Étienne Ruhaud is a literary critic and collection director at Unicité.
Boost critical thinking... A programmatic essay, the new book by Emmanuel-Juste Duits, co-founder of the Wikidebates site, invites us to go beyond our intellectual comfort, our certainties, and defines what could be the foundation of an authentic spirit of openness, and this at the heart of a complex, globalized, multicultural world, where everyone seems to fall back on their values. Anxious to avoid the double pitfall of relativism, as well as ideologism and confinement, the man-network defined by the author should thus be able to truly dialogue, in the Socratic sense of the term. To do this, several avenues are envisaged: this would involve both a new approach to information, the very principle of debate, but also another way of looking at school, among others.
A recent phenomenon, after the 1980s, globalization created a complex society, where several ethnic and social groups intersect with different values, which can generate constant stress. Today, the average Westerner can choose a variety of value systems, which are very different. Some are tempted, therefore, by withdrawal into oneself, old values or communitarianism, while others embark on an endless race to consumption. The philosopher proposes a paradigm shift, starting by renouncing the old ideologies, which have failed (especially in the case of communism), to invent something else, without sinking into relativism.
Seemingly offering a multiplicity of points of view, perspectives and ideologies, globalization paradoxically leads to a form of standardization.
Étienne Ruhaud
The starting point would be to accept the multicultural nature of our society, in order to avoid communal confrontation and to reinvent an exciting way of life. It would not necessarily be a question of choosing this or that system of thought, nor of mixing everything into a syncretism that is ultimately not very effective, but of adopting "actions adapted to a changing and complex world" (p. 17), in particular in order to be able to live together in a harmonious way. The philosopher's goal therefore seems ambitious, perhaps to be classified in the category of utopias, as he himself admits very well.
Faced with the "changing and complex" world (p. 17), we must lead, simultaneously, an "internal revolution" and an external one, in order to transform into what Emmanuel-Juste Duits calls a "network man", a man capable of approaching the complexity of the world in order to become a citizen, in the noble and complete sense of the term. Seemingly offering a multiplicity of points of view, perspectives and ideologies, globalization paradoxically leads to a form of standardization, essentially on the American model. We are not in the spectrum of the rainbow, but rather in a kind of gray, as if all the colors, by merging, lose their proper character. This does indeed seem contradictory.
In the first place, faced with the multiple lifestyles proposed (Hinduism, Jehovah's church, etc.), what choice should be made? All the gurus seem to be worthwhile, because all seem at least as convinced, and therefore convincing. Syncretism, which leads to relativism, is usually impossible. One cannot adopt two ways of thinking that cancel each other out, unless one is divided: become, for example, Christian and communist, or Muslim and Buddhist. Many prefer to remain in their certainties, which leads to rigidification, and therefore to more or less latent conflict.
We seek confirmation of our presuppositions through the information we choose.
Étienne Ruhaud
Strangely, however, we have never had access to so much information. We are literally bombarded with news. However, this excess does not lead to openness, because everyone will choose his channel, or his newspaper, according to his pre-established opinions, confirmation bias. Many interesting elements are not transmitted to the majority because they are on partisan sites, and the mainstream media themselves participate in disinformation, by not mentioning certain aspects of reality. Ideally, one should consult the so-called extremist, if not conspiratorial, sites to hear precisely another sound of bell, and to form a personal opinion. This seems necessary, especially with regard to the elites, who are generally disconnected from the expectations and concerns of popular circles, which have become inaccessible.
As a result, society is further fragmented. Emmanuel-Juste Duits speaks of "pluriverse". An executive will meet a young person from the city in Châtelet, but will absolutely not have the same concerns as him, nor the same view of the world. And eventually people end up observing each other with hostility.
Opinion is largely manufactured by information. A left-wing media will make the Cuban revolution and the figure of Che Guevara sympathetic, while a right-wing media will make them horrible. We must also take into account the moment: being a communist before the fall of the USSR appeared as a form of humanism. Finally, we see that many are committed to a cause that they consider just, precisely for lack of information. In fact, we must try to understand the intellectual journey of my interlocutor, even if we do not share the same options, and therefore learn to think about complexity.
