A Kafkaesque Trial
The Case against Boaventura de Sousa Santos
by Júlio Marques Mota
Whenever I read a text by Boaventura de Sousa Santos, I feel extremely uncomfortable and deeply disturbed, because I sense the cruelty of the situation that has been created for him: canceled across the entire span of his academic career and on a global scale. In this short note, I will draw on one of my favorite authors, Piero Sraffa, an author who has nothing to do with this, of course, but who offers us a very curious suggestion.
To paraphrase Sraffa, I will say:
One can imagine a man coming from the moon observing society, who sees the entire circular process of production and exchange as a whole, as well as the entire process of income creation and distribution, without being part of it or being influenced by its internal contingencies.
The reference to the man from the moon refers to an event that took place in the British Parliament during a debate on the agricultural crisis on May 30, 1820. During this debate, Ricardo reportedly said that “because he consulted the interests of the whole community, he would oppose the laws on wheat” (Ricardo, Works V: 49). Henry Brougham, the MP for Winchelsea, who supported the farmers’ motion for additional protectionist measures, described Ricardo’s argument as coming from a man who “had fallen from another planet” and lived in a “utopian world” (Ricardo, Works V: 56) 7. The reference to the “man from the moon” can thus be seen as a metaphor designed to indicate the need to adopt a detached point of view, to see things as they are, and not through the colored glasses of some particular interest group.
As Heinz D. Kurz and Neri Salvadori point out in “On the ‘Photograph’ Interpretation of Piero Sraffa’s Production Equations A View from the Sraffa Archive”.
Sraffa’s quote tells us a lot about the path to follow in the analysis of the case against Boaventura de Sousa Santos and, above all, because of its symbolic parallel with Boaventura’s situation. Sraffa lived in exile in Great Britain, was a communist, was Jewish, and was an intellectual reference of the first importance. Boaventura lives in exile in Quintela, is a solid figure on the left, and his work, a global reference in the field of sociology, is being canceled on a global scale, while Sraffa’s work should have been burned, according to the logic of the neoliberals who dominated at the time. At the same time, both Sraffa and Boaventura are relatively isolated in academic circles, where the scientific work of each is a worthy expression of what we might consider the mission of the university. The parallels are evident.
Sraffa’s work was as important a contribution to economics and against the neoliberals – the economists of single thought – that a colleague of his at the University, a leading English economist and one of the main English representatives in the Bretton Woods negotiations and very close to Keynes, to whom Sraffa gave the privilege of reading the unprinted text of his work Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities, is said to have told him: this work should be burned! People suspect that this was Denis Robertson.
On this issue, it was learned from Sraffa’s estate that the title of the work Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities was to be Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities and Labor, but this clearly referred to Ricardo and Marx, which at the time was very dangerous.[i]
An expert on Sraffa, Giorgio Gattei, offers an explanation as to why this was not the title that was made public, and this explanation refers to the highly tense political and social climate in which Sraffa lived. Let us look at it:
“However, one cannot blame him for this, since the time in which he lived was a time of tyranny (Nazi-fascism, Stalinism, McCarthyism, as well as the scandal in Great Britain in 1951 of those ‘Cambridge spies’ who, as students, had been initiated into Marxism in the university communist cell of Maurice Dobb, Sraffa’s closest comrade, who, later, in the midst of the ‘Cold War’, had fled to the USSR to avoid being arrested as a secret agent of the KGB). It is obvious that, under these conditions, for a Jew, especially a communist and expatriate like Sraffa, it was more than appropriate to proceed undercover, even in the academic sphere, if even in 1960 one of his colleagues (perhaps Dennis Robertson?), simply by reading the draft of Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities, warned him that the book should be burned because it was ‘immoral, neo-Marxist, and neo-Communist’.”
