PART 3

SOCIAL AND POLITICAL APPLICATIONS
Concerning democracy and other forms of government
Educate - Form - Instruct
or education through the ages

Let us consider some definitions taken from the latest dictionaries, for example the "Petit Robert" and the "Petit Larousse" :

Petit Robert :

Education : "Putting into effect the means proper to assure the education and development of the human being."

Form : "Intellectual and moral education of a human being."

Instruction: "The action to learn that which is useful and indispensible to know. Action to form and enrich the mind."

Petit Larousse :

Education : "Action to form, to instruct."

Instruction : "Education, mold by instruction, education."

To form : Educate, to mould by instruction, education."

We note that to educate is to form and instruct, that to instruct is to form and to educate, and to form is to educate and instruct ! We are going around in circles. The vagueness of these definitions comes from the habit of the intellectuals to define words by other words and abstract by the abstract, without considering the concrete.

We know that the concrete preceded the abstract and that it is things which gave birth to words. As long as words were associated with things, which they designated and defined , the comprehension between the human beings was easier. But from the moment when men undertook to live an independent life, ambiguity became the rule. Thus in this domain as in the others, I find it necessary to come back to the concrete. What is the situation concerning education in the animal world ?

At the adult age, the animals deploy an activity which requires an axtraordinary know-how. To construct a spider web - all different but serving the same function of trapping insects - represents a technical prowess. Certain hymencopters lay their eggs in an insect which they have paralysed, then put it in a closed hole in the ground. Thus the larva feeds upon it. The paralyzing bite must be made at a precise spot which the hymenopter knows very well and it did not learn it from its parents.

Thus, each insect possesses an extraordinary inborn know-how which assures its life and its perpetuation, yet it receives no education. It is the same for the reptiles, the bactraciens and the fish...

Let us look more closely at the case of the birds. The parents do not teach their young to build nests which are often technical marvels. Certain birds even have a certain autonomy from birth, for example the gallinaceous. The chick upon seeing its mother choose certain foods learns to prefer them by imitation. This is also so among the more evolved animals. But imitation does have its limits.

For example, you can see a chicken scratch the ground to find worms and the chicks do the same. This same chicken can hatch duck eggs and continue to care for the ducklings until their adult age. This hen will continue to scratch the earth but the ducklings will not and their food will be different. Watching the duckling approach a pond, the hen will cry with terror, but it will not stop the ducklings from jumping into the water and swim as if someone had taught them how to do it. Of course, that merely shows that in animals the inborn is stronger than the acquired.

In birds living in groups, there is also an instinct which incites them to do so and to obey the dominant, yet nobody has taught them to do so. In certain mammalians living in communities, another inborn talent enables the young to learn to identify their enemies, just as their parents and ancesters have always done before them.

It was the same with primitive man at the times when no inventions differed him from other animals : the inborn know-how was sufficient to permit him to live and to perpetuate. However, as soon as man began to invent, each invention represented a technique which had to be transmitted by apprenticeship. For example, to make a fire required one to choose combustible matter and a flint capable of producing sparks by striking it in a certain way. If the instinctive know-how is transmitted via the genes, as in most animals, the know-how to invent is passed on by education.

Without a doubt, it has not always been easy to determine the part played by the inborn and that by the acquired. However, we can be assured that the emotions caused by our five senses - that is that which we see, hear, smell, taste and touch - come from the inborn. About all we can do is the mask and disguise these emotions in order to conform to that which valorizes us in the eyes of our entourage. Culture does not form taste, but teaches that which is fitting to feel.

Did language exist at the time the first techniques were invented ? Nobody knows ! What is certain is that the words were not invented to transmit know-how, but to transmit useful information concerning that which one could show immediately. For example, the presence of a predator in the neighborhood had to be made known to the group by the one who had seen it with the help of words. It was the same concerning game, a source of food, etc.

