Jean-Luc LAMOTTE, anthropologist and essayist

 Print This Post

A culture which does not improve the understanding of its time is a completely fruitless culture. In other words, we are in need, today, of a culture which enables us to formulate new problems in order to enter a world in which we confront the mutation in which we live, and, when I say “mutation”, I should actually say, the new “Renaissance”. Because we do not crumble, on the contrary, we enter another universe, and success will go to those who have discerned the signs of the time rather than to the romantics (who are fewer and fewer, it is true) who wallow in their nostalgia. And it is there that lies the stakes of anthropology. We no longer need a vision more or less transcendental of Man (humanism), but a scientific comprehension of the way in which man, anthropologically, functions.

It is thus a question of being in a position to consider a diagnosis of our time, even if that displeases some. Because I well know that I displease, quite simply because I generalise things. It is not meant to wound, but to crystallise, in order to make comprehensible to you the rigour of a thought which wants to be scientific. Our intellectuals have genius, that point is not in question. My difference with them it is that I do not have any, and this is why I need strength. And time passes (it has already been ten years since I had the immodesty to publish my “Introduction to the theory of the mediation”) and the urgency of the problem is increasing. Nobody can deny it. For this reason I will continue to systematically explain, yet again this year, the consequences of the theory worked out by Jean Gagnepain, and I will explain them in a manner more “mordicus” than ever, without paying attention to those who may be annoyed or upset.

Let us start, while breaking more than ever with the erudition, by examining current events. “That is the equivalent of the press”, you may think. Not so. If our teaching is worthless, the information is almost nonexistent, for the good reason that the teachers as journalists (in particular political observers) completely lack the model which would enable them to interpret what de Gaulle called the “adventures” of History. However, if we want these adventures to take on a meaning (and, again, what is the point of a science which does not try to bring understanding to the things of life?), we need a model (in the quasi mathematical meaning of the term), and it is this model, the Mediation Theory, that I will apply systematically. It is basically a new type of teaching which is not journalism insofar as it is constructed and that, each time, it refers to the principles which explain it. In other words, my intention is to formulate, not always solutions, but rather the specific problems, which give hope to finding solutions one day. Look at, for example, the crisis of the Socialist party. There are those who say: “They do not have a project”. Indeed, to have a project, one needs a viable model of mankind.

On the other hand, if one wants to say something, if not precise or final, at least which goes in the “direction of History”, as one says, one must exclude any reference to opinion. If I asked you “What is your opinion on phosphorus?”, you will not have one. On water, perhaps; you can say “Me, I like the sun more that the rain”. But nevertheless water, in itself, remains H20, and, on this point, there are no doctrines, no conflicts of theories. With the higher level of physics, of course, there may be three or four! But it stops there. And the same, physiologically, chicken pox is chicken pox. There cannot be any changes of heart on the subject, of reactions to it. If we do not need opinions on chicken pox or phosphorus, why should one want to systematically have opinions concerning man? When one speaks about policy, it is always a matter of opinion, opinions based on surveys. The surveys, certainly, are not worthless, but one can make a survey on just about anything. Someone could ask you “Do you think that love brings happiness?”. But what is love? And what is happiness? If one wants to truly study Social science, it is necessary to take the whole of it: one should renounce all opinions in advance (even if it is, sometimes, very difficult to not have them).

For this reason it is useless to ask you, the question: “Which are his opinions?”. During my life, I have worn many labels: fascist, libertarian, Maoist, “right wing”, “left wing”, etc No more of that! This is why I can, for example, speak freely to you about the current “crisis” with the P.S. It is not at all a crisis of the P.S., but a general crisis of the parties. Firstly, the situation was convenient: there was “the right-hand” side and “the left”, and it was this antagonism which made them “hold” together. Now there is no “right”, how can there be a “left”? And reciprocally, as there is no longer a “left”, there can no longer be a “right”! “How is that, you may say, and what about the U.M.P?”. It is no more to the right than the others are to the left. All that it is finished. If one of the two poles of antagonism disappears, the other disappears at the same time. This is a constant! What balanced the “liberal capitalism” of the West, if not, the “State capitalism” in the East? Think of the fall of the Berlin Wall. I lived that. Nobody, in old Europe, was delighted, except a few living in denial. All the others were saying “What will happen now? It is over!”. And indeed, it was finished. There is no longer a need for an “anti capitalist” movement (of which type of capitalism do we refer moreover, State? Liberal? Industrialism? Economic? Financial?). Like everyone in the West knows (or rather feels), it is rotten, everyone’s busy running around frantically filling their pockets. I would say: “It is normal, the boat’s sinking”. Still another example, closer to home: the antagonism of Faculties of letters and Faculties of science. Faculties of letters are dying. Well, Faculties of science will die at the same time, since it is their antagonism (inherited from the Renaissance in the XVI century) which made them both “stand”! I could multiply the examples ad infinitum, from the most macroscopic level to the most microscopic level. There was, in our civilization, a good old antagonism between man and woman. It no longer needs to exist either. All that is gone! But it is that which is enthralling! At all levels, we are obliged to invent a new world if we want to survive. And when I say “us”, I do not think only of the Occident, but of humanity as a species!