To get an idea of Sraffa’s importance against the vision of universal harmonies on which neoliberalism is based, note that, in line with the classics – Adam Smith, Ricardo, and even Marx – Sraffa eliminates the fundamental tools of neoliberal economic theory: the marginal productivity of labor and capital with which mainstream economists want to ensure that in capitalism no one exploits anyone. In fact, Sraffa tells us:
“Anyone accustomed to thinking in terms of the equilibrium of supply and demand may be inclined to suppose, on reading these pages, that the argument rests on the tacit assumption of constant incomes in all industries. If such an assumption is found useful, there is no inconvenience in the reader adopting it as a temporary working hypothesis. In fact, however, no such assumption is made. No variation in the volume of production is considered, nor (at least in Parts I and II) any variation in the proportions in which the different means of production are used by an industry, so that no problem arises concerning the variation or constancy of incomes. The investigation deals exclusively with those properties of an economic system that do not depend on variations in the scale of production or in the proportions of the ‘factors’. This point of view, which is that of the old classical economists, from Adam Smith to Ricardo, has been submerged and forgotten since the advent of the ‘marginalist’ method. The reason is obvious. The marginalist approach requires that attention be focused on variation, because without variation, whether in the scale of industry or in the ‘proportions of the factors of production’, there can be no marginal product or marginal cost. In a system in which production remains unchanged in these respects, day after day, the marginal product of a factor (or, alternatively, the marginal cost of a product) would not only be difficult to find, but impossible to find.” (…)
“It is, however, a particular feature of the set of propositions now published that, although they do not enter into a discussion of marginalist theory of value and distribution, they have been intended to serve as a basis for a critique of such theory. If the foundations hold, the critique may be attempted later, either by the author or by someone younger and better equipped for the task.”
Sraffa paves the way for this critique of mainstream teaching by making it clear and transparent that the assumptions on which mainstream teaching is based are meaningless, namely:
-
That the remuneration of the factors of production, capital, labor, and land, is the result of market equilibrium prices determined by the interaction between supply and demand, producers and consumers.
-
That the remuneration of the factors of production is in this context determined by their marginal productivity in value. In this neoliberal world, no one exploits anyone!
In this sense, Sraffa demonstrates with his standard system that distribution is independent of prices and that prices, given the productive configuration, do indeed depend on techniques and the distribution of income created. And this distribution is the result of the intensity of the class struggle in force at each moment in time. Furthermore, with Sraffa’s work, it no longer makes sense to talk about the marginal productivity of factors, it no longer makes sense to talk about universal harmonies, as the neoliberals sing to us, in which, according to them, if we let the free forces of the market operate, each factor is remunerated according to its marginal productivity in value and no one exploits anyone.
Symptomatic of the effects of Sraffa’s work, Samuelson, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, was once asked what the marginal productivity of capital is, and, astonishingly, his answer was: I don’t remember! On the other hand, Solow, another Nobel Prize winner in Economics, at a conference where he was talking about capital, wondered if the heretical Joan Robinson was present in the room. She was not. Well, then we can talk about marginal productivity of capital. The theoretical void of neoliberal theory is therefore symptomatic, and it is with this that classes in our universities are filled.
Since it is not economic theory that interests us here, we will only say that Sraffa’s work is entirely a profound theoretical construction aimed precisely at the dominant teaching – neoliberalism. Starting from any productive configuration of a capitalist society, he analytically reconstructs it with what is called his standard system, where all the properties of the real system are maintained in order to arrive at the central key of Political Economy; prices depend on distribution, and the levels that are punctually assumed in this represent the levels of relative power of the social classes present. He thus arrives at the linear relationship r= R (1-W), where r represents the rate of profit, R represents the added product in his standard system per unit of capital used in this same system, and W represents the share of wages in standard income. In this linear relationship, an increase in wages corresponds to a decrease in profits of the same amount and vice versa. Class conflict is therefore immediate.
It should be noted that in the construction of Sraffa’s standard system, the amount of work in the real system in force is used, from which he mathematically constructs his standard system. As for the analysis of the determinants of W, these have as much to do with economics as with sociology as autonomous sciences.
As Sraffa points out:
“But the actual system is composed of the same basic equations as the standard system, only in different proportions; so that, once wages are given, the rate of profit is determined in both systems, regardless of the proportions of the equations in each of them. Particular proportions, such as standard proportions, can give transparency to a system and make visible what is hidden, but they cannot alter its mathematical properties.”
What I am interested in emphasizing here is that what Sraffa intends to do with this work is to make visible what is hidden in the capitalist system and in the analysis of official economists. This is above all the role of economic theory, to explain what is to be explained, intentionally or not, in the same way that we can say that the role of justice is to clarify what is legally to be clarified and thus prevent street trials, such as the one being held against Boaventura de Sousa Santos. We want justice, not popular trials.
