“Decivilization”: the word spoken by Emmanuel Macron in the Council of Ministers, Wednesday May 24, to describe violence in society, raises the question of the origin of this term. This is the topic of the day for our meeting with sociologist Jean Viard.
Sociologist Jean Viard today answers a social question to which we had planned to return. It’s about this concept of decivilization. What connection is there to be made between the violence of our society, the expression “process of decivilization”these are the terms used by Emmanuel Macron, last Wednesday, in the Council of Ministers.
franceinfo: Jean Viard, we learned that you were at the cradle of the rebirth of this word during a lunch the day before, Tuesday May 23, with Emmanuel Macron and other sociologists?
John Viard: Yes quite. To be honest with you, it was a bit of a peripheral word because I didn’t realize it was spoken, so it wasn’t the focus of the discussion, it must have been spoken at the end , otherwise, I think I would have reacted.
Personally, I don’t believe at all that we are in a phase of decivilization. I think we are changing civilization. This is also said by Edgar Morin, who has written several books on this theme of “changing civilisations”. We were in a civilization of industry, of progress, which had to move forward, lengthen life, live longer, which made us do marvelous things, and which, at the same time, made us do considerable crisis vis-à-vis nature. We have changed.
Today, we are in a civilization that is led by nature, it is nature that makes history, it is the acceleration of global warming, fires, rising water levels, certain diseases, etc And man will run after the consequences of the work of our elders, to try to remake a livable world. So it’s a bifurcation, Pierre Veltz says it’s a bifurcation. We are a society of individuals, extremely autonomous, and the problem is how we organize this huge crowd that has a will to live, sun, holidays, work, etc., how we organize it for this battle .
The idea of this interview for the President of the Republic, with you and your sociologist colleagues, was that you shed light on the transformations of society. So, the decivilization which is, in any case at first sight and in the process, the term which was retained, it is not at all what animated the discussions?
No not at all. One thing must be said, first of all, I find it very positive that a President of the Republic takes time to meet intellectuals, when the situation is difficult. He had met economists a fortnight ago. There he met sociologists. It must always be said that power uses intellectuals too little. We are somewhere, paid to advise the prince, according to the old refrain. So that was very positive.
Afterwards, it was not the main subject. The main subject was how to explain, and also propose, a slightly different vision. Philippe Moati, who is very opposed to advertising, thinks that the first way to make a company grow is to slow down the advertising pressure that makes us constantly want new things, so that was the stakes. The goal is not to decrease, it is to change tools. How do we produce energy that doesn’t pollute, how do we produce transport that doesn’t pollute, cows, if I may say so, that don’t fart, etc… That’s all that’s up for debate.
And how do you explain that among all the concepts and ideas that you have put forward, it is that of decivilization that has been retained by the President of the Republic?
Because on the one hand, I think it clicked with a concern he had, he grabbed the word, maybe he knew it in advance, I don’t know. Afterwards, it’s true that at the moment, we are in a phase where there has been violence, the three young police officers killed in Lille, it’s a monstrosity, but really, what is it? They are drugged, alcoholic drivers who take a highway in the opposite direction, it would have been three butchers, it was the same, they were not targeted as police officers. It’s a bit different the nurse at the hospital, who was murdered by someone who didn’t look very “in line”, if I’m being polite. So, all of a sudden, there is an accumulation of violence, and therefore it gives the feeling that we are killing each other in this society. It’s not true, I’m sorry, it’s not true.
With supporting figures?
But yes, for example, 40 years ago, there were 1400 murders per year, we must be around 800 today, but we are much more numerous. And above all, one thing: we are a society where time is ours, so we don’t want to wait any longer. You can clearly see the violent people at the entrance to the hospital, as soon as you have to wait, people become tense. There are trends. There is a feeling that public services are not doing their job and that basically, we pay taxes, so we attack teachers, we attack elected officials. True, but let’s not exaggerate. I’m not saying that there is no increase in violence at all, but let’s not exaggerate.