The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

Jonathan Curiel: "Against the hysterization of our society, let us rediscover the demand for debate!"

2021-11-12T16:38:21.327Z


FIGAROVOX / GRAND INTERVIEW - With a long experience in the media world, the journalist analyzes, in an essay, a “hysterized society” marked by the degradation of public debate. He invites us to step outside the comfort of our respective opinions.


Deputy Director General of M6 Group Programs, Jonathan Curiel publishes

La société hystérisée

with Editions de l'Aube.

FIGAROVOX.

- Why do you speak of "hysterized society"?

Jonathan CURIEL. -

I wanted to analyze this notion of hysterization, so often used and so little defined, which characterizes our society (even if I describe signs of appeasement in the book) by alerting to the setting aside and the putting withdrawing from a large part of the population, tired of the permanent controversy, and who do not find themselves in the current brutality and agitation.

The hysterized society is a polarized and radicalized society.

A society marked by a certain violence of social relations, without measure, without nuance;

taken by a kind of madness and runaway which make him lose his mind.

A society marked by the weakening and degradation of public debate.

A society marked by the trivialization of everyday violence, by increasingly clear-cut speeches, by a certain radicalization online on social networks.

Hysterization, in the sense of exaggerated and uncontrolled emotion, a phenomenon of contagion and collective runaway, is not a new phenomenon.

The novelty of the current period is that these phenomena are no longer localized, limited in time,

Jonathan curiel

A society marked by the diktat of opinion, where the adversary turns into an enemy: you have to have an opinion on everything, immediately; this opinion has even become an identity (I am attacked if it is contested); it has become almost mission impossible to discuss a subject without clash. In a recent interview, former Brazilian President Lula said maliciously that before, when you met a political opponent in a restaurant, you would shake his hand, whereas today you risk getting shot. !

As proof of this rising hysterization in our societies, let us quote the phenomenon of yellow vests in France from the end of 2018;

the invasion of the Capitol in the United States in January 2021 by Trump supporters completing a highly polarized election campaign;

a public, media and intellectual debate, in an increasingly harmful climate in France;

a French electoral campaign which does not know a day without clash or without buzz to the detriment of the substance and the proposals;

and in the blink of an eye, recent political and societal series all describing a political world and hysterized societies (from

Black Baron

season 3 to

Years and Years

via

House of Cards

).

Is this really a new phenomenon?

Hysterization, in the sense of exaggerated and uncontrolled emotion, a phenomenon of contagion and collective runaway, is not a new phenomenon.

The Salem Witch Trials between 1692 and 1693;

the Dreyfus affair, which divided France into two radically opposed camps;

McCarthyism, an anti-Communist witch hunt in the United States;

the phenomena of economic bubbles and crashes (the former President of the Federal Reserve spoke moreover of “irrational exuberance” of the markets) can, for example, be considered as phenomena of hysterization.

To read also "Should we debate with his enemies?"

As for the media hysterization, we have read and seen it in

Illusions Perdues

by Balzac, which is clearly shown by Xavier Giannoli's beautiful theatrical film: it is not new!

Some newspapers already lived through the time of the controversy and the impact it had on society.

The novelty of the current period is that these phenomena are no longer localized, limited in time, they infuse society as a whole.

We see them and we hear them more than before.

Due in particular to the social networks which have radically transformed the modes of expression within the public space by trivializing the confrontation and the more numerous media, seeking to find a place in the large market for attention.

What are the root causes?

Hysterization has its roots in the increased polarization of divisive society in many countries around the world; the rising anger of part of the population; a reign of emotion exacerbated today. The fragmentation of French society, recently described by Christophe Guilluy and Jérôme Fourquet, with admittedly different prisms: a vicious circle is established between social fracturing and fracturing of public space. Social divides increase the effect of “compartmentalisation” of public space. The hysterization of society stems from this fracturing at the origin of distinct blocks that have become antagonistic.The end of the great stories that mobilized our societies and which have partially disappeared, replaced by clash and micro-stories on social networks.

Our information feeds correspond to our research, therefore to our tastes and our opinions.

We are therefore hardly ever confronted with opinions other than our own.