Such an activity also implies confronting one's own ideas with reality, knowing that we all practice predictive activity, that is to say that we finally seek confirmation of our presuppositions through the information we choose. However, access to the truth implies information from various sources, or listening to several truths, breaking down barriers. But how do you know who to listen to? A priori, to know if something is true, or right, it would be enough to define what is the expected effect, and if the elements submitted make it possible to achieve this same effect. In reality, nothing is that simple. It can already be established that certain information, or certain "great truths" asserted, are not admissible, insofar as they are too incompatible with the established facts, that they present too many failures in their very predictions, and that finally they lack internal coherence.
It is by observing and weighing sometimes irreconcilable points of view that we will achieve a better conscience, and thus become better citizens.
Étienne Ruhaud
However, a new difficulty arises. The epistemologist Paul Feyerabend shows that concrete experience does not always contradict this or that assertion. Thus, the theory of evolution was long considered anti-Christian because it destroyed the creationist myth. However, Teilhard de Chardin was able to link Darwinian theses to Christianity, and thus even to demonstrate the existence of God.
We also find that most ideologies sweep away annoying elements, often calling them fake news, and thus disqualifying them. Karl Popper speaks of a "closed system" and diversion. Faced with a contradiction, a Marxist will thus accuse his interlocutor of being a petty bourgeois or a fascist, and therefore will not answer him on the substance. "One can always manage to keep one's beliefs, whatever the facts," says Emmanuel-Juste Duits (p. 69). This is the foundation of totalitarianism.
In an ideal democracy, on the contrary, we must multiply the reading grids by drinking from sources that seem incongruous to us. This does not mean admitting anything, but honestly considering all proposals. The task seems immense. Feyerabend speaks of an "ever-widening ocean of mutually incompatible alternatives" (p. 71). It is by observing and weighing sometimes irreconcilable points of view that we will achieve a better conscience, and thus become better citizens.
It also implies overcoming three harmful attitudes:
- The fallacy, which consists in justifying everything by lies, bad faith, a posture that Socrates already denounced.
- Dogmatism, i.e. a way of thinking closed in on itself, totally impervious to contradiction.
- Skepticism, which leads to absolute relativism. Nothing would be true, and therefore nothing can be affirmed.
Building complex and adapted thinking also requires moving away from three approaches:
- That of some scientists, who value all provisional truths, and who can therefore not affirm anything solid and tangible.
- That of the philosopher who refuses sensible experience and who bases himself on pure logic without ever wanting to verify the facts in a sensitive and concrete way, which leads to inconsistencies, and therefore to a mismatch with the world.
- That of the mystic who renounces knowledge to take refuge in a kind of revelation, which is also an escape from reality.
Increasingly specialized, separated into different branches, knowledge is divided into multiple fields that do not communicate with each other, which often leads to errors related to lack of communication.
Étienne Ruhaud
If we cannot change the world entirely, it is up to us to modify certain aspects of it, by a series of "tiny revolutions". Never before have we enjoyed so much free time. Nor have we ever been able to seize the Internet tool to this extent, which allows us to define another type of power, not controlled by state authorities. Unfortunately, too many people tend to get lost on the web, which would involve creating sites that work like networks.
The fragmentation of knowledge and its fragmentation not only threaten the social field, but also the scientific field. Increasingly specialized, separated into different branches, knowledge is divided into multiple fields that do not communicate with each other, which often leads to errors related to lack of communication. These errors generate technocracy (for example, architects and urban planners built, from the 1960s, large urban complexes without consulting residents, artists, social workers...). To achieve a genuine participatory democracy, it would therefore be necessary to break the information bubbles by making the different actors communicate, without listening to everything and anything, especially fake news that leads to populism. It would be a question of going beyond political divisions to achieve what Emmanuel-Juste Duits calls for: the constitution of authentic general states of popular initiative, for concrete resolutions.