They seek to frighten us with a whole heap of trifles like the melting of the glaciers, climate warming, the atomic bomb, etc. For my part, I do not think that mankind, if it must perish (which is highly probable), will perish due to mans cupidity, economics or technique, but quite simply because he risks, one day, giving up “making the man”. I often say: “Nothing is ever acquired by man, not even his humanity!”. But if we lose our humanity, we lose ourselves as a species, because of this neoteny which makes us animals that cannot survive in a natural environment. I am not teaching you anything new here. We all know, since the beginning of the XX century that we are neotenic animals, i.e. able to reproduce in a larval state. From the point of view of evolution, we are larvae – and here is what Lamarck (nor, a fortiori, his English translator, Darwin), never says. From the point of view of evolution, we represent a rupture, a failure, and thus each one of us has the responsibility for the whole species. You see the formidable stakes of an authentic anthropology! However, for those of us restrained in the Occident, I do not believe at all either in our “decline”, to speak like Spengler, but rather with our new rise. And even in the Occident I believe that France can play a considerable part in this rise. The world awaits a sign from us.

However, can one say that the human side will always resist in man? To tell the truth, in the long run, no one knows. When referring to the “death of civilizations”, in the past, one would be inclined to answer in the affirmative (after each “death”, there is resurrection!), but with what we know of evolution a negative answer may be more appropriate. Let us say that man is always “in deferment”, and that, from this point of view, it is completely pointless to think in terms of “Progress”. If I referred to Lamarck, it is because we do not include/understand anything of that so called, at the end of XIX century, “transformism”, or “evolutionism” if one does not replace these concepts in the context of our “Century of Light”, where one spoke about “Natural history” (see Buffon), History that one could conceive only as a continuum which led of course to the top of the evolutionary ladder, namely the French of the XVIII century! It is there that Historians seek constantly, even today, “to glue” the ruptures. However, what is interesting, anthropologically, is not so much continuity, but the solutions of continuity, and it is certainly a solution of continuity which inaugurates the man, i.e. the existence of an animal perfectly unsuited to its environment, a “pipedream”, to some extent, to speak like Pascal. It is this “dream” which we should take into account.

It is enthralling, but also somewhat distressing. However do you believe that with the death of the Empires and, more recently, in the XV century, in France, people were not distressed? For them, also, everything was finished! However, the wheels set to turning yet again. What is a little more alarming is when the change, the mutation, happens on a global level. But what does that change on the level of the processes? Take, for example, the death of Michael Jackson. That was the globalisation of what? Hysteria quite simply, but hysteria has never changed nature as much! H2O remains H20. Admittedly, there is more, in this phenomenon, because who was Michael Jackson? Neither child, nor adult, neither man nor woman, neither black nor white, in short, a symbol of a formidable border “crisis”, as much cultural as natural, by which, you know, is characterized any change (it is not a question of the Crisis, with a capital letter, that is a mediationist concept, contrary to what I wrote in my glossary at the end of my Introduction…). At the bottom, it is a crisis of identity, comparable, mutatis-mutandis, with the crisis of the German identity under the III Reich. Look at the person of Hitler, and especially the face. Hitler also was neither man nor woman, neither child nor adult, etc It is the same crisis of identity, but on another scale. Nothing is new under the sun, in the end. As Schopenhauer said, “semper idem, sed aliter”: it is always the same thing, in spite of a varying appearance, in other words, if one goes back to the process. Nothing new, with the proviso of having the correct glasses to see the process!

Having stated that, I repeat it, if we do not take anthropology into account, we are finished. But it is not enough to say: “we will do better”. Think about this! Since I am man (that has been quite a while now!), I well know what it is worth, a man! Consequently, I know very well that we will not do “better” than our ancestors. We will make man differently, that is all.

Here then is what I propose that you do this year: try to build the future, starting from an analysis of our problems, those you would like to suggest to me. Because you are in the middle of it, you and your children. We all have an interest, not to necessarily think the same thing, but together, to try to work out the models adapted to the formidable changes which we know exist. And since we are at the point of returning to school and academia, and that, if you have understood my meaning, it is a question “of making man”, you will also understand  the absolute, considerable importance that it is necessary to grant, in any society, to education, and, therefore, to the “child”.

But does “the child” exist? Here is what we have to start by elucidating, elucidation which will serve as preamble, with our ultimate reflexions, and allow me to specify our future perspective.

