Anglo-Saxon countries to prevent the emergence of a potentially competing Eurasian power.
That’s exactly right. It was formulated by Halford Mackinder at the beginning of the twentieth century with the Heartland Theory4 and has remained the strategic mantra of the Anglo-Saxon elites to this day, with nuances, of course.
And suddenly, Trump returns in 2025. How do you see this?
There is indeed a rift and deep tensions. We will have to wait and see how this develops. During his first term, Trump pursued a fairly classic neoconservative line with a few nuances. He seems to be returning to a form of nineteenth-century America that was built on tariffs and border protection to build up a national industry and focused on internal problems: in order to maintain power, we must restructure internally. How this will affect relations with historical allies is still unclear. The future of NATO, for example, is in question.
A New Science
We have been talking about political and economic issues, but in your book, you focus on the question of a renewal of spirituality, science, and a new humanism.
The starting point for my reflections is that economic and political developments arise from a worldview. In Europe, this worldview has its origins in the way scientific development has been structured since the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. For five hundred years, European modernity has been structured around the development of science. This has shaped a worldview that crystallized into a social organization. This social organization produced the current economic model of exploitation of nature and human beings, which is consistent with the conceptions of science since its inception, as exemplified by Francis Bacon, whom I discuss in my book.
You mean the struggle for survival—social Darwinism?
Yes, a greedy worldview. As long as this worldview does not change, all external changes in society will have no effect. This fundamental problem will always remain and must be solved, because it is what structures our society. The image of human beings in our Western societies today is deeply damaged. In view of the destruction of the twentieth century, it is entirely justified to believe that if human beings are capable of such acts, they are fundamentally evil. But this conception offers no future. When I speak of spiritual renewal, I am thinking of the need to fundamentally reform the worldview upon which our societies are based. This means a renewal and expansion of science—a science that is no longer limited to exploring the external world but also explores the inner world of human beings, in the sense of anthroposophy. We need a new definition: What is a human being? What are all the different dimensions of the human being?
However, this search for renewal is quite old, going back to the Rosicrucians, who were already calling for a renewal of Europe four centuries ago. How do you see the impulse of the Rosicrucians, which you discuss in your book?
It was a very interesting time for the development of science. The Rosicrucian manifestos appear,5 and Bacon publishes his work Nova Atlantis,6 undoubtedly in response to them. These are two opposing visions of social organization. Bacon rejects what he calls idols, the Aristotelian and Platonic ideas, and the theories that originate with the Church in the Middle Ages and establish dogmas to explain society and nature. Bacon says that we must get rid of them and only look at nature empirically, as it is, and learn to understand it in order to conquer it and achieve a kind of redemption for humanity. Behind this lies an eschatological idea with Promethean connotations. He takes a very predatory stance: we must exploit nature, plunder it.
In his Nova Atlantis, Bacon describes the structure of a technocratic society ruled by a scientific clergy that conducts experiments, with an abundance of technical fantasies that can be found in today’s world. The Rosicrucians came up with a completely different idea for educational reform. They also believed that religious dogma was outdated for understanding the world and humanity. In their opinion, however, a global and holistic understanding of nature and man must be sought, a view that is close to that of Paracelsus a century earlier, with the idea that man is a microcosm within the macrocosm. It has a spiritual dimension that encompasses more subtle levels of reality and, above all, involves the human being in the process of knowledge.
And perhaps more humility towards the world that surrounds us?
Yes. But Bacon’s stream gained the upper hand, and Rosicrucianism became a secret stream. It continued to influence intellectual thinking in Europe, as can be seen in German natural philosophy with Goethe and his philosophical and artistic milieu. Bacon’s counterstream took shape in the seventeenth century after the Thirty Years’ War through the Royal Society and the academies for scientific development.
The political goal was to develop the sciences in the service of a powerful state, thereby enabling it to position itself against its economic rivals. This gave rise to a coalition between science, politics, power, and business. The ideas of the Rosicrucians developed in an esoteric, non-institutional way. The project of anthroposophy consists precisely in bringing Rosicrucianism out of the shadows.
If Europe developed this materialistic science, does it not bear a karma, a responsibility?
Yes, that is the crux of the matter. The world has become Westernized or Europeanized, for better or for worse. Ultimately, Europeans are responsible for overcoming this model. European culture is at the source, so it is also somewhat its duty to find ways forward for the future—not making a clean sweep, but acknowledging the mistakes of the past, without imposing them on others. It could try to develop a new model that other cultures can draw inspiration from if they wish.
A New Humanism
What could this new model look like?
Two things: First, we need a scientific renewal, the renewal of the factory of knowledge, which should enable us to expand our understanding of the world. This can then enrich social structures, as was the case in the seventeenth century. Second, there is the more philosophical, inner aspect, namely humanism. Europe has developed a humanism: an attention to the development of the human being as an individual. Abdennour Bidar describes this very well in his Histoire de l’humanisme en Occident [History of humanism in the West].7 This attention to individual development has taken various forms. They crystallized in particular in the modern era with the humanism of the Enlightenment, focused on both material achievements and inner development. However, this inner development seems to be disappearing. Like Bidar, I believe that a new impetus is needed. I also quote the Czech philosopher Jan Patočka, who referred to the Socratic and philosophical tradition of Athens and spoke of the “care of the soul,” of an inner development of the psyche and the human spirit.8 According to Bidar, we need to cultivate a European humanism that seeks dialogue with the humanist traditions of other civilizations. Humanism is sometimes even more present there than in Europe, even if it looks different, like in China, for example, where there is a very old humanist tradition. It is different, but there is always a concern for human development.
