Debates over the Kurdish question, the future of armed struggle, and possible methods for a political resolution have taken center stage in both Turkey and the region. At the core of these discussions lie the Kurdistan Workers’ Party’s (PKK) 12th Congress decisions and the influence of the new paradigm developed by Abdullah Öcalan. Can these developments be addressed not only politically, but also through a philosophical lens?

We spoke with Professor Catherine Malabou, one of the leading figures in contemporary French philosophy, to explore this question.

Professor Malabou is widely known for her original theories, especially her concept of “plasticity.” In this interview, we discussed the PKK’s 12th Congress decisions, the paradigm developed by Mr. Öcalan, and the philosophical dimensions of this new approach in relation to her own areas of study.

I want to thank you very much for accepting our interview request. Not long ago, you shared a message of support in response to Kurdish People's Leader Abdullah Öcalan’s “Call for Peace and a Democratic Society” on 27 February and the decisions made at the PKK’s 12th Congress. How do you view this decision by the PKK?

Like many others, I recently learned that the PKK had officially dissolved itself. I consider this a very brave, hopeful, and guiding step. As someone who believes in peace, I felt deeply encouraged by this decision. At the same time, as I emphasized in my message, I hope this gesture will be heard, not misunderstood as a simple act of surrender, and that it will truly contribute to what I call the process of democratization and recognition of Kurdish political subjectivity.

There is no doubt that the architect of this process is Kurdish People's Leader Abdullah Öcalan, who has been held in severe isolation for 26 years. He continues to guide this historic initiative for a democratic resolution to the Kurdish question from within prison. Many voices have called for his release as a condition for the success of the process. Do you support this call?

Of course, I support this call. But I also wonder if he is released, will he be safe? I truly hope he will be. Without question, I fully support his release. I absolutely believe that his freedom is necessary. Mr. Öcalan is a great political leader. He is someone I deeply respect and admire. We share common ground in our readings on ecology and politics, especially through Murray Bookchin. So yes, I absolutely want him to be free. My only wish is that, if he is released, he will be safe.

Before we move on to questions about the paradigm of Kurdish People's Leader Abdullah Öcalan, I would like to ask a few things about the dissolution of the PKK, especially in connection with your own areas of research. To what extent is “identity transformation” possible for individuals and movements? Through your concept of plasticity, how can national identities and resistance movements be reconfigured?

Plasticity, for me, is a concept that expresses the formation of identity, the shaping of identity like a sculpture, but it also allows for the possibility of explosion. Because plastic, by nature, can also be explosive. In this sense, plasticity is a movement that exists on the boundary between construction and destruction. Here’s how I see it: yes, an identity takes form, but at the same time, resistance also develops, and this resistance can, at any moment, turn into a confrontation, into a reaction against the threat of destruction or struggle.

You could also think of plasticity as a kind of weapon, one that both protects and, depending on the dangers it faces, can strike back.

Abdullah Öcalan’s paradigm proposes a deep transformation, particularly through concepts like democratic confederalism and jineology. How do you relate this proposal to philosophical transformation and the models you work with?

I do not believe that Mr. Öcalan’s paradigm resembles democracy in the way it was understood during the Enlightenment in 18th-century Europe. It is a new form of democracy based on a non-universalist understanding of identity. The difference between Mr. Öcalan’s paradigm and the European idea of democratic constitutions shaped by Enlightenment thought is this: there is no longer a notion of the universal citizen or the idea of uniformity. What we see in Mr. Öcalan’s model is a vision of democracy that respects both individual and collective identities.

I believe this approach is extremely important. It means that the Kurdish people will not lose their identity in some abstract form of universality. The kind of democracy proposed here will be one that preserves the uniqueness of every individual and every community.

Philosophically speaking, the PKK’s disarmament process is not merely a technical or political issue, but also an ontological and ethical one. Could the renunciation of violence be understood as a reconstruction of the subject?

Yes, absolutely. But as I mentioned earlier, I believe subjective identity has two formative dimensions: one is the 'plastic' aspect, willing to take shape, and the other carries the potential for explosion.