Generally, I feel that the child is completely, or almost completely, manufactured: it is a pure and simple “artefact” of culture, we could say a product of civilization. It is certain that, when one speaks about the child, one believes that it is about a universal gift, so many good souls take their defence, referring to this or that civilization: “Look at them, those brutes, who make the children work at seven years old, do not send them to the school, prostitute them, reduce them to slavery, etc”, as if the child were universal of humanity. However the child, to tell the truth, does not have, culturally, any other existence than that of the parental relationship, or, more exactly, the child is human only as it is registered in the history and the company of their parents, and this inscription results in as many different types of children as types of civilization. I would have extreme trouble in counting them: they do not cease to multiply, diffract, converge, etc. Imagine, for example, what is the African child at their place (I say “child”, although it is not known if the pure concept of “the child”, purely European, is itself transposable in the majority of the African cultures). Even at the time of colonialism, when one preached, for example: “Go! All children of Chad, to the French school”. What a business! Because, what exactly did “the school” represent for the Chadians? Strictly nothing: they had a social system completely different from ours, and it is not generally known if ours was exportable, or even desirable to export. In short, the child is only what you make of it, and as there are innumerable civilizations, the child is always and everywhere different: one could quote the child king, the child soldier, the child of Mary, etc… What they all have in common, certainly, is to not be the “young”, as when one speaks of an animal’s “young”, no more than the woman is reduced to the female, nor the man, the male.

To be convinced of the existence of this quasi illusion which is the child, even in our European culture, it is enough to read one of the most intelligent books written on the subject, I refer to the work of Philippe Ariès, entitled: “The child and the family under the Old Ways”. The historian shows here that the child such as we know it, in France, was born around the XVII century. It is around this time, that a “childish universe”, sociologically autonomous, came into being. From this time the child was clothed in a particular way and given toys. With the Middle Ages, on the other hand, the child was clothed simply with what was too worn for an adult, in other words the concept of rompers did not exist! In addition the toy, which has such an economic importance today, did not always exist. Thus the doll, for example, was a fashion figurine intended for adult clothing display purposes, when the dress was made, one gave the miniature model to the children: “Go! Have fun with that, it will keep you quiet! ”.

Now what happens? Exactly the opposite: it is even surprising that mothers do not play with their daughters’ “Barbie dolls”, dolls that are only the economic exploitation of a “childish universe”, purely fantasy – without mentioning the educational qualities of the toy – or, more exactly, of the game, the toy being only a technical part of the game. In other words, the toy, if you want, as a miniature, is related to the idea that, sociologically, a child is a “non worker”, socially without output, and can therefore only play. What do we know? Let us look at child’s play, it is seldom amusing for them, don’t you find? In fact, when we say that the child “plays”, actually they devote themselves to a completely serious occupation. It’s dreadful! And when their mother prevents them from “playing” under the pretext of going to get some shopping, they answer with: “And my job? You don’t respect that?”. Maybe they don’t say it, but it is seen as such! In other words, the majority of time, the intervention of the adult in the child’s play is completely catastrophic, as catastrophic as the intrusion of the child in a game of bridge or chess between adults (they are not having fun either: they are playing!).

Take, still, the habitation. With the Middle Ages there were no differences between the habitation of the children and that of the adults. Look at the paintings of that time: you always have little ones underfoot. Why? Because the child did not exist. But from the moment when it was considered that there existed, sociologically, a “childish universe”, even if it were entirely manufactured, there were, gradually places for the children, and, gradually, under the British influence, one created, in the XIX century, the nurseries, then kindergartens and schools. And, better, what of our High Schools, Colleges and Universities, are they not alternatives of the nursery, i.e., in reality, types of ghetto!

You see that speaking, like one generally does, of “childhood” as a universal betrays from the start the point of view, very ethnocentric, at which one places oneself, because childhood is universal only in its biology – and even then, it is general and not universal, because the universal is opposed to the singular, and on the other, culturally, as I said to you previously, there are as many children as of societies. Consequently, you can speak about the child in general and you consider it only from the point of view of its biology, or you deal with the child as a reality of culture: at this time there is not a child in the world which is comparable to another for the good reason that there are only cultures, in the plural, i.e. there are only societies. Even in the case where, in some of these societies, one finds similar children’s problems, it is simply that these societies converged and that, consequently, the concept of the child results from their efforts of communication. But nevertheless the child is related to the culture and there are as many children as of societies. This is important if one wants to avoid the trap of too hasty generalizations, and the ridiculous comparisons which makes one speak about the African or Asian child like a European child.