It is by using their ability to imitate that children began to learn all the invented techniques. Oral explanations were in general useless. Until the XVIII th century the activities of the peasants and the artisans was essentially utilitarian. They served them to live normally , that is to eat, to dress, to protect agains bad weaher and to sleep. Education by imitation concerned all concrete activities : the know-how to do and the know-how to live, as well as the production of consumer and artistic or intellectual good.

It was the apprenticeship by transmission of knowledge of he who knew how-to-do without intermediaries. The farmer taught his son how to plow, the carpentor, the mason, the painter, the sculptor and the musician taught their apprentice, the priests were formed by other priests, the notaries taught their clerks, etc. Only idleness could permit activities to improve the mind. But idleness and free time only concerned a infinitely small minority of rich.

All the professional training had two points in common. First, the number of students per instructor was a minimum. Often, as shown in the novel "Emile" by Rousseau, the professor had only one student. Moreover, this education was done on the job and the practical application of what was taught was immediate. A carpenter showed his apprentice how to plane, tested him, rectified his errors, then continued to give him work. When there were principles to be learned and respected concerning this type of work, it came primarily from observation. They always proceded from practice to theory, from the concrete to the abstract.

It was the same for the girls concerning the teaching of know-how to do and know-how to live. The management and the cleaning of the home, the cooking, the making and mending of cloths, the wshing, etc., as well as all to rules of politeness, without considering that which was specific to maternity, all that formed an ensemble of considerable knowledge and it began to be learned at the age of seven.

A specific characteristic of that epoch concerns the fabrication of objects, from the small - spoons, forks, knives and pitchers - to the very large such as horse carriages, ships and houses. This characteristic was the search for beauty. They tried to join the agreeable to the useful and functional to esthetic. An example was the fixture on the prow of a ship, while today our modern ships, be they fishing, cargo, passanger or war ships, they are strictly functional, as are also the sky- scrappers, while the cathedrals gave as much place to art as to the utilitarian exigencies. They spent more on beauty than we do today. The few villages which still exist from that period are a pleasure to see, which cannot be at all compared to the impression one has upon visiting one of our modern suburbs...

*

Let us now consider our modern education which replaced utilitarian education by imitation. This change took place over severall centuries of time but the turning point was the 18th century. It was the work of certain intellectuals whose power was tied to the progress in the means to comminicate abstract ideas, theories and know-how to say rather than know-how to do. We have already mentioned the importance of the printing press invented in 1448 by Gutenberg - a "manual" worker ! After having been perfected during three centuries, the printing press gave the intellectuals the means to largely diffuse their ideas, while during the times of caligraphy only important texts such as the Bible were able to be published.

The 18th century, known as the "Enlightment", was the one in which the intellectuals tried to leave "obscurantism". What is this obscurantism which is a pejorative term used to indicate the doctrines which prevailed during the Middle Ages ? It is the notion of "that which opposes the diffusion , the popularisation of schooling and of culture among the people".

This ideology can be understood as one expressing the contempt of certain intellectuals for the great mass of the lower classes who wollowed in their ignorance of the abstract . But it could also have been because of their respect of the desire of the peasants and the artisans to teach their children only their know-how to do and their know-how to live. It is as absurd to oblige an intellectual to pass years to learn how to plow, to milk a cow and raise chickens, as it is to oblige a manual worker to memorize knowledge which is of no interest and of little use to him.

The obscurantists consider that it was very good that Stradivarius had begun his apprentisship at the age of 14 and thus did not lose ten years of his youth to learn philosophy, theology, astronomy, greek and latin. Who knows, thus he may have never made his marvellous violins.

The marquis of Condorcet (1743-1794), whose name was given to a number of the French prestigious high schools, was one of the primary theoreticians of the veritable revolution of the methods of education. He wrote, as we have already noted :that "there is no difference between the two sexes which is not the work of education", and thus a fortiori between all individuals. In effect, Condorcet broke with the fundamental principal of ancient education, that of the primacy of the inborn over the acquired.

