At the beginning of the month, I asked you the simple question, so simple in fact, even if it constantly escapes us, in the sequence of our days: “What gives meaning to your lives? » True to form, you have already begun to send me a series of sweet words, which end up seeming like that concentration of meaning that we all need to keep moving forward. It’s very simple, yes, but oh so neglected, in what we say to ourselves when it comes to talking about our mental health problems.
This is partly what we lost, perhaps, when we radically embraced the shift towards empiricism in our helping professions, at the very moment when we were collectively cutting off our roots with the institutionalized religions: the question of meaning, coupled with that of the common good. In the modernization of the profession of psychology, in particular, there has been a growing schism between this position now valued, that of the scientist, closer to the medical, and another, fallen into obsolescence, which gave pride of place to knowledge from the humanities while retaining his desire to think of the individual in connection with the social. As access to the profession became reserved for an academic elite, the face of the profession also changed. The psychologist is now seen as a serious expert, with his doctorate in hand, scientific first and foremost, accessible especially in private practice and in an individualized manner, less and less present when it comes to thinking about the collective, certainly, but also questions of meaning. If these changes represent significant advances, it could also be that they contribute to the establishment of conditions conducive to the development of certain phenomena, notably that of ” coaches of life”, which arouses the ire of many of my psychologist colleagues, with good reason, as they see it as a threat to the quality of services that we offer to the population, when it comes to mental health.
Borrowing popular discursive procedures, coaches of life abound, with, at the top of the list, the one which still prevails, despite repeated attempts to reveal it in its true light, to point out the inconsistencies of its proposal. He retains a large part of his notoriety, which makes him the conqueror par excellence, named in an almost premonitory manner.
This week, the fascination of the worst acted on me, keeping me awake well beyond what my circadian cycle demanded of me, while I plunged, with successive clicks, into this spiral of the commodification of well-being. being, trying to decipher the phenomenon which frightens me as much as it makes me curious. If I understood correctly, the key to success, for coach of life, consists of developing an ability to subvert the ethical foundations of psychology, to couple them with methods from preaching and to coat them with a good dose of scientific appearance before throwing it all on social networks. It will also be a question of navigating between the laws, avoiding using the title of “psychologist”, of talking about “psychotherapy” – a title and act reserved for the profession – of retaining the prefix “psy” and attaching it to all the equipment we sell. It will also be a matter of banking on its image, obviously, on its beauty sticking to the standards of the time and of banking on the female audience who, in fact, will often comment on the videos saying: “I feel safe with you , Guillaume, you are so beautiful! »
We see it here, camera in mode selfie, telling us about the misfortunes that torment him, while he fails to establish his authority among the group of workers he pays for his renovations. With broad macroshots on a jaw line which would make all gym-addicted teenagers drool, he watches himself teach us, then films the workers without their knowledge, exposing his theory on the modalities of communication, which consists of classifying people in materialistic categories (including prefix “neuro” if possible) in order to learn how to handle them better.
“There are plenty of workers here. And they don’t do exactly what I asked them to do… and I’m going to show them to you, OK, it’s them… The person who has the red sweater is the person who “leads”, it’s him who has a lot of agreeableness and negative emotions… He could put my whole project in jeopardy because he, in his personality, is not capable of…” What follows is an invitation to complete the personality test which will allow it is up to everyone to manipulate those around them and, above all, the people who will work for us. I’m always fascinated to see how much of a person’s narcissism is mainly calculated by the immensity of their blind zone.
For those who believe that religion is out, I think it’s time to come out of denial. Religion is not out, she only disguises herself. As she is struck by the greatest taboo that there is, in a post-trauma Quebec of clergy abuse, which dissociates itself from it as one cuts from an aggressor, but also as one cuts from a part of oneself from which we are ashamed, religion grows in the greatest freedom, where we do not see it, in the shadow of social networks. It takes various forms, including this one, perhaps the most pernicious, which consists of offering those who seek meaning ready-made answers, guides to good behavior, which also allow them to develop in coherence with individualist values. of our society: “Become master of your emotions”, “learn to properly diagnose those around you”, “Don’t question yourself too much, climb, climb, chase away negative thoughts” “become the best version of yourself”.
There are many conquerors of the void, Guillaume only stands out for the polished side of the illusion he offers. Beyond the blame that we can throw at him and, above all, beyond the contempt that we can cast on those who follow him, I think it would be time to review how we could fill this void differently, ‘a way that would not only serve to fill our pockets, but which would take back something of what we let slip along the way, to offer it again to all these people in search of meaning.