"The cost of cowardice is much higher than courage. "According to the philosopher Cynthia Fleury, the value of" courage "to act to protect the democracy of the harmful effects of ultra-liberal system, needs to be reinvested. The challenge: moving from isolated act of collective action.
In the world of work and politics, the salvation of democracy depends on our ability to learn courage. This virtue is the focus of the last ouvrage1 philosopher Cynthia Fleury, who was in Geneva last November, to mark the centenary of Jeanne Hersch. Maintenance.
Your book is based on the idea that democracy Courage is not a democracy is doomed. What builds the link between these two concepts?
Cynthia Fleury: My research focuses on the tools of democratic regulation. My goal is to understand what makes the system work or malfunctions, and how individuals can take part in this regulation. Democracies have developed historically, two ways of conceiving. One by virtue (French revolutionary republican tradition, for example), the other by the confrontation of interests (the American liberal tradition, for example). My belief is that the first these designs are impractical and the latter is insufficient. The financial crisis has shown how the character regulator's interest had become obsolete. The aim of this book is to show that there is an alternative.
Which?
My hypothesis is that courage can protect democracy against the pernicious effects that the system generates. At the collective level, is the courage that will ensure the sustainability of the institutions of freedom. At the individual level, it is also he who can allow everyone to maintain his personal integrity.
This seems particularly true in the world of work, you describe as a world falling apart ...
The world of work is indeed again a place of alienation and, in some ways, it's a world war. Today, more and more people disavow the principles of the organization that employs them. Confronted with the phenomenon of harassment or management methods delusional workers see every day that things dysfunctional but they still get up every morning to get to work. Their slogan: adaptation and not break. What can be conceived. But adaptation makes sense only for the better. Otherwise it's erosion.
All these little acts of cowardice that instead to organize collectively and say enough is enough - so to play their role of regulator - the people are silent and trying to adapt to the situation. Result in the best case, the couch. At worst, it is the street or rope.
How did we get here?
This is largely based on the illusion that causes the system to know that it is mechanical, inevitable, stronger individuals. But the "system" does not exist. The system reflects the dynamics of a momentary victory. In the world of work, for example, managerial madness has not always been so deleterious. For twenty years, there is a resurgence in France and elsewhere, this ultra-liberal organizational system. At first, people were squeezed hard. Has emerged the phenomenon of forced mobility, conversion, adaptability for various reasons, have proved very destructive. Believe that this has always been and always will serve the interests of some workers. Thanks to the courage of individuals, and a few structures still valid collective defense, harassment and suffering at work have been reported and there is now legal tools to fight against. Today, harassment can be terminated against a colleague and not a superior, but also as a mode of management as such, regardless of an interpersonal relationship.
You also wear a very critical about the political world ...
Politically, the problem is not the disappearance of courage, but its exploitation. All political leaders have made the word an argument of political communication major. Courage has become a kind of idol media, everyone calls them with speeches like, "I I dare to break "," me, I say what others dare not say ", etc.. Unfortunately, in reality, most politicians are figures copies-cons. These are characters whose ego is totally uninhibited and emptied the concept of courage of its substance. Politics is the reign of complacency, in which pleasure and entertainment have become the surest way not to share power.
you think nothing would be worse than giving up yet. Why?
The idea for this book was not only a diagnosis but also to show that courage is to divest a miscalculation as the cost of cowardice is much higher than courage.
what extent?
The more modern and mature democracy, the more one has the illusion that things work themselves. But nothing is further from the truth. Democracy does not know the status quo. It is the result of a constant tension between progressive forces and the reactionary forces that clash. The fighting is ongoing. This means that there is no acquis: when you lower your guard, you lose ground. In this sense, there is a highly deceptive nature of democracy that can create a form of resentment from the people. And this is a godsend for populist right, the xenophobic or nationalistic ideas.
What then?
Experiencing courage is a kind of initiatory ordeal that involves more than the widespread discouragement as we know it today, not only individually but also collectively. For many, the courage is a virtue that is a bit dated, referring to war, resistance and heroism. To me, courage is at hand. It is made of little things in everyday life. In my view, is therefore a virtue of this present time. It is a thought of the action, as the philosopher would have said Jeanne Hersch Geneva and formerly as others show today.
Courage is not quite dead?
No, there are always individuals and courageous acts. After, the challenge is to move from isolated act of collective action in order to impose topics on the political agenda. Otherwise, brave show quickly sacrificed. Building a collective ethic of courage, is the challenge.
Any examples?
must create majorities of citizens. In France, the origin of such movements as the appellants' appeal, the group Save our research, the association of Conduct Zero, there are often individuals who had the courage to say no and organize. Ditto for the group Children of Don Quixote. When this movement began, nobody thought he would bring a boost as it would lead to passage of a law on the enforceable right to housing. The law remains unenforced and ineffective. But courage is betting long time.