This is most certainly an ethical process of reconstruction. Every step toward peace is, by its very nature, an ethical act. But at the same time, I see this, in this specific context, as a threshold of resistance. What I mean is this: if we suppress the struggle too much, or universalize it excessively, that too can provoke an explosion. That is why the entire process must be conducted with respect to each individual’s identity.

You have conducted extensive work on Hegel, and Abdullah Öcalan also refers to Hegel and engages with his ideas. In the context of Hegel’s dialectic of recognition, how should we understand the relationship between the demand for recognition by an oppressed people and political violence?

As you know, I actually discovered the concept of plasticity in Hegel. That is very interesting. In Hegel’s philosophy, recognition necessarily passes through a dialectical process. This implies a process rooted in negation. A contradiction must first be acknowledged. This is essential. There can be no peace without contradiction. The contradiction must be made visible. For example, Kurds in Turkey have been subjected to oppression. So, what is to be done about this contradiction? How is it to be resolved? Violence, of course, is always present in the background.

How can one demand recognition without, at the very least, a minimum level of struggle? But dialectics tell us that this struggle can eventually be overcome. As Jacques Derrida put it, this is a matter of the economy of violence. The point is not to deny violence, but to recognize the contradiction and to seek a resolution from within it.

You touched on this earlier, but I would like to ask again from the perspective of your concept of destructive transformation: can a freedom movement evolve toward peace by transforming its historical identity, or would that be self-destructive?

Yes, that is precisely the issue. I think you have expressed the core of the question very clearly. The peaceful recognition of Kurdish identity in Turkey must not lead to the erasure of the subject itself, of Kurdish identity, or, as you put it, its self-destruction. This is exactly where the idea of plasticity, with its built-in threshold of resistance, becomes so important.

To repeat: plasticity is both a process of construction and a process of resistance. If the demand for recognition or reconciliation is pushed too far, it can trigger a new explosion.

One of the central pillars of Abdullah Öcalan’s paradigm is women’s liberation. How do you view the concept of jineology, or the science of women? Can you relate it to your own work on the female body and political subjectivity?

Yes, absolutely. Women's liberation is one of the most compelling, fascinating, and politically relevant aspects of Öcalan’s thought. Kurdish feminism is something truly admirable.

I especially think of the Kurdish women in Rojava. They are genuine role models for all women. The emphasis on women’s freedom in Mr. Öcalan’s philosophy is deeply inspiring.

Abdullah Öcalan offers a sharp critique of feudalism, while you identify one of today’s core problems as “neofeudalism.” Could you elaborate on this concept?

I actually began exploring this concept while interpreting Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s text What Is Property? In that work, Proudhon strongly criticizes feudalism and highlights how it continued even after the French Revolution. Today, some economists argue that this feudal structure still persists within capitalism. They call this neofeudalism.

The term refers to the condition in which many workers are still treated almost like serfs, enslaved in their positions. Think, for example, of Amazon workers or those employed on today’s digital capitalist platforms. This marks a new phase in the evolution of capitalism. We are witnessing how capitalism continues to generate crises and exploitative conditions everywhere.

As you noted, we are facing deep and widespread problems generated by the capitalist system. Like Abdullah Öcalan, you offer a strong critique of this system. Do you believe there is, at present, an actual alternative to capitalism?

I think this question should not be asked solely on an economic level. If we stay within an exclusively economic framework, then my answer would be “no.” At present, there is no clear economic alternative. The real issue is political.

I believe it is possible to create alternatives to the forms of governance we know today whether they are democratic or authoritarian. The problems of capitalism can only be addressed politically, by developing new forms of organization based on the principles of individual freedom and self-governance. That is why I have been very drawn to anarchism.

First and foremost, political subjectivities must be liberated. We must imagine radically egalitarian forms of organization, models built on sharing, mutual aid, cooperation, and solidarity. Economic problems can only be resolved through political means. That is why I do not consider myself a Marxist. Because I believe the root of the issue is not merely economic, but fundamentally political.