Shouldn’t we move away from a form of elitism? Isn’t it also necessary to popularize science and philosophy? We need citizens who think independently and develop an interest in their immediate surroundings.
Absolutely. Science, as it has developed, is the result of this formalization by scientific academies. Since the seventeenth century, we have seen a verticalization of science, partly for practical reasons, as it is more efficient to have organized structures for developing technologies and weapons, waging wars, etc. The transition to scientific renewal requires more open access to research. Rupert Sheldrake, the British biochemist who studied the invisible morphogenetic fields of living organisms, proposed allocating part of the research budget to ideas from citizens’ committees in order to expand the fields of research. As far as “care of the soul” is concerned, in which I include Goetheanism and phenomenology, everyone should be able to take their own life and personal experiences as their starting point.
Trust in Human Beings
How can spaces be created in which this spiritual renewal can take place?
On the one hand, there is a power structure that clings to its achievements, while on the other hand, new technologies are attracting attention. We live in an extremely normative, bureaucratized society. It takes a lot of energy to mobilize people for a project. For example, founding a new school in Switzerland today is extremely complicated. Most Steiner schools were founded in the seventies and eighties. Today, it’s more difficult to create such institutions. Nevertheless, we have to try things out.
I think the question of schools is very important. We need to create more freedom in education and culture. This is extremely underestimated today. We always want to solve problems economically or politically, but when it comes to culture, no one minds cutting budgets. Change through culture can be very rapid and radical without causing damage. In other areas, such as the economy, all sectors have to adapt and can be weakened. If, for example, you want to stop using pesticides in agriculture, you have to rebuild the entire distribution structure, the entire consumption pattern, and the entire system. That takes a long time. But in culture, in education, in the arts, it can happen very quickly. I think education is the central issue. It was not without reason that Steiner was so committed to Waldorf schools in 1919.
In order to develop this cultural freedom, sufficient social trust is required. Without trust, people do not want freedom but control.
Humanism must therefore be renewed. Today, we often hear that human beings are evil. After the tragedies of the twentieth century, colonization, etc., the image of humanity has become very muddied. People no longer believe in humanity. I hear this every day. Some even advocate an end to human reproduction, such as the childfree movement. In their opinion, humans do nothing good. As long as we have no faith in human capabilities, we will not succeed.
Should we look back to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who defined humans as inherently good?
Yes, Rousseau is also the founder of an educational philosophy that greatly inspired Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi, for example: an education that trusts in the abilities of each individual child and aims to develop them, thereby enabling them to contribute something positive to society. Let’s look at the positive things that people have within them. Let’s look at what can lift us up. That’s what Cyril Dion has done with his films.9 The media only ever show what isn’t working, wars and disasters, whereas he wants to show what can work. His films make your heart sing!
That’s kind of what you’re trying to do with your book, isn’t it?
Yes, in my way, I’m trying to do that, too.
In his book Plaidoyer pour un renouveau européen (Brussels: BSN Press, 2024), Martin Bernard analyzes the crisis in Europe and proposes solutions for revitalization. He criticizes bureaucracy and loss of identity, and calls for a return to European values, citizen participation, and spiritual renewal. With a clear vision for a united, dynamic Europe, this 168-page work encourages reflection. Afterword by Pierre Lorrain. ISBN: 978-2-940516-26-1.
Translation Joshua Kelberman
Image Martin Bernard. Courtesy photo
Footnotes
- Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991); first published as Der Untergang des Abendlandes: Umrisse einer Morphologie der Weltgeschichte [The decline of the west: Outline of a morphology of world history], 2 vols. (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1918/1922).
- Emmanuel Todd, Der Westen im Niedergang: Ökonomie, Kultur und Religion im freien Fall [The decline of the west: economy, culture, and religion in free fall] (Frankfurt am Main: Westend Verlag, 2024); first published as Emmanuel Todd, La Défaite de l’Occident [The defeat of the west] (Paris: Gallimard, 2024); English edition forthcoming.
- James Dobbins et al., Overextending and Unbalancing Russia: Assessing the Impact of Cost-Imposing Options (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2019).
- Halford J. Mackinder, “The Geographical Pivot of History,” The Geographical Journal 23, no. 4 (April 1904), pp. 421–437.
- Rosicrucian Trilogy: Fama Fraternitatis (1614), Confessio Fraternitatis (1615), The Chemical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreuz (1616), trans. Joscelyn Godwin, Christopher McIntosh, and Donate Pahnke McIntosh (Newburyport, MA: Weiser, 2016).
- Francis Bacon, New Atlantis and The Great Instauration, 2nd edn. (West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell, 2017); first published as Francis Bacon, New Atlantis: A Worke Unfinished: in Sylva Sylvarum: Or a Natural History, in Ten Centuries (London: William Rawley, 1627).
- Abdennour Bidar, Histoire de l’humanisme en Occident [History of humanism in the west] (Paris: Armand Colin, 2014).
- Jan Patočka, Plato and Europe (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002); first published as Platón a Evropa (Prague: self-published, 1973; repr., Munich: Arkýř, 1987).
- Cyril Dion, dir., Animal (France: 2021), film; Cyril Dion and Laure Noualhat, dirs., Après demain [The day after tomorrow] (France: 2018), film; Cyril Dion and Mélanie Laurent, dirs., Tomorrow: Die Welt ist voller Lösungen [The world is full of solutions] (France: 2015), film.