It is not that all three do not have the same “rights”, but what exactly does the expression “rights of the child” mean: if the child does not exist, except biologically, if it does not exist as a specific reality, if it is not a species of sub-human who has its small, autonomous organization, how can it have rights? Actually, the problem has shifted! When one speaks about the “right of the child”, one should say “the rights of the potential person in them to leave childhood”, i.e. the right to grow up and be trained, agreed, but it is the potential person in them which has rights, exactly as it has the right to be cured if it is sick, the right to be punished, if it is delinquent, etc… the child has all these rights, but there is no reason to speak about the “rights of the child” as if the child were a species particular to the range of vegetables. If I said that the problem has shifted, it is, actually, because there is, in our society, a formidable resignation of the parents and teachers (we will certainly have the occasion to return to this point). It is clear, it seems to me, that instead of speaking about the “rights of the child”, it would be more relevant to speak of the “duties of the parents” or the “duties of the teachers”, and in particular, of a whole group of duties of assistance!

However, of this whole group of duties of assistance there can be autonomy of education only if there is the child. If there is no child, there is no education either. In other words, so that there is sociologically speaking, education, it is thus necessary that there is, sociologically speaking, a teaching career, buildings which one calls schools, and a particular aspect of this method of assistance which we will call, at this moment “pedagogy”. However, this career does not have anything absolutely inescapable: it is a phenomenon of culture which is not found everywhere: it is a function of a certain type of society, like ours, which recognizes autonomy in this “cultural species” that one calls “the child”. Consider what occurs in a time like ours which, at least in the Occident, tends to reduce the human to its biology. That the young of man like the adult comes from biology, but how is the young of man, biologically, different from an adult? Except when infected with chicken pox or measles, there is practically no difference. But just as we manufactured pedagogues, we manufactured pediatrists, and it is also, because the pediatrists exist, in our societies, that we say: “the child exists”.

Then you see the perspective in which I will place myself. It will be that which results from our convergences of Occidentalism, i.e., it is necessary to be aware, that all that I could tell you has nothing to do with what happens in Asia or Africa where the child, as we conceive it, does not exist. Take, to finish, the concept of “orphan”, which exists here. This concept is not transposable to Africa where the orphan does not exist, except for a certain Non Governmental Organization perfectly neo-colonialist (the Arch of Zoe, not to quote it)!

Connerie or human silliness? This is what, the next time, will hold our attention.

écrit par admin \\ tags: anthropologically, artefact, authentic anthropology, child king, child of Mary, child soldier, childish universe, civilization, concept of the child, conflicts of theories, convergences of occidentalism, crisis of the Socialist, culture, Darwin, diagnosis of our time, direction of history, education, erudition, ethnocentric, European child, evolutionism, faculties of science, fascist, Hitler, human, humanity, III Reich, Introduction to the theory of the mediation, liberal capitalism, libertarian, making the man, maoist, Middle Ages, model of mankind, mutation, natural history, neo-colonialist., neoteny, parental relationship, pascal, pedagogues, pedagogy, pediatrists, Philippe Ariès, physiologically, reference to opinion, Schopenhauer, scientific, singular, slavery, social science, society, state capitalism, transcendental, transformism, universal, universal gift

écrit par admin \\ tags: 19th literature, abstract, abstract logic, Abstraction, Act of faith, aesthetics, aesthetics fraud, analysis, analysis reciproque, animism, Anthropo-mathematics, Anthropologist, Anthropology clinical, aphasiologie, aphasique, Arbitrary, arithmetical progress, art, art abstracts, autocontrole, Babel, Bacon, balzac, Beautiful writing, béhavoriste, brains machines, calculation, calligraphy, capacity of sign, catholic Christian, cerebral man, certainty, childish language, chomsky, Clinical anthropology, cognitive, cognitive processes, Cognitivistes, comment of human sciences, comment of philosophy, committed literature, communication, concept autonomy, concept freedom, convergence, cortex man, criticizes literature, dead, démocrite, descartes, determinism, dialectic, dialectical materialism, disciple, divergence., dogma, ecriture concept, einstein, endocentric, erotical-scatological, essayist, ethologie, etymology, exocentric, experimentale science of the man, faith, ferdinand of saussure, figures, formal art, free expression, freedom expression, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, freedom opinion, french literature, function poetics, fundamentalism, gagnepain jean, geometrical eye, god, grammar, heritage, historic materialism, history art, human difference threshold, human productions, human sciences, humanist literature, iconographer, ideogram, impoliteness, intelligence, jean gagnepain, jean-luc lamotte, Judeo - Christian, kant, language, language scientist, languages, leaders works, legitimacy, levi strauss, linguistic languages, literary text, literature, literature sciences, logarithm, logography, looks for in human sciences, malpractice, marx, mastery of one, materialism dialectic, math, mathematics, mathematics of children, meadow human science, mental artificial man, mental man, metalanguage, metaphysical, methodology, model of human rationality, molière, montaigne, montesquieu, morin edgar, mutiplication, néoténie, neurobiology, neurology, neuron, neuronal computer, neuronal developpement, neuronal functioning, neuronal man, neurons, neurosciences, neuroscientists, nietzsche, of gagnepain jean in saussure, oral literature, parietal frescoes, parsing, pascal, pedagogy, percept, philological faculty and human sciences of Rennes, philosophia naturalis, philosophia supernaturalis, philosophy, phonosémiographique, pictogram, plastic arts, process dialectic, professors of language, professors of literature, prosody, Protestant, psyche, psychoanalyst, quantity., rabelais, racine jean, reason, religious, religious phenomenon, religious thinkers, researcher anthropologist, revival, rhetoric, Roman Catholic Church, sartre, saussurien, science, science of man, science of men, science of the man, sciences morality, sculpture, semiology, sémotique, sensorialité, social existence, social rationality, societies without history, sociolinguistic rationality, sound and sense, spiritual, standard, structuralism, studies and research in anthropology, sublimation, systems of faiths, technical abstraction, technical rationality, technical style, the baroque's style, the implicit Gothic, the theater of the absurd, theater of the absurd, theatre, theoliangs, theology, Theory mediation humain science, theory of mediation, Theory of the mediation, thought, thought Christian, to conceptualize, to think, tradition culture, transcending, translation, Treated with epistemology, understandable, university, Vatican, verbal, verbal structure, ways of writing, what is to think, work literature, writers moralists, written literature, yourcenar, zola