Returning to the peace process: such processes do not require forgetting the past, but rather transforming it and confronting it. In your view, how can reconciliation with the past be achieved? What does the Hegelian perspective offer on this issue?

Hegelian thought has a great deal to say about this, because it lies at the very heart of dialectics. That is, there is always a movement toward something else, toward a more rational level, but the trace of the past remains.

The trace of the past always remains. This is the famous dialectic of Aufhebung, a concept that means both to cancel and to preserve. Yes, we overcome something, we move forward, we progress, but we also preserve the trace of what came before. That is crucial. In this sense, such a process must not be one of simply forgetting the past. It should be about working through it, transforming it while keeping its memory alive.

Do you think that for freedom movements, transformation, such as peace, disarmament, and democratization, is an end, or a new beginning?

I truly hope the PKK’s dissolution marks a new beginning. But this does not depend solely on the Kurds, it also depends on how the Turkish government responds. For me, it is a beginning. But how will this be perceived by the Turkish government and Turkish society? This is a two-sided process. I hope it will be seen that way. The dissolution of the PKK will only have meaning if democratic principles are applied within Turkey. It must be part of a broader vision, of course.

Do you believe the international community has a responsibility in this process?

I hope so. But when I look at what is happening in Israel, and how the international community avoids taking a clear stance in defense of Palestine and its rights, I am no longer sure whether international cooperation is a good thing or a bad thing. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I do not believe the demands of the Kurdish people are truly being heard by the international community. In my view, this must first and foremost be expressed and defended through a resistance movement that comes from within the Kurdish people themselves.

What you are doing as a journalist is extremely important, in my opinion, asking intellectuals from different parts of the world to engage with these questions, bringing this issue into their field of vision, and opening up a philosophical discussion about it. That, I believe, is far more valuable than any endorsement from a French president or someone of similar status. Frankly, I no longer believe in them.

Earlier, you touched on the importance of the Rojava system. What would you like to add about it?

There is a French intellectual I greatly admire, Pierre Bance, who wrote an important book about the Kurds in Rojava. Anarchists are often told, “Anarchism doesn’t exist, it’s impossible, it can’t be realized.” But he replies, “No, look at Rojava.” That’s why he wrote a comprehensive book to show how the anarchist model functions in Rojava. I had no idea before reading it. But once I did, I began to understand how the system works. The Rojava experience is truly, deeply significant.

As a feminist philosopher, what would you like to say about the Kurdish women’s movement?

Once again, I want to say that I admire the Kurdish women’s movement deeply and I offer them my full support. What they stand for is especially vital for this part of the world.

When we look at what is happening in Iran and in many Muslim countries, the Kurdish feminist movement truly shines like a light. In short, the existence of this movement and the values it upholds are absolutely essential.

Thank you for this enlightening conversation. Is there anything you would like to add in closing?

Thank you, this has been a great pleasure for me. Through your platform, I would like to express my full solidarity with the Kurdish democratic movement.

Who is philosopher Catherine Malabou?

Catherine Malabou, a French feminist philosopher born in 1959, teaches philosophy at Kingston University in London and at the University of California, Irvine. A former student of Jacques Derrida, she is regarded as one of the most prominent figures in contemporary French philosophy. Malabou is internationally known for her work bridging philosophy, neuroscience, and political theory. Her original concept of “plasticity” brings together Hegelian dialectics, brain research, and the dynamics of social transformation in a unique and innovative way.

She also engages deeply with topics such as gender, feminism, and anarchism. Among her major works are The Future of Hegel (L’Avenir de Hegel, 1994), What Should We Do With Our Brain? (Que faire de notre cerveau?, 2004), Plasticity at the Dusk of Writing (La Plasticité au soir de l’écriture, 2004), The Erased Pleasure: The Clitoris and Thought (Le Plaisir effacé, 2020), Stop, Thief! Anarchism and Philosophy (Au voleur !, 2022), and There Was No Revolution: Reflections on Private Property, Power, and Servitude in France (Il n'y a pas eu de révolution).