In effect, in ancient education it was not only the principle that one must always teach by concrete examples given by professors who were experts in the art, that is the real professionals, that prevailed. It was also thought , as Jesus said in his parabols, that a seed germinates only if it falls on good ground. These people, 95 % of whom lived on the land in the midst of animals, thought that "A good dog, a hunter of race". In those times, the word "race" was a synonym of family or of lineage and it symbolized the hereditary qualities and the predispositions. Thus, in general, one did not teach a dog to hunt if the dog was not from a family of hunting dogs. France lived practically in a regime of castes and great care was taken to ensure that one married within the caste in order to preserve the hereditary qualities. To teach the trade of a peasant to a child whose paternal and maternal ancestors were peasants, had all the chances in the world to give good results.

Of course, there were rare exceptions, due primarily to the genetic lottery. There did not exist this "relentlessness" to teach a child knowledge for which he showed no interest, which was born with the great cultural revolution of the 18th century. The child wanted to learn primarily the know-how to do but the schools offered him know-how to know. The child made his choice freely, quided by his parents who knew that his destiny was commanded by the inborn.

In the Encyclopedia of Diderot and Alembert , we can read :

"There exists a good analogy between the culture of plants and education of children: in both nature must furnish a base. The owner of a field can use it profitably only if the soil is favorable for that which he wishes to plant. Also, an enlightened father and a discerning and experienced teacher must observe their student and after a certain time of observaion they must uncover his leanings , his inclinations, his tastes, his character and know for what he is good and what part, so to say, he must play in the concert of society.

"Don't force too much the inclinations of your children, but also do not allow them lightly to embrace a state for which you foresee that they will know later that it was not the proper choice. One should as much as possible, save them from false steps. Happy are the children who have experienced parents, capable of leading them well in their choices ! The choice upon which depends the happiness or malaise for the rest of their lives."

This text, completely conform with the ancient education is very different from the ideas of Condorcet. It brings to memory the example of Filippo Brunelleschi (1377-1446). He was the son of a notary in Florence, who would have liked his son to follow in his footsteps. But the boy refused and decide to become an apprentice to a goldsmith., a purely manual trade. That did not at all disturb the family who felt no shame to see the young man take the "social elevator" in the bad direction. Soon after Filippo became interested in antic architecture, and studied notably construction materials and design . He also studied sculpture. Finally, he became an architect without ever having really studied this trade in a school, but he learned by practicing various manual trades.

We read in the Encyclopedia: "Brunelleschi's extraordinary inventive capability manifested itself more in his technical works than in his esthetic choices. The construction of the dome of the Florence cathedral required the lifting of seven tons of material each day : he developed a crane and a winch with the help of an endless screw, poulies and coged zones, as well as scaffolding to insure the safty of the workers. "

Brunelleschi personally controlled the seven tons of stones and bricks used each day. He never found a door closed because he had no diploma. Besides they didn't exist during the Middle Ages. It was a period when in order to find work, one had to first show that which one knew how to do.

The premises of the XVIII th century cultural revolution already appeared centuries before, when the teachers began to be substituted in the place of "men of art". The difference between the two categories is considerable. For example, in ancient education it was the philosophers themselves who exposed their ideas to their disciples, while in the new education one used professors having learned or memorized the most important philosophies. Besides, in the ancient education only those who were really interested in philosophy, to wish to "cultivate" it, read the works of philosophers. It was out of the question to teach philosophy to children who could care less concerning the question treated therein. With the advent of the new education all changed slowly. All the children were obliged to take courses in philosophy and to memorize ideas which they could not understand.

Already ,in the XVII th century, Molière made fun of the professors - of philosophy, of fencing, of french and also of medicine, through the personage of Diafoirus. The fencing professor knew his art perfectly but was beaten by the servant. The French language professor taught Monsieur Jourdain the technique of properly using the vowels "a-e-i-o-u", which he had already learned as a child by imitating the adults. As for the professor of philosophy, his suscptible and irritable behavior was just the opposite of what he taught.

Just as Aristophane in his "The clouds", Molière very clearly opposes practice to theory, that which one does and that which one says. In his plays, he continually privileged the men of common sense by preferring them to pure and beautiful ