Olivier Babeau: "Why is social diversity so difficult to implement?"

"

" This statement by the Minister of Housing Emmanuelle Wargon is interesting.

It testifies to a confusion too often maintained between the desirable and the real.

Confusion that undermines the effectiveness of the measures it inspires.

What is desirable is the coexistence of social classes which is one of the conditions for mobility.

The real thing is unfortunately that three reasons (at least) mean that social diversity is absolutely not in demand.

To discover

• Michel Houellebecq: "A civilization which legalizes euthanasia loses all rights to respect"

First reason: social classes are less mutually dependent than yesterday.

The Marxist representation of society was based on a fundamental opposition between the owners of capital and those who had only their labor power.

The post-war era was the moment when, in the euphoria of reconstruction, it was believed that the whole of society would come together around the middle class.

But the digital revolution has revived the powerful machine to separate people.

The lines of demarcation are no longer the same.

Capital is still in the background, but the meaning of relationships has changed.

Sociologist Jean-Marc Rémy wrote in 2012: “

[1]. The company is no longer a pyramid, but a juxtaposition of mutually impermeable pockets. In these new conditions, the meeting of social groups becomes more improbable than ever. Yesterday, the boss and the worker were mutually dependent, obliged to collaborate for economic reasons. Relations could be cold and even confrontational, but they did exist. We had to count on the existence of the other, one to run factories and the other to earn a living. Today, no one needs the other. Avoidance is the best strategy.

Between 1940 and 2003, homogamy increased at both ends of the American social ladder: college graduates increasingly marry other graduates, and non-graduates with non-graduates.

Second reason: the barriers to grouping together have collapsed for fifty years, causing a rapid movement of homogenization of social groups. In the past, the parish priest and the teacher were intellectuals forced to live in a context very out of step with their own mental universe. This was the lot of small village communities. Leaving was a risky and difficult option. Most people lived where they were born. Now, mobility and communication skills allow everyone to be in permanent contact with their fellow human beings. In

, Charles Murray writes:“

. »There are no longer any traditional, moral or financial borders to space travel. Yesterday the local elites gathered in certain parts of the towns, but continued to live with the rest of the inhabitants. They were not seceding. Today, these elites have left the territories to congregate in the large metropolises. Between 1940 and 2003, homogamy increased at both ends of the American social ladder: college graduates increasingly marry other graduates, and non-graduates with non-graduates. A homogamy which accentuates the effects of social polarization: the children of graduated couples will statistically also be graduates. Lack of higher education, too, tends to recur from generation to generation. TheThe collapse of the cognitive mix of American universities in the space of a few decades testifies to the growing homogenization of the elites. Murray shows the incredible increase in the concentration of high intelligence quotients in top American universities since the 1980s. A student who would have been among the average Harvard student in 1952 would only have been among the worst 10% eight years later. In 1961, 25% of students entering Yale had an entrance test score below 600. Five years later, they are down to 9%. At the same time, the proportion of students achieving between 700 and 800 rose from 29 to 52%. In 1997, only 19% of schools captured 74% of the students who obtained the best scores.The concentration of academic talent has never been higher.

Last reason for the absence of social mix: in the era of cognitive capitalism, diversity is more than ever an obstacle to social reproduction. Giving your offspring every chance means guaranteeing them access to the two complementary treasures of training and good company. If location is a determining factor in real estate, it is often less for the place itself than for those who live there. The rise in real estate prices in certain areas does not only reflect the desire to have a view of the Eiffel Tower. It reflects the desperate desire of people to live in a social context where they will be in contact with other people hyperconnected to the new digital economy and its opportunities. Relations ofchildhood plant in us so many things that will germinate our life: the ways of being, the way of considering knowledge and existence, our relationship to the group, our propensity to take risks and the recognition that we receive from others ... And in the end, often, marital relations. It is impossible to prevent parents from being obsessed, sometimes unconsciously, with the quest for the environment most suitable for the protection and success of their offspring. To maximize the chances of their children, parents are ready to make any sacrifices. Even the most fervent supporters of the principle of social mixing give up their arms against the prospect of seeing their own offspring pulled down, and isolated in the midst of fellow creatures who have nothing to contribute to it.useful from the point of view of social competition.

In short, let us be careful not to underestimate the very powerful forces which work for the absence of social mix.

[1] Remy Jean-Marc, “

», University Papers Blog, 05/26/2012.