That said, it should be emphasized that we are not here and now to discuss economics, but rather the lawsuit brought against Boaventura de Sousa Santos. In line with what Sraffa tells us, we must therefore maintain a certain coldness of analysis, a certain distance, so as not to be swallowed up by the media maelstrom of a world of saints with a devil on the outside – Boaventura de Sousa Santos.
From the media’s point of view, Boaventura de Sousa Santos has been accused and, without trial, he is simply guilty, because everything else is extreme sanctity. I believe that from this point of view, it is worth quoting extensively here from a work by Christopher Barclay on the Coldplay case:
“It is true that the current culture on X (formerly Twitter) and other social media apps is perhaps less immediately destructive than it was during the height of ‘woke’ (roughly between 2017 and 2021). Still, the viral potential of this type of story is a warning sign that our culture is obsessed with shame, surveillance, and control. The obsession with the private lives of others is a disease.
Of course, there is something in human nature that tends toward gossip, shame, and ridicule (in an unthinking, automatic way). But new technologies allow us to give vent to these sordid tendencies in historically unprecedented ways. We must take seriously the distorting effect that these stories – and our obsession with them – have on our souls.
The global village is like any village – reproachful, punitive, consumed by rumors, with nothing better to do. While turning someone into a meme may seem fun, it is deeply undignified and discards the customs and safeguards of a liberal society to participate in a sadistic lynching.
If these trends continue – if algorithms continue to function in the same way, and I can’t imagine they won’t – then more and more victims will be pulled from anonymity for mimetic sacrifice. And as a consequence, meaningful taboos about privacy, shame, and respect disappear, and everyone’s life and behavior become material for commentary and ridicule.
We urgently need new taboos – not against adultery, sexual immorality, or interpersonal deception, because we clearly already have plenty of those. Instead, we need taboos against gathering in mindless, repugnant mobs, incapable of thinking about what the victims of our ridicule and these digital stonings might suffer. A wiser perspective would admit that we are all, at the wrong moment, liars, fools, cheats, charlatans, hypocrites. Let he who has never sinned cast the first stone – or click the ‘like’ or ‘share’ button. If our natural response to constant mutual surveillance is not disgust, then it should be.”
The accusations against Boaventura de Sousa Santos are well known, so we will not repeat them, but I must say that many of them are incomprehensible to me, for reasons that I will try to explain briefly below.
I have known Boaventura de Sousa Santos since 1975, when we both collaborated in structuring the Faculty of Economics at the University of Coimbra, trying to balance economics and sociology. The result was the most balanced economics course plan taught in the country at the time. This was said and written by the rapporteur of a report sent to the then minister.
Subsequently, CES was created, which later became a giant center due to the influence, who would have thought, of the Chinese, the creators of the Shanghai Index. At a time when communication between centers was becoming increasingly easier, instead of specialized and adequately funded scientific units, giant centers were established, and centers were agglomerated. This was the case in Portugal, and it was the case everywhere. Long live the Shanghai Index, I felt like saying, sarcastically, of course.
I rarely went to CES. I didn’t want to get tangled up in sociology. I went there two or three times to attend conferences on economic topics given by people I identified with. There I noticed Boaventura de Sousa Santos’s working method. He was the moderator. After the lecture, Boaventura began the debate, asking each of those present for their comments on what had been said. This seemed easy, but it wasn’t, at least not with a quick, direct response! I didn’t like it, but the problem was and is mine. I still find it difficult to speak in public, even today. But I recognize today, and even then I did, that this is the correct method to “open” people up to scientific discourse, to mentally organized debate, but for those who are new to these activities, this causes some anxiety.
Note on Moral Harassment.
Some of the criticisms made of him focus on this area, and we will comment on them in general terms, since I am unaware of the specific reality of CES. Let’s place ourselves at an abstract level of CES. Research work is, by definition, a precarious job for many people in this country until they reach the middle of their career. There is work to be done, debates to be organized, debates for which people have to prepare themselves body and soul, and, above all, fieldwork or theoretical work to be carried out. Writing, reviewing, and reviewing again, many times, until the work is considered perfect. Competition to stay in place is increasing in these large centers, and the consequence of fighting against precariousness is falling into situations of burnout that also lead us to precariousness. I am talking about when serious work is done, careful research, not publications by the meter, as is now being done in many of our schools, where the authors of the works function as extensions of the computers that write them in draft form. Personally, I wonder if much of the dispute surrounding Boaventura de Sousa Santos in terms of moral harassment does not have as its backdrop the situation I have just described, which is involved in the accusation of moral harassment. If this is the case, the target is wrong; it is the whole system that should be judged, and Boaventura de Sousa Santos himself is subject to the same constraints as CES researchers if CES is to be kept out of the firing line. And the truth is that he has kept it out of the firing line.