Everyone stays in their silo

Jonathan curiel

Finally, a certain number of cognitive biases make it possible to explain the new brutality of the exchanges: confirmation bias (favoring information that confirms our points of view), cognitive dissonance (stress induced by having opinions, beliefs , or contradictory values), effect of overconfidence or "Dunning Kruger" (overestimation of our competence in a field, while we are underqualified; hence a high level of commitment and heated discussions), gregarious behavior ...

You who are a man of the media, what is the responsibility of the latter as regards this hysterization?

Certain media, far from being the majority, may tend to seek spectacularization and controversy.

In often harsh lines on television, Philippe Murray criticized antagonistic and artificial oppositions on social issues on television.

Before him, Roland Barthes, who refused to engage in any media exercise, considered that “

media civilization is defined by the rejection of nuance

”.

Read alsoDo not be indignant, argue!

As for Bourdieu, he criticized the “

fast thinkers

”, these experts and intellectuals adapted to the needs of the immediacy of the time and who could supply us with opinions and express opinions to the detriment of long time.

So this is nothing new.

However, even if we know the appetite of the media machine for the buzz and the sometimes binary debates to which we have become accustomed (to the point of "getting bored" when a debate lacks virulence and confrontation), Today, social networks seem to me to be on the front line: individuals disseminate and promote their identity, convictions and values ​​more there than in the physical world.

It can be experienced as a form of invasion for others and provoke hostile reactions.

Via the known system of cognitive bubbles, our information feeds correspond to our research, therefore to our tastes and our opinions.

We are therefore almost no longer confronted with opinions other than his own today.

Everyone stays in their own silo.

It is one of the sources of the polarization of society.

An experiment conducted at Stanford in 2019 by two renowned professors showed that by bringing together more than 500 people with very different points of view, positions could evolve after an in-depth exchange between them.

After 4 days spent together, there was convergence on 22 proposals out of 26 relating to major social issues.

Jonathan curiel

Anonymity online is also one of the main factors in the aggressiveness of opinions on the Internet. "

We easily forget our faults when they are known only to us

" wrote La Rochefoucauld. We also think of Plato and the allegory of the ring of Gyges (

The Republic

): if we had an invisibility ring, many of us would not resist the temptation to act with impunity!

Social networks have, finally, generated an increase in the power of the performative function of discourse.

By encouraging the public affirmation of our identity, these new media have increased the power of individuals to act through discourse.

We now exchange more to act and affirm than to transmit information, which necessarily leads to a more conflicting relationship.

How to remedy this and regain the taste for debate?

The quality of public deliberation can reduce hysterization.

The public space should not aspire to bring together those who are right and to silence those who are wrong, but to be able to make the different parties exchange so that they understand each other, even if disagreements exist.

Citizens become depolarized when discussions are deeper.

An experiment carried out at Stanford in 2019, "

America in one room

", by two renowned professors, Diamond and Fishkin, as part of the American presidential campaign, showed that by bringing together more than 500 people with very different points of view, positions could change after an in-depth exchange between them and consultation with experts.

After 4 days spent together, disagreements persisted but there was convergence on 22 proposals out of 26 relating to major social issues, which was far from being the case at the start.

Proof that we don't need to talk to each other anymore.

To read alsoFacebook: "The fight against online extremism must not return to the platforms, but to the legislator"

Likewise, the political debate must be deeper and clearer. This is precisely what the German philosopher Habermas reminds us of. Let us take note of the growing polarization of public debates in our societies, but let us take a deeper look at the policy alternatives and formulate them clearly. This is not quite the case today.

We can also consider new modes of deliberation by involving citizens more actively in democratic life (we can, for example, be inspired by the Swiss popular vote which unpins social tensions or even the participatory budget of certain cities in the world. );

attempt to curb the immediacy which creates emergency situations and leads to hysterization;

promote perspective in the exchange;

sometimes find a certain taste for nuance and moderation, not to be confused with lukewarmness.

The decrease in hysterization also requires self-control vis-à-vis the cognitive biases mentioned above, which often push us to follow our instincts and ready-made opinions.

La société hystérisée

, Jonathan Curiel, Aube editions, 134 p., € 14.

Editions of the Dawn

Source: lefigaro

All news articles on 2021-11-12

You may like

News/Politics 2024-03-14T11:15:57.319Z

Trends 24h

News/Politics 2024-03-27T16:45:54.081Z

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.