In the world of work and politics, the salvation of democracy depends on our ability to learn courage. This virtue is the focus of the last ouvrage1 philosopher Cynthia Fleury, who was in Geneva last November, to mark the centenary of Jeanne Hersch. Maintenance.
Your book is based on the idea that democracy Courage is not a democracy is doomed. What builds the link between these two concepts?
Cynthia Fleury: My research focuses on the tools of democratic regulation. My goal is to understand what makes the system work or malfunctions, and how individuals can take part in this regulation. Democracies have developed historically, two ways of conceiving. One by virtue (French revolutionary republican tradition, for example), the other by the confrontation of interests (the American liberal tradition, for example). My belief is that the first these designs are impractical and the latter is insufficient. The financial crisis has shown how the character regulator's interest had become obsolete. The aim of this book is to show that there is an alternative.
Which?
My hypothesis is that courage can protect democracy against the pernicious effects that the system generates. At the collective level, is the courage that will ensure the sustainability of the institutions of freedom. At the individual level, it is also he who can allow everyone to maintain his personal integrity.
This seems particularly true in the world of work, you describe as a world falling apart ...
The world of work is indeed again a place of alienation and, in some ways, it's a world war. Today, more and more people disavow the principles of the organization that employs them. Confronted with the phenomenon of harassment or management methods delusional workers see every day that things dysfunctional but they still get up every morning to get to work. Their slogan: adaptation and not break. What can be conceived. But adaptation makes sense only for the better. Otherwise it's erosion.
All these little acts of cowardice that instead to organize collectively and say enough is enough - so to play their role of regulator - the people are silent and trying to adapt to the situation. Result in the best case, the couch. At worst, it is the street or rope.
How did we get here?
This is largely based on the illusion that causes the system to know that it is mechanical, inevitable, stronger individuals. But the "system" does not exist. The system reflects the dynamics of a momentary victory. In the world of work, for example, managerial madness has not always been so deleterious. For twenty years, there is a resurgence in France and elsewhere, this ultra-liberal organizational system. At first, people were squeezed hard. Has emerged the phenomenon of forced mobility, conversion, adaptability for various reasons, have proved very destructive. Believe that this has always been and always will serve the interests of some workers. Thanks to the courage of individuals, and a few structures still valid collective defense, harassment and suffering at work have been reported and there is now legal tools to fight against. Today, harassment can be terminated against a colleague and not a superior, but also as a mode of management as such, regardless of an interpersonal relationship.
You also wear a very critical about the political world ...
Politically, the problem is not the disappearance of courage, but its exploitation. All political leaders have made the word an argument of political communication major. Courage has become a kind of idol media, everyone calls them with speeches like, "I I dare to break "," me, I say what others dare not say ", etc.. Unfortunately, in reality, most politicians are figures copies-cons. These are characters whose ego is totally uninhibited and emptied the concept of courage of its substance. Politics is the reign of complacency, in which pleasure and entertainment have become the surest way not to share power.
you think nothing would be worse than giving up yet. Why?
The idea for this book was not only a diagnosis but also to show that courage is to divest a miscalculation as the cost of cowardice is much higher than courage.
what extent?
The more modern and mature democracy, the more one has the illusion that things work themselves. But nothing is further from the truth. Democracy does not know the status quo. It is the result of a constant tension between progressive forces and the reactionary forces that clash. The fighting is ongoing. This means that there is no acquis: when you lower your guard, you lose ground. In this sense, there is a highly deceptive nature of democracy that can create a form of resentment from the people. And this is a godsend for populist right, the xenophobic or nationalistic ideas.
What then?
Experiencing courage is a kind of initiatory ordeal that involves more than the widespread discouragement as we know it today, not only individually but also collectively. For many, the courage is a virtue that is a bit dated, referring to war, resistance and heroism. To me, courage is at hand. It is made of little things in everyday life. In my view, is therefore a virtue of this present time. It is a thought of the action, as the philosopher would have said Jeanne Hersch Geneva and formerly as others show today.
Courage is not quite dead?
No, there are always individuals and courageous acts. After, the challenge is to move from isolated act of collective action in order to impose topics on the political agenda. Otherwise, brave show quickly sacrificed. Building a collective ethic of courage, is the challenge.
Any examples?
must create majorities of citizens. In France, the origin of such movements as the appellants' appeal, the group Save our research, the association of Conduct Zero, there are often individuals who had the courage to say no and organize. Ditto for the group Children of Don Quixote. When this movement began, nobody thought he would bring a boost as it would lead to passage of a law on the enforceable right to housing. The law remains unenforced and ineffective. But courage is betting long time.
Vincent Monnet
1 The End of courage, Cynthia Fleury, Fayard, 208 p.
0 comments:
Post a Comment