Television

Hanouna-Boyard affair or the long march of the diminished man

Hanouna-Boyard affair or the long march of the diminished man


L’A country’s state of civility reflects its harmony, and sometimes, its chaos. This is one of the lessons to be learned from the recent antics in which a television host and a deputy from La France insoumise participated. Since then, they argue in order to know who was the most disrespectfullike two clowns competing for the funnel they could make a hat for themselves. Even if, it must be admitted, one of the protagonists had the merit of being “at home” and exercising his profession, and above all of never having been paid by the other. Which does not change the conclusions of this sequence, which is not a problem, but a symptom, which has nothing to do with the desire for buzz, but with stupidity, which ends up asphyxiating what arises from the intelligence, starting with politeness and courtesy.

Manners were not invented to please snobs. Their function is not only social, but anthropological. It is to attenuate the balance of power that companies decide to communicate according to a protocol of propriety. Individuals are different by nature. As they live together, they discuss and oppose each other based on contradictory convictions. This provokes a form of discontent that can lead, at a certain point, to the expression of physical violence. Now, the human community is more or less in agreement in distinguishing itself from the animal, which it dominates and above which it considers itself.

Social violence, verbal abuse

The end of the XVIIe century carried these principles to excess by imagining a society where the masters would have as their only mission refinement, which, pushed to a certain point, borders on absurdity, which precedes decadence. As Philippe Bausseant reminded us in The Sun King also risesno anger of Louis XIV in public is known. Likewise, the movie Favorite was a formidable picture of the consequences of excessive sophistication at the court of Anne of England. Work being despised, idleness becomes queen, and this inevitably leads to a confrontation of energies, to brutality, to a state of nature, that is to say animal. Balance in this matter is necessary under penalty of finding what we thought we were fighting.

The eighteenthe century will have carried the controversy in books, but also in salons where philosophers, writers, artists, scientists, rhetoricians, joyfully confronted their ideas. Convinced of the advent of a world whose ins and outs they did not know, not yet knowing how to become actors in it, they wanted to be the first to participate in it, at least intellectually and initially. While waiting for the Revolution, we discuss. This delicious chat ends from 1789. The way of communicating changes. Logorrhea replaces precision; the invective, the joust; opinions, ideas. It was a little vulgar, but probably necessary. One does not upset the social order by simpering, or even perhaps by reasoning. Social violence translates into verbal abuse before exploding into fights.

The beginning of the XXIe century is no exception to the rule. How many times have we heard this argument: social violence is sometimes worse than physical violence? Discontent flares up and forms a maelstrom of vulgarity, justified, it is said, by the legitimacy of anger. The lowering of decency does not happen with impunity; and the trickle of brutality is unstoppable. The individual is diminished, gradually loses his faculties of sophistication, even forgets, as befits an animal, speech.

READ ALSOCyril Hanouna, the groomer of the French

How do we want, in these circumstances, to still be able to discuss? Conversation is a space for confrontation and argument, it flatters egos and satisfies desires for power, it is played out in public and behind closed doors. From it, we draw the proofs of our humanity: familiarity, friendship, love and sometimes even political regimes. The English sometimes remember it better than us. In talk and talk (Talks and talkers), an article published in 1882, Robert Louis Stevenson writes: “It is by a certain disposition, both combative and courteous, belligerent, but not quarrelsome, that one immediately recognizes the conversationalist. […] I do not want doctrinaire pontiffs but hunters in search of an element of truth. Civilization is not relative when it contributes to the reign of intelligence.

#HanounaBoyard #affair #long #march #diminished #man

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button