The philosophers of the Enlightenment called into question values related to politics and religion. Within an aristocratic and sometimes despotic world, they advocated for freedom and equality. In doing so, they contributed to laying the political and moral foundations of contemporary Western societies. To what extent are we inclined to question these foundations? Let’s examine some boundaries of contemporary inquiries before discussing structural discomforts and the possibility of distancing ourselves from them.
Some frontiers of contemporary questionings
Studies and Professional Life
Philosophy, as a school subject, is briefly taught in France to all final-year students at the end of high school. Its purpose is to transmit traditional themes of questioning that have contributed to shaping Western societies and their values, as well as techniques of discussion and argumentation. While values are questioned in various ways, especially in their interactions with each other, to what extent are they truly challenged? How could this be possible in just one year? Furthermore, is it desirable when the educational system aims to facilitate the integration of young people into society, rather than creating minds capable of destabilizing it?
After the educational period comes the working life where the focus is on being productive and efficient, goals that require specialization. Knowledge is then nurtured and cultivated primarily based on professional needs, which, in addition to the time dedicated to economic work, imposes a structural limit on questioning. During the active life, there may be a form of reconsideration of the profession practiced, closely linked to economic competition and, especially, its ecological impacts. This commonly occurring questioning encourages a « change of life (work). » Does it invite to reconsider the role of economic work itself?
Regardless of the stage of existence, personal development techniques can be implemented to cope with the constraints of a life that brings its share of stress and concerns. While meditation counteracts these detrimental effects, its principle, which involves focusing attention on the present moment and clearing the mind of thoughts, may limit its effectiveness in terms of calming when issues are pushed out of the mind without being addressed to find lasting solutions.
Work, Family, Leisure, Homeland
Contemporary inquiries are thus constrained by various practices (educational, professional, or personal) that are themselves based on values, starting with economic work, a human right,1 and a central activity in Western societies. In France, the reform of the 35-hour workweek has not substantially diminished its importance,2 especially since the question of purchasing power remains at the heart of political concerns.3 More recently, proposals to establish a form of universal income have sparked controversies, notably during the 2017 presidential elections or during the 2020 health crisis. However, have they profoundly questioned the role of work? Although the automation of production processes and the resulting technological unemployment motivate some intellectuals to implement a universal income, work itself, contributing both to solidarity (especially that of the nation) and individual freedom, retains its value.4 Contemporary existence continues to revolve around the economy, to which the majority of time is devoted, including outside of work through consumption.
A second value concretely constrains the possibility of questioning: the family, to which friends can be associated. Not because our loved ones prevent us from formulating judgments that go beyond cultural boundaries, although this frequently occurs, but because family life and friendships tend to occupy a significant portion of time that is not dedicated to work. Moreover, to fulfill the desires of our circle, desires often associated with idealizations, it may be necessary to earn enough money, and therefore, to work more.
A third value completes the filling of a busy schedule: leisure, which may involve a degree of reflection but often boils down to forms of decompression, entertainment, and escape, or means to cultivate a certain well-being. Thus, work, relationships with loved ones, and leisure monopolize the time of adults. They themselves fit into a political, national framework, which allows more room for questioning, but again, this space is not infinite.
We illustrated, with the idea of a universal income, that political and philosophical debates are more a place for questioning values. However, are they not primarily a forum for their consolidation and maintenance? Politicians and philosophers most often strive to defend their conception of values, with visions potentially differing significantly or even radically from one side to the other: typically, the left emphasizes equality and wealth redistribution, while the right prioritizes entrepreneurial freedom and the fight against poverty.
Could values be more thoroughly questioned? Why? And how can one find time for a deeper reflection?