 Print This Post

I am going to start, by giving you a quick historical perspective, in so far as, in our world culture and writing link has begun to unravel, we cannot stop letters to continue. But they do like a progressive displacement.

If you look French through ages, you will quick understand that that knowledge is obviously connected to the conditions that are culturally ours. Well, we should be aware that it is what we recently said: “In the Middle Ages, there were French texts which were worth. There was, for example, the Roland’s song, etc.” Medieval university has completely ignored these French texts, even those produced by Rutebeuf or Villon. And, why did the Middle Age deliberately put aside these texts? Because this was not made to know, but, as Nietzsche very nicely said: it was the “gay science,” or the anti-science, the science used to protest, not recognized by the university: the science of that time, and until the XVI century, was Latin, French and these sciences were not more than a gay science.

When was the first displacement, which led the birth of “French literature,” effectuated? In the Renaissance, when the “Modern Times” were appearing with Rabelais. If Rabelais is ludicrous, “Gallic,” a pig and everything you want, it is because he was just rehabilitating the medieval gay science, but in French. It was a very great revolution: before, French texts had any status, from now on, they have one. Of course, there were a few years that it was being prepared. There was a pre literature, a “protohistory” literature, if I can say, represented by those that has been called the major Rhetoric men, which rhyme in French and who began to try to place their productions into the refined society. But Renaissance is a breath of oxygen; it is the French all fronts, the gay science carefully promoted.

But what has done this gay science promotion? At the beginning, it was liberation, with all the excesses that all liberation has: a real passion! However, little by little, the passion had decreased, and this was the birth of what we have called “literature,” which consisted to express even the most serious things in French, things of that time, the science of that time. But this was not the science of the university, which continued to be expressed in Latin, but, in some way, a science for university, which was passed in French. In these circumstances, you understand that texts such as those of Madam de La Fayette, the tragedies of Racine, or the comedies of Moliere were literature, as well as the speech of the Descartes’ method, the thoughts of Pascal or the spirit of the laws of Montesquieu. When we see Descartes’ writings included in the XVII° manuals of literature, we can see this: “What can the speech of the method do for literature?” Well, the answer is that because Descartes expressed his method in French. It was the same, with Pascal. There are certainly many illegible things on his writings, but it was the theology in French. Do you understand now that what makes good a tragedy of Racine, Descartes, Pascal or Montesquieu, was that these authors expressed in French a science that, since the middle age to the XVIII° siècle, would not interest anybody, because the science was written in Latin. We must see the “French literature,” as a phenomenon in the margin of university, and almost in conflict with it. If you want to see like this, university was the science of the “right,” and literature, the science of the “left””: this literature consisted to speak like a “decent man,” and not like an old grimoire reader, and this was not a science the same as the one of the university. You understand, in these circumstances, why the ancestors of our current “human sciences” are the psychological novelists, the classical theater, the moralists’ writers, etc. We see these texts as works of art. They had certainly this character-here too, but they had mainly this particular nature of represent a science in separation with the University of that time, and not only one that was worth as a university science but one that had hoped too well exceeds it.

When was the second displacement, which superintended the birth of our “human sciences,” effectuated? In the XIX°, that was the époque of Balzac and the realism. From the realistic movement, things are starting to evolve. Literature becomes a “literature of message.” From that time, who has worked with sociology for example? Zola. It is the thesis message, if I dare to say: novel to thesis, theater to thesis, written by philosophers (at university, at this time there was a long time that we haven’t think!)