This communication would find its culmination in an ambitious (and utopian) project: the "Garden of Possibilities". Led by Paul Faure, this new concept should bring together self-managed minigroups, gathered around a common interest (such as organic farming or religion). These different groups would make it their mission to confront real opponents, to listen to all points of view, and then to deliver their conclusions to the other minigroups, in order to circulate information and always question themselves. It will be objected that such a design would only result in the meeting of a few idealists, that it would have no impact. To which we will reply that this space for reflection would accompany the emergence of new ideas, and therefore new decisions, including on the global political level. Therefore, the constitution of a "garden of possibilities" would be completed by the "Connexions" network, presenting the conclusions of the minigroups and confronting once again the constraints, in a state of mind of maximum openness.
Nothing is totally objective from a point of view, but much is actually personal experience, more or less painful.
Étienne Ruhaud
The goal remains to think collectively, using the Internet differently. In this area, there is indeed a lack of common space, and the very abundance of the canvas resembles a swamp where one gets lost quickly. Generally, Internet users are also looking for confirmation bias, i.e. elements that reinforce their own pre-established vision. This is why it seems necessary to design the IRPs (Institutes of Philosophical Research), according to the idea of the thinker Christian Camus. These IORPs would be spaces for unlimited debate. Each supporter of a particular point of view could nominate his or her own delegates. At the same time, an ethics commission would ensure that insults and other hateful diatribes are banned. Each citizen, by participating in these forums, would thus feel part of a representative democracy in the strict sense. This type of project has already found a form of culmination through "Wikidebates", a site inspired by Wikipedia, a free and participatory encyclopedia. Like the IRPs, "Wikidebates" offers a kind of collective and dynamic synthesis. Emmanuel-Juste Duits participated in the development of this site.
As we pointed out in the introduction, today's cosmopolitan society can lead to conflict if nothing is done to calm relations between communities. Often a closed environment, oriented towards pure knowledge and not towards business in secondary education, the school is also sectorized, since the different orientations (scientific, literary, economic...) do not communicate enough with each other. As a first step, meetings should be systematized outside (with associations, in museums, etc.). It would then be advisable to promote a dialogue between the various faiths (by visiting a mosque, then a synagogue, then a church and/or a Buddhist temple for example). We would then rethink secularism. This has an austere aspect (the fact of prohibiting religious symbols), but also a joyful aspect (going to meet the other, and therefore enriching oneself). Philosophical practice would also be introduced from primary school, without imposing pre-established patterns of thought.
As adults, citizens should redefine the very basis of dialogue, first exposing what drives them to think this way (a vegan activist would admit to having become vegan after seeing animals suffer in slaughterhouses). We would thus see that nothing is totally objective from a point of view, but that much is in fact a matter of personal experience, more or less painful. The achievements of NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) would be applied to the dialogue itself. Finally, we would envisage an authentic complete training in "critical sense", training based on the human sciences, and more particularly on psychoanalysis, social psychology, epistemology, the study of hypercritical sense, the study of the media.
This "open" approach would therefore make it possible to go beyond hard and sectarian ideology, and relativism, for a renewal that would allow us to live in harmony and to found the foundations of an authentic representative democracy. The gamble seems considerable.
From the introduction, Emmanuel-Juste Duits admits the utopian aspect of his book. One can indeed reproach the philosopher for too great an ambition, as well as a certain irenicism. The vast projects defined seem difficult to achieve, notwithstanding the "practical" sheets drawn up by the author at the end of the volume. In addition, one can sometimes feel lost, reading Doper his critical spirit, so many proposals abound, so much the fields addressed seem infinite. It would probably take several volumes to precisely define the concrete aspirations of Emmanuel-Juste Duits. However, we will salute the audacity of the thinker, who tries to re-establish the practice of an authentic critical spirit, in the continuity of the Enlightenment. Some of the proposals made here therefore deserve to be fully studied, if not applied, in order to redefine the meaning of forum and discussion, so crucial for the life of the city.