Distancing Ourselves from Uneasiness
Deep Uneasiness
The idea that contemporary societies are marked by uneasiness is not a recent phenomenon. The worry can result from various causes: social inequalities, which have been a major source of demands since the 19th century; cultural differences that regularly lead to forms of hatred and rejection (racism, antisemitism…); armed conflicts, as was the case with the world wars in the first half of the 20th century, which shattered the hopes of technological progress accompanying social advancements; a sense of guilt,5 which emerges when people inhibit their aggressiveness and libido in order to create social bonds; conversely, an excessive focus on the individual and their mental health;6 constraints inherent in economic competition, or the prospects related to climate and health crises. These various sources of uneasiness are correlated with oppositions and/or idealizations (individual, power…), consequently with the values associated with these oppositions and idealizations. One of their direct consequences, at a psychological level, involves an excess of stress, anxiety, anger, or even sadness when action gives way to a sense of powerlessness.
The previous enumeration raises awareness about the persistence of diffuse uneasiness, especially the one stemming from the gap between the aspirations of the founders of Western democracies and the social reality in the context of the industrial revolution. Well, this type of revolution has never ceased; it carries on through the gradual automation of means of production – particularly now through artificial intelligence –, which responds to the imperative (itself a form of ideal) of providing products and services with impeccable quality, optimal cost, and immediate availability.
If individual action on the causes of political, social, or environmental uneasiness proves limited, including through engagement in a movement or a political party, if the multiplication of crises seems insufficient to change ingrained ways of thinking and acting within a culture that reproduces them from one generation to the next, if the historical context lends itself to a resurgence of wars and self-isolation, wouldn’t it be an opportunity to introduce a distance from our values by questioning them and, in doing so, distancing ourselves from the uneasiness, events, and individuals associated with them?
Historically and traditionally, social upheavals have been instigated by a minority of individuals and disseminated through political changes (constitutions, laws). The individualistic orientation taken by Western societies decreases the likelihood of major evolutions, especially in a context of increased interdependence between states and, more generally, between people. This is showed particularly through the obstacles faced by social critics.7 Nevertheless, should we turn upside down the social organization? Might not the uneasiness partly arise not from the structure of society, but from a race to fulfil idealizations imposed through various means on participants? One possibility to avoid being swept into the intrinsic blindness, frustration, and gloominess of our time is to study, explain, and question our values.
Creating Time for Reflection
Any reflection that questions our values requires time, as the history of philosophy attests. We have emphasized how values such as work, family, and leisure concretely oppose this type of inquiry by absorbing thoughts and motivations. Allocating time is, therefore, a particularly challenging step to take. However, it is now made easier thanks to the extraordinary economic development of the post-war period and the ongoing automation, which I perceive as a chance to work less rather than a risk of job destruction. This opportunity is already accessible to individuals with the capacity to reduce their working hours, a decrease that goes hand in hand with cutting expenses, in other words, a form of simplicity. Personally, I have been experimenting this way of life for more than five years.
It has become common for people to work part-time for a year or longer to take care of their family or pursue a personal project. Why not allocate time to educate ourselves and question our orientations? In addition to the hindsight and de-idealization facilitated by questioning, expanding one’s knowledge encourages considering the limits and weaknesses of convictions and arguments, thus adopting a certain intellectual humility that contributes to mitigating oppositions.
Notes
1.↑ Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.
2.↑ P. Bréchon, F. Gonthier, S. Astor (dir.), La France des valeurs. Quarante ans d’évolutions, Presses universitaires de Grenoble, 2019, p. 202-208.
3.↑ L’inflation qui dure et la crise du pouvoir d’achat alimentent la défiance et le sentiment de déclassement en France (lemonde.fr)
4.↑ See, for instance, the call of ten economists in Thomas Piketty’s blog in 2017 or this article whose authors endorse a version of a universal income in La Vie des Idées.
5.↑ Sigmund Freud, Le Malaise dans la culture, Flammarion, 2010. Freud postulates a fundamental human aggressiveness associated with the death drive. The death drive opposes the life drive that propels the development of civilizations.
6.↑ Alain Ehrenberg, La Société du malaise, Odile Jacob, 2010.
7.↑ See for instance this article (in French only) about the French sociologist Luc Boltanski’s conception of critique : https://damiengimenez.fr/reflexions-sur-le-modele-de-la-cite-et-sur-la-critique-chez-luc-boltanski/