And we are in the third displacement, this means: the culmination of thoughts (this means the end of literature), like Sartre: read what he tells in Situations of the “committed literature.” From the moment where literature has been committed, this is no more than a war weapon, this is no more than a gay science (it is even terribly sadder!) and this is no more literature, it became another thing (it belongs to you to name this as you want). “And after Sartre, you will ask me, what remains of the French literature?” The answer is: nothing. It is Byzantine; I mean the “new novel”, the “absurd theater,” the “new criticism.” Nothing! One day, someone asked me what is left of the French literature since the end of the second war (1945) to now. My first reaction was, precisely, to answer “nothing!” And then, after a carefully thought, I replied: “perhaps the words of Sartre, and the memories of Hadrian of Marguerite Yourcenar.” You must admit that this is not very much! You must conceive that French literature is dead, when the Science of men born.

This does not mean that it does not present any interest. Because, who spoke of the man, until the middle of the last century? Well, literature did. For the reason that since Bacon, it was born what he called the naturalist philosophy by the time of the Renaissance, and from this philosophy it comes the issues of our “nature sciences.” And to make a science of Man (with a capital letter!) this creature quasi divine, was excluded. Consequently, literature (history and philosophy included), has filled the historic role of conservatory of the man (“pre human sciences,” or, the gay science of Modern Times). People sometimes ask me this question: “How is it that, after having done your humanities studies, then you devoted to linguistics, and then to anthropology?” You understand that the only thing that I was interested in life was the answer to this question: What is a man (with a tiny letter)? Literature gave me the first answers, then I started to be engaged to what are the highest antiquities and the first real science of Man (thinking that language was natural in men), to be exact it is grammar, called “linguistic” when I was teaching, linguistics took me, logically, to anthropology. You see that there is, in my route, an intellectual and a perfect consistency. I close parenthesis here and I return to my business.

You understand that when somebody says to you, “I teach French literature” (from Rabelais to Sartre!) It became completely clichéd (it is good to be on museum) and, above all, how would you like to put all of these works in the same cart? This is ridiculous!

In the other hand, we must see that the texts we continue to call “literary” are a mass of determinisms. That is what I blame to my childhood teachers because instead of deconstruct the text, they took it globally (it was the famous “text explanation”), but it should have different specialists who would have treated those texts with different methods: there is, indeed, in the literary text the sociologist works, the psychoanalyst, the historian, the psychologist, the linguist, etc. In a single literary text there is a lot for what to devote a full year, the year which would be more informative as the exam, more or less intuitive of a series of “chosen pieces.” But it is true that such as education would require, of the professor in French Literature, a series of knowledge and a synthesis gift which is quite unusual! You can believe me, this is what I have tried to practice while I was a student (a superior student, it is true). But, believe me, I do not regret this: I am proud to believe, I am proud of passionate my students of License while explaining them… “The rabbit and the turtle”! I have never stopped to teach them to read, but wearing another glasses (already!) This is why I have always thought, and continue to believe that the question of programs and schedules have no interest (this is the kitchen ones.) The content, in a general way, have too little to do with the spirit formation. What really counts are the glasses, this means what some people call the method. That is why I think that literary texts cannot be successfully used in higher education.

Is it necessarily to remove the teaching of French Literature in our secondary education like some people, not without reason, want? I will answer: “no”, for the simple reason that, nobody (only a barbarian) is going to burn files. But if we do, we should also burn all our museums! But a museum, we can range that, we can range a few stops before to select certain oeuvres. I could take another example: the metropolitan. You go in the train and you browse the line, with the intention to stop in a few stations. Take again, these small tourist trains you make the “historic” tour of a city marking the time of stops before that or that monument. You all are going to laugh, but when I arrive in a city that I do not know; I borrow these small tourist trains and then I return to visit that or that monument which interested me the most. In other words, what French Literature teachers should propose in the end of secondary school, it is a perspective tour. But this perspective tour could be proposed by both the gym coach, why not, if he has good taste and if he knows how to read the Michelin Guide of literature and can catch the interest of his students!

That says, I have quite quickly understood, that at the same time that “human sciences” were taught in our “Faculties of Letters and human sciences” (it is the “and”, here, that is significant here), were always and only just literature, although they were parts, shortly after my studies of Philosophy License. It seems that these “human sciences,” taught in our Faculties of letters have an objective: the man with a small first letter, and no longer a capital letter, as it was the case in humanism which never ends to die. Then, some of these literary specialists of “human sciences” derive in decorating a man to try to make an object that looks scientific. They have taken from science, not its formalization requirement, but its language and its appearance, no more or less. Thus, some psychologists, baptized “Neuropsychologists,” put up with white blouses, have their laboratories, measure, online, etc. However, in those “labs,” it is certain that they are attempting to check “data”, but of the data which is never defined! Sociologists they make statistics! And they do not have a model underlying the phenomena that they describe, they cannot do anything but describe them (and not to explain). But how can they describe them? With numbers (all the same it makes them more intelligent). But statistics are like computers. If the data that we trust to computers is silly, it is certain that the computer will deal with this silliness (computers are ready to work with anything). It is the same in statistics: you will have silly answer in respond of a silly question.

