Imagine you are walking down the street and suddenly someone points at you and shouts: “You’re a caviar!”

What would you think? If you’re not Peruvian, the term would probably sound strange to you. But if you're from Peru, you'd know immediately that it's an insult.

The concept, however, goes far beyond a simple offense—and its use has transcended Peruvian borders.

All of this is discussed by political scientist and academic Eduardo Dargent in his latest book, "Caviar: From the Left-Wing Snob to the Progressive Multiverse," where he analyzes what it means to be a "left-wing caviar" and the complexities faced by those who, in a privileged social position, try to defend progressive ideas.

Dargent is no stranger to this world: he recognizes himself as part of it. "It's impossible to deny it," he tells BBC Mundo. "Besides, the most caviar thing to do is deny being caviar," he adds with a laugh.

This approach, however, doesn't prevent him from being critical or addressing the phenomenon with nuance. What does "caviarism" really mean? Why does it generate so much antipathy? What presence does it have today in Latin America?

We discussed this and more with Dargent at the Hay Festival Arequipa, held from November 6 to 9.

Let's start with a basic question: what does it mean to be caviar?

Caviar is a person who defends a progressive ideology and is middle class or above. Normally, this person is left-wing, although there are right-wing sectors that defend state power, human rights, or market adjustment policies that could also be categorized as caviar.

And can you eat caviar and defend socialist left-wing ideas?

Yes. It's part of the history of socialism in many places, especially democratic socialism. When it gained strength, it convinced sectors of the middle and upper classes to form an alliance with more popular sectors. That alliance has always been complicated for the left.Because what can someone who hasn't lived the life of the poor know about what's good for a poor person? But is it possible to live relatively well and have leftist ideas? I think so.

In Chile, one of the presidential candidates in the upcoming elections, Jeannette Jara (Communist Party), said that communists also have the right to own iPhones… Is that what this is all about?

Of course, you can be a socialist or a communist and own products like that. Where there is tension is when someone defends egalitarian ideas and practices inequality in their daily life. That looks very bad.

An example?

Organizing a conference on equality and holding it in luxurious, exclusionary spaces. A good understanding of a more egalitarian world involves recognizing that levels of wealth concentration must be discussed, considered, and fought against.

There's a concept in your book that has to do with the "far left" that attacks the elite. Does that left feel more qualified to represent socialist ideas? Is there a sense of superiority in that left?

There are two dimensions there, I think. On the one hand, social background, but also radicalism. Sometimes they coincide. On the social side, they feel, or know themselves to be, more proletarian. Therefore, closer to the people that the left claims to represent. And of course, when mixed with radicalism, they also exert a sense of superiority as “true” revolutionaries compared to the moderate elite. Even here, some on the left accuse the elite of moderation precisely because of their class status.

Do they see them as traitors?

The main criticism has to do with their relationship with power. This idea is exploited that they have transnational interests that inhibit social change. That they are exclusionary, that they are supposedly unaware of their privileges when designing public policies. The more radical sectors see them as just another cog in the conspiracy for control of power.

Is there some social resentment in all of that?

Of course. But I prefer the English concept, resentment, because it shows anger, annoyance about something. I think there is something of resentment in that critical sense against the "caviar left"; that they are unaware of how inequality seeps in even in spaces that call themselves egalitarian.

So, egalitarian public policies led by "caviar left" officials can generate a series of exclusionary barriers that are discriminatory or counterproductive. There is some valid criticism in that annoyance.

That is a criticism that, in your opinion, they do deserve then. Are there others?

I think that sometimes, by having a very moralistic view, they lose sight of the complexities of social problems. For example,Illegal economies. We can all agree that illegal economies have very negative consequences and that there are powerful vested interests behind them. But there's also a social drama, and they employ people. And generally, only that more criminal side is seen, and not so much the social dimension, which also deserves attention.

On the other hand, there's a contempt for electoral politics that is very costly, because it's what leads you to compromise, to moderate yourself, to understand that there are things you have to do to move forward. That contempt allows them to maintain a moral, intellectual, and ideological purity, but not to become a more political agent of change.

Within the woke left spectrum, where can we place the "caviar left"? Do they represent the same thing?

Yes, many people on the woke left are "caviar left," but it doesn't exhaust the term. I, for example, am very critical of many things about this more communitarian left that has returned to identity politics. I think it's a left wing that has lost many of the characteristics of the democratic left, which made progress on many agendas, and has ended up generating rejection. Therefore, one can be a "caviar leftist" and not subscribe to the worldview of this more woke left.

In your book you also say that caviar leftists receive criticism from the right…

Yes, mainly for supporting causes that they consider inappropriate and for using their power to limit national development. There's a right wing that believes that when you defend ecological causes, or human rights, you're limiting the development of energy or mining projects that would bring more well-being.

Beyond left and right, you also suggest that they generate general antipathy in society. Why?

Part of what makes them antipathetic has to do with their elitism, their social background, and that whole "I'm going to explain to you what it's like to be poor" thing. I also think it's perceived as unsympathetic because it has interests that aren't necessarily those of the majority. For example, sexual diversity, environmental causes, women's rights, the legalization of abortion, etc.

There are also sectors that can develop a certain moral, disqualifying, or canceling radicalism. But in general, I think that the "caviar" is criticized by the left for not being radical enough and is criticized by the right for being left-wing.

Is that antipathy what makes "caviar" people not want to be "caviar"?

They don't want to be "caviar" because the term is an insult used to refer to someone who lives well and defends progressive ideas. "He thinks he's a socialist, but he has an apartment facing the sea," is a common saying. Often, if a political candidate is called "caviar," they're going to have to pay a price, because it's equivalent to being called a "pituco" (upper class) and, to top it all off,He's seeking the votes of those who aren't necessarily upper-class, which is what makes him so contradictory. But there's nothing more caviar than saying I'm not caviar.

We've already talked about the criticisms. What merit do you see in those who belong to a privileged social position and defend progressive ideas?

I think they've taken on agendas that are fundamental in Latin American countries like ours: the fight against poverty, criticizing the limitations of the development model, which often doesn't reach pockets of poverty, or defending human rights causes.