To conclude this very brief note on moral harassment, it should be noted that we are facing a general problem. The state is becoming increasingly bureaucratic, and the greater the dysfunction in society, the more bureaucratic it becomes. To accuse Boaventura de Sousa Santos of this situation, demonizing him, is to ignore the reality of Portugal. Have you ever imagined what it means to work in a government department where employees only leave when the boss leaves? Have you ever imagined what it means to receive a work order at 6:30 p.m. on a Friday with work to do at home and to be done by Monday morning? Have you ever imagined what it means in EPEs for civil servants placed there to be repeatedly harassed to become employees with individual employment contracts? This has been going on since the days of the socialist António Costa and has tended to worsen significantly under the Montenegro administration. Have you ever imagined what it means to transfer teachers from the scientific areas in which they specialize to subjects they have never taught? We could go on almost indefinitely talking about moral harassment, now embodied in a single person, Boaventura de Sousa Santos.
Note on Extractivism
Boaventura de Sousa Santos is accused of forcing others to work for him. I have seen no evidence of this in the charges brought against him.
Here are four links to texts written by him during the violent period of confinement to which he has been subjected:
And tell me if it is credible that the man who writes these articles in a situation of imposed confinement would need the help of an assistant to write them. The answer is immediate: he would not.
Note on Sexual Harassment
Here the problem is much more complex, and I will limit myself to two statements by Boaventura de Sousa Santos:
1) He was born in the early 1940s, was a man of his time, and thus may have had attitudes that are considered less correct today.
2) My defeat is the victory of neoliberalism
Let’s look at each point individually:
1.A Regarding the first point, when I heard the story about the hand on the knee, I thought of Eric Rohmer’s film Claire’s Knee, but seen in a different light. For many people, especially in Latin America, Boaventura de Sousa Santos is a luminary, and it is natural for young people to feel enchanted by being in the company of the Master. The hand on the knee, for me, I am sincere in what I am saying and I do not know how to be otherwise, would mean a certain tension stripped of erotic charge in which the hand on the knee would represent, on the part of Boaventura de Sousa Santos, a habitual gesture of support for the person he was talking to, while for the woman being caressed, it would be a kind of emotional confirmation of Boaventura de Sousa Santos’ support for the work she was thinking of doing. The truth is, the act described is just a hand on the knee, and I don’t see Boaventura de Sousa Santos playing the role of Rohmer’s character in Le genou de Claire. Then there is the account given by the Brazilian student, and this account is devastating for Boaventura de Sousa Santos, reported 10 years later and in the midst of the MeToo Movement euphoria, when her public account could bring her dividends. Between the truth of one and the truth of the other, reported ten years later, I opt for Boaventura de Sousa Santos’ truth.
I am talking about the intellectual seduction of Boaventura de Sousa Santos for having attended a working session with a group of people from the Faculty of Arts, already graduated, held in a room on the first floor of the Limas Palace, in which his wife, Irene Ramalho, also participated. The concentration of those listening to him, 10 to 15 people, was impressive, as was the look of amazement on all their faces, marveling at what they were hearing. At that working session, which I attended by mere chance, I understood why Boaventura de Sousa Santos filled amphitheaters. It is no wonder, then, that at this intellectual level he was seductive and even envied.
At this level, I was once told a curious story. At a faculty dinner, there was talk of a book that had just come out. Boaventura explained the theme of the book in detail. Suddenly, his colleague and friend Maria dos Anjos asked him: Boaventura, how did you have time to read the book? I didn’t read it, I read the back cover and the blurbs, was the reply, which was accompanied by general laughter. And the explanation must have corresponded to the book, otherwise the story would have been told to me in a different way – with criticism rather than admiration.