Finally, haven’t taken anything from science but the appearance, I mean computing, statistics or laboratory, the object “man” (with a small m) is there and it is as virgin as it entered. It is true that these “human sciences” have nothing to do with science but outside the flattering of a simply testify to the claim of literary that have not been able to build scientifically their object.

It remained the sniper, Edgar Morin, who made good used of his concept of complexity. I do not say that he is silly, far from that, but I say that he thinks that we must forget everything from the past and start all over again: “The lost paradigm is definitively lost, but I will invent it all!” The result: it says nothing! For that reason, he refuges, like all the literary men, behind the complexity of men. “Study the phosphorus, ok! Analyze calves, it is already easier, but, compared to a man, a calf is all the same simple. A man, he is much more complicated, subtler, he has more ends!”

I was there, on my career when I had, like twenty years ago, the chance to meet Jean Gagnepain, and to be part of his disciples. When I met him I have quickly understood, that to preach a truly scientific knowledge of the man, meant that we have to shoot down the main obstacles to the advent of this new knowledge, beginning with these famous “Faculties of Letters and human sciences.” Indeed, if, for example, you refer to the Renaissance, you can see that humanism has not been able to prevail only when, under the blows of Rabelais and company, Sorbonne’s lock has jumped. But at the time, the old “Sorbonicoles”, exactly as those of today, wanted to reform themselves to adapt. But there were others, more realistic who understood that any reform was already condemned: there had to do something else. That is exactly what Jean Gagnepain understood.

In the age, which is no more the age of humanism, but the age of  the anti-humanism, I mean, the treatment of the man by man who presides over the emergence of a true man’ Science, it is time to become to be aware of what is the main obstacle to the beginning of this new era. The problem of training, not only for tomorrow, but also for today, was through the kill of literature. Certainly, if the current literature had become the enemies, it is after having been the most beautiful fleuron of the humanism of the university. But, as Marx said while speaking of bourgeois, they have been a necessary evil; they have played their historic role, the one of being the pre human sciences. From this point of view, the sciences called “soft” (psychology, sociology, political science) extend the historic role of literature (philosophy, beautiful letters, and history included). This historic role has consisted to put men inside the fridge for better study them, while waiting for science called “nature.”

I want to say that these “soft” sciences are being yield before the “hard” Sciences of the man, since the work of this genius still too poorly known, Jean Gagnepain, which is the real founder of the experimental Science of the man. Let me explain that.

It is Freud which gave to Jean Gagnepain the idea of an explanatory clinic, in other words, a type of clinic that allowed him to perpetually submit in question the theoretical model of the man that he has developed during almost half century. That is absolutely fundamental. The one, who really won, in the psychoanalytic treatment, was Freud, which recognized that he had never healed anyone! Freud, basically, became more and more intelligent and, in theory, more and more evil as he submitted his patients to his cure. That is what has given to Jean Gagnepain the idea of a clinic that he wanted to be squarely experimental. He said that it was not because we change of “object,” I mean, to “pass” from nature to man (constructing this “object” man, it is obvious) that we change scientifically: science must have, first of all a coherent model, and also, a place of verification. It must be experimented somewhere, where the idea that the clinic had, in the man, was the only place of verification. To talk about this clinic, Jean Gagnepain referred often the work of a mechanic. In a car, it is rare that everything is wrong at the same time: once, it is the ignition, then the carburetion, etc. It is why he always compared himself to a mechanic who had learned the mechanical in repairing the failure of a car. Because, as in a car, it is rare among the man that everything is wrong at the same time. Nothing breaks down at one stroke: we never lose lucidity, but the reason could become an object of experimental science.

Talking about that, the theory of mediation is what we can indeed call a clinical anthropology. And the mediators (grouped together under the name of School of Rennes), of the same time, are the first in the world to bet in the need to establish a scientific approach to the man who gives himself, of course, a theoretical model, and, at the same time, a place of experimentation. In other words, the link between theory and clinic is so fundamental, that cannot be separated one from the other…except, as I will do, most often, by convenience of exposure (and then we cannot do everything!)

I have spoken about Freud, but this does not mean that Jean Gagnepain unconditionally adheres himself to the psychoanalysis. It corrects the excesses. Excesses of verbosity, firstly because Freud had discovered the unconscious of the conscience representative, while there is also a technical “unconscious,” a social “unconscious” and a ethic “unconscious,” and this is why Jean Gagnepain replaces the concept of unconscious that is implied.

The second corrective is the service that he brings to the historicism in which Freud locked himself, the “stages,” the “regression”, historicism, etc. If you want to know, Jean Gagnepain is not for the Urszene (“primitive scene”,) but for the Grundszene (“fundamental scene”.)