But Boaventura’s statement is too serious to be treated lightly. Born in the early 1940s, he spent his adolescence in the hard times of fascism and his sexual learning, which is too serious to be trifled with, was zigzagging, with ups and downs, with falls and rises. A zigzagging trajectory is, by definition, learning through mistakes, learning from them, seeking to correct them, and that also means, very importantly, enormous respect for those with whom he traveled that trajectory. The opposite of this learning through mistakes would be learning like a saint, and saints, as far as I know, have no sex, so they do not need sexual learning. I believe that is what he meant, that is how I understood it, contrary to many people who were ironic about this statement. A friend of Boaventura’s criticized him severely for this statement, which he considered an inappropriate mea culpa. In contrast to this serious statement, however, I would ask, what is the idea TODAY of sex education for our youth? Just look at what happens at any Queima das Fitas festival, for example in Faro, where women end up being seen not as women but above all as sexual objects, much closer to the idea that most boys in the 1950s had about girls, about chicks. In addition to what I have just said, dating violence is clear proof that we may be falling short in this area compared to what sexuality was like in the 1950s!
1B. There is another report from a student, according to which, in a public session at a summer course in Curia, Boaventura de Sousa Santos allegedly placed his hand on her crotch. Boaventura de Sousa Santos says that, during the screening of a documentary on human rights, with the student sitting next to him, he touched her knee to draw her attention to a particular episode. Much later, in an interview with the “victims’ collective,” the student stated that Boaventura de Sousa Santos had placed his hand on her groin and that she was so disturbed that she felt unable to continue with the course from that point on, which is denied by the course records and the other participants. We see her in the photos, beaming with joy, just like the other participants. In fact, let’s think about it: does this make any sense? For me, it doesn’t. To use an expression similar to Sraffa’s with which I began this text, I will say that I was born and raised until the age of 11 in a village almost at the end of the world, or rather, that I fell there from the dark side of the moon.
I moved to the city when I was eleven or twelve and learned to survive on my own, observing what I saw in others and rationalizing what I saw. Like any teenager, there came a time when the fury of my impulses overrode all reflection. In this brutal phase, would I ever have been capable of such an attitude, of approaching a girl in this way, whatever the situation? No, never! Then I grew up and crossed the various social and cultural strata of Portuguese society, and even until the liberation of April, I cannot fail to point out a mark of that time of generally false Christianity. For erotic games to take place, two conditions were necessary: the boy could only make a move if he swore and swore (pretending) that the girl in question was his beloved, and the girl, in order to consent to these (desired) advances, would say with her feet together that she believed in the truth of her beloved. If things went wrong, the boy would move on to another girl, and the girl would comfort herself by saying that it was not her fault, that she had been deceived, until the story repeated itself with another boy she liked. It was a double lie that often led, on the first, second, or third attempt, to a truth, the truth that they ended up loving each other and getting married.
What I have just said about the first relationships between men and women in those days of the 1950s and mid-1960s may seem pathetic, but is this very different from the Christian idea expressed by Paul Claudel that “Pretend to believe and you will end up believing”? The idea is similar! For a recent view of this type of relationship, see Pio Abreu’s book, A Queda dos Machos (The Fall of the Males).
This is much less primitive than what is reported by a woman about what happened in Curia, between an adult woman and a renowned social scientist, in front of everyone. Too primitive to believe! I’m sorry to say it so bluntly. But there is another reason to say, “I don’t believe it.” In addition to this absurd primitivism, I can add another argument. Boaventura de Sousa Santos spent about half his time abroad. Why is it that this behavior is only talked about in Portugal? Well, if we give credence to Curia’s childishness – his hand on her groin in public – he would have compulsive behavior, but to have compulsive behavior, this would be independent of where he was, and apparently that is not the case. Conclusion, logically, that is the plan that interests me: this makes no sense.
-
My defeat is the victory of neoliberalism
I transcribe what I wrote some time ago about the political context of Boaventura de Sousa Santos’ cancellation.
I received an email from Thomas Palley, an important American post-Keynesian economist, who belongs to the more progressive school of economic thought outside the Marxist tradition, informing us that he had been sanctioned and canceled by the Society of Post-Keynesian Economists for writing a text against the Western position taken in the context of the war in Ukraine. We are not allowed to think outside the framework established by our warmongering politicians, and yet they talk to us about respect for freedom of thought! This means that there is freedom of thought as long as it conforms to the thinking of the authorities, which is the path to fascism. We would even say that Orwell’s 1984 is beginning to become a reality in the context of supposed democracy: we are accused of being anti-democratic if we contest it.
Having reached this point, do I or do I not have the right to think that the cancellation to which Boaventura de Sousa Santos was subjected is part of the same backdrop? If we look at the case of Assange, who was arrested because he had consensual sex with a Nordic activist, but in which the contraceptive condom broke and she accuses him of having broken it intentionally, is it conceivable that a man could be destroyed for this? And that several states were involved in this destruction: England, Australia, the USA, Ecuador? Or is this a false issue “manufactured” for the moral “cleansing” of our false democrats? One thing is certain: it was clear that Assange had contributed to Hillary Clinton’s defeat, and that had to be paid for at a very high price. And Assange paid it! At the time, I spoke to the late Mário Ruivo, expressing my astonishment that Obama was supporting Hillary Clinton, and the answer was immediate: there are debts to be paid, and Obama is paying his. In other words, Trump rose to power not because of Assange, but because of the Democrats, who did not know how or did not want to choose another candidate. I recall Obama saying: Bernie Sanders, never! And Hillary lost. And Trump won! And the tragedy was reconfirmed in November 2024 when the candidate that the Democratic Party launched against Trump was none other than the ailing Biden, who had been known to be ill since the beginning of his 2020-2024 term. During his 2020-2024 term, The Atlantic newspaper notes in its May 16, 2025 edition, “the American government consisted of five people [who] were running the country,” a political insider told the authors of the new book Original Sin. “And Joe Biden was, at best, another member of the board of directors.” And once again, it is the Democratic Party that offers victory to Trump, who wins not on his own merits, but on the lack of merit of his opponent. The patch that was Kamala Harris was a patch that patched nothing.
As for Thomas Palley, a staunch critic of American foreign policy, like Assange, the attack is direct, but just as serious as his cancellation is the fact that this cancellation comes from the group of people who would be expected to be close to Palley, people on the left and of the highest caliber. Therefore, it should not be seen as a political cancellation. But the argument is purely formal: he did not respect the rules of the Post-Keynesian Economists Society regarding the dissemination of his articles, namely the article “The War in Ukraine and the Deepening of Europe’s March of Madness,” which was published in Viagem dos Argonautas. However, formally speaking, Palley comes from the same political line (same line of economic thought), just as Assange’s cancellation was not political, but was supposedly due to sexual harassment.
As for Boaventura de Sousa Santos, the common political element fits into the same typology: an international critic of the foreign policy pursued by different American administrations and, as happened to Palley or Assange, his downfall would be convenient. And, publicly, it is not a cancellation for political reasons, but for sexual reasons! And so, among many signs of cancellation, it should be noted that FNAC and Bertrand refused to distribute his books, and Edições 70 has two manuscripts on hold because they fear they will not be saleable. In the meantime, about 10 planned honorary doctorates have been canceled. As he himself points out, this is a “pure and simple civil death.”
To conclude this text, I asked Boaventura de Sousa Santos to provide me with some of the various email exchanges with one or another of the women who accuse him of being the Devil himself. I was so impressed by what I read that I focused only on the email exchange with one person. I was amazed at the academic fragility of someone under the pressure of theses to be written, exams to be taken, and texts to be discussed. Here are some excerpts:
“First of all, I would like to thank Professor Boaventura de Sousa Santos, my advisor, for the opportunity to learn from his work and his ideas, which have been so influential in this dissertation, and from his scientific rigor. I will never forget the opportunity he gave me to be part of a research project that allowed me to grow personally and professionally and to get to know a country that I fell in love with forever.”
“I would like to thank Professor Boaventura de Sousa Santos for the School he created and the challenges he constantly sets, which open up paths free from monotony. It has always been a privilege to be part of his teams and to have the opportunity to learn and grow in this context. I am grateful for the trust and the many shared experiences that are part of who I am.”
“I came to tell you from the heart, it’s true, just a small observation about this book called The End of the Cognitive Empire.”
“That being the case, I would very much like Prof. Boaventura to be my advisor, accepting Dr. XXXX as co-advisor. At first, this did not seem like the best option to me, since the Professor can only accept two advisees.”
“At this point, it seems clear to me that I will have to enter this race, because I would really like the professor to agree to supervise my work.”
“CES has always been my institution, and I have never considered leaving it of my own accord, as I would like to remain connected to both institutions.”