The second precursor that Jean Gagnepain recognizes is Ferdinand de Saussure and his structural design of the verbal sign (in fact it is an anachronism: Ferdinand de Saussure has never used the word “structure,” he speaks of “system”.) The discovery of Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) has been for Jean Gagnepain as for a lot of French intellectuals, a real revelation, and a revelation that came late (toward the end of the 40s), while the famous general linguistics course date…from 1916! (It is to tell you how it works in French University!) Well, the famous linguist Genovese is the first to have shown that, in the language anything was obvious, but that, under the phenomenon, there was another thing, that Jean Gagnepain baptized as “grammar,” for the object to the “rhetoric” which only, as we will see, is manifested in the phrase.

But it must be clear that the idea of “system” implementation of Saussure, and which was then called “structure” has been completely perverted by the successors of Saussure, those that are called “structuralists,” then “semiologists” and others “semiotics.” All of these people have given to sign an abusive importance: for them everything is a sign! This is the full recovery! Jean Gagnepain gives to the sign a considerable importance too, but not at all in the same way that the structuralists do. He uses it as analogue, this means that the principle of explanatory sign, is worth, analogue, for the tool, the person and the standard. That is, very quickly what Jean Gagnepain owe to Saussure.

Finally, it is the Marxist praxis which led Jean Gagnepain to the theory of an incorporated rationality. In other words, this idea of praxis, borrowed from Marx, has led him to ask the reality of the explanatory principle that is the reason, not from outside of the man, but in the man. And it is even the difference between the sciences called “of man” and the sciences called “of nature.” All of two belong to the same rationality, but it is found that, in nature, there is no reason anywhere: it is the man who explains it; in the other hand, the man has reason, it is even one of the characteristics of the “object” (the man) to be study scientifically. So if the sciences called “the man” cannot be that science in double (talking about mathematics), since the rationality is, at once, at the thinker and in the object that he studied. At the same time, it is important to make this incorporation of the rationality in the object even (the man) if that is the one who we want to study scientifically.

Among those who have preceded Jean Gagnepain, which has pushed this reality all alone, it is Marx which, as you know, history was not the fact of the “professional” historian (if he is historian of France, art, literature, etc. ) but of the historian that we all are. What had Marx envisaged, consciously? A theory of a man and as the man was defined by history, it was necessary to deal as scientifically as possible, by developing a historical materialism. Only again, as well as the semiology and the semiotics have played a tour to enjoy Saussure and have made ridicules the structuralism (including the one of Levi-Strauss) which became a new idealism, of the same Engels and Feuerbach have played the same turn to enjoy the historical materialism of Marx by pulling, as long as they were able, to what has been called. Then materialism generalized, this means that the “materialism dialectic” (which Marx, aged and tired, has finished by subscribing), and which was for the whole evolution of the cosmos! In other words, the “materialism dialectic,” in making dialectic a process for culture (this means for the man), and for the nature, it comes to a full materialism. In short words, “materialism dialectic” drowned Marx, exactly as structuralism drowned Saussure.

That said, and to conclude, I would like you to say a word to describe my relationship with Jean Gagnepain. In a general way, I would say that the Master is neither one we respect, nor the one with which we break: we live from him. In other words, the Master, we do respect ever, because the respect is a sign of death. When I speak to you about Jean Gagnepain, I do exist. But where am I myself? But, it is not important. This does not say that the memory of Jean Gagnepain is not, in itself, worthy of respect that we owe to human genius, but it cannot serve us, to me personally, and to you, through an intermediary, in the extent that we digested, where we are doing our case. Not a question we cannot stop a Master in history: this would be, beautiful and well the “destroy” to go after Sartre.

I would like to add that the Master, if he is a Master in thinking (which no longer exists in France for a long time) is not a teacher, on the contrary! Take Maître Albert, in the Middle Age: when Master Albert was confusing with the Sorbonne, he took his cliques and his claques and he did secession, I mean, that he took his neighborhoods on the place to which, in Paris, he gave his name: the Maubert plaza. He was installed there and he gave his cathedra outside, and everyone followed him. He had the charisma, he drew crowds, he thought, and he was free.

Well, Jean Gagnepain, if you want, is the Master Albert of the man’ Science. You understand, in these conditions, that his thoughts can disturb, or even indignant, especially for the academia.

So much better, if this thinking, that I will try to transmit to you (if you “us” made the honor to “us” follow) I invite you to reflection.

Translated by WEBOMAX

écrit par admin \\ tags: 19th literature, Bacon, balzac, committed literature, criticizes literature, french literature, gagnepain jean, historic materialism, human sciences, humanist literature, levi strauss, literary text, literature, litteraire, litterature sciences, marx, materialism dialectic, meadow human science, molière, montesquieu, morin edgar, of gagnepain jeans in saussure, pascal, professors of literature, rabelais, racine jean, revival, sartre, science of the man, semiology, sémotique, structuralism, theater of the absurd, Theory mediation humain science, work literature, writers moralists, yourcenar, zola