“If you (the Professor) accept this request, I will send you everything I do and discuss it with you whenever you see fit. I look forward to hearing from you.”
Table of additional excerpts
In March 2018, she writes:
As almost everyone knows, this year, CES (and, interestingly, many of us) is celebrating its 40th anniversary. In November, a colloquium will be held to commemorate the date, which is also a tribute to Professor Boaventura. In my opinion, the Alice project has been one of the best things CES has done in the last 40 years, and we have all been part of it together with the Professor.
In 2020, she asked Boaventura de Sousa Santos for his support for a friend of hers who was suffering from depression and wrote:
Hello Professor, I hope you are well. I spoke to (name of person) yesterday and I am concerned. I don’t know if this is news to you or not, but I thought I should let you know what it seemed like. I think he is suffering from depression and a crisis of insecurity with his thesis. I tried to motivate him, but I know that you are usually excellent at helping your students get out of that place. If you could have a word with him, I think you could help him.
On December 31, 2020, she writes:
Good morning, Professor. I am not surprised, but very happy to hear that the conversation with (person’s name) went well. In addition to my friendship for him, I see a critical sensitivity and a heart that is lacking in EdS. I know that you are managing a lot, I am always following up, and that the times we live in have forced us to change priorities. I am calm. I wish you a creative and happy 2021.”
These last two excerpts are relevant for two reasons:
-
The complainant’s friend is preparing a thesis and is depressed. This is a very common situation when writing a thesis. I know people who never recovered from the burnout they experienced when preparing their thesis.
-
It shows the frank friendships that exist between people, in this particular case between the complainant and Boaventura de Sousa Santos. Boaventura de Sousa Santos is asked to help a friend of hers who is depressed, given her recognized belief in Boaventura’s ability to support cases like this. What does this mean? There is only one possible interpretation: she recognizes Boaventura de Sousa Santos’s emotional and effective ability to support people who worked with him and who were or found themselves in this situation.
And I will stop here in this sea of unbelievable transcripts in view of what the complainant later declared. If economic theory is responsible for explaining what is hidden, in line with what Sraffa told us, justice is responsible for clarifying what is not understood in legal terms.
I gave up reading more emails, and what I did read confirms that we are facing a real monstrosity in terms of the law, or the absence thereof. I would say that there is something very strange about this politically, given the collective dimension that the process has taken on, and I am left with an additional question: could it be that the monstrosity of what I read in relation to what was said about Boaventura is not the result of failures in academic life, with a master’s thesis that never ended, four years and still not enough to complete it, with a leap to a doctorate that also took a long time to complete? Isn’t there a classic psychological survival mechanism at work here, in which the blame for our failures, our incapacities, always lies with others, in which, in the face of these failures and in the face of the accusers themselves, the guilty parties are always others? L’enfer, c’est les autres, as a character in Sartre’s play Huis Clos is said to have remarked. Is it because of these failures, in emails that are well received by those who can read them, that Boaventura is being made the chief culprit of Hell?
We then have these long periods of time to complete work, with the system pushing for even shorter times. This is where the growing precariousness of the system comes in, this is where the mechanisms of insecurity and the distortions in psychological behavior that result from that insecurity come into play, but this is not the result of another person, the advisor, it is the result of the person’s own weaknesses, their personal characteristics, their basic training. And it is also the result of a system that urgently needs to change, but does not change, I can assure you, with erratic behavior in its trajectories, with irresponsible behavior, as the emails reproduced above show us.
From here on, it will have been easy for those who triggered the situation to take political advantage of it, which is what all this leads me to believe.
Therefore, I have nothing more to add about this cancellation.
By way of conclusion, a very brief note on two points.
-
I was already familiar with the excerpts from the emails reproduced here when the text was completely written. They confirm my analysis regarding my refusal to accept the accusations against Boaventura de Sousa Santos, as it is impossible to understand, in the field of logic, which is the only field that interests me, what was said in light of what was written in the emails reproduced above.
-
The problem of the accusations is a local problem that has become an international problem with mechanisms of pressure that are still almost unknown and characteristic of a new McCarthyism conducted on a global scale. I really think that the accusers did not think about such drastic effects as we have seen, but they have since ridden hard on the cancellation that was instituted by others. If my text is coherent, and I think it is, I do not think that the accusers have the legs to ride that horse, unless they have strong security provided by the masters of the world, and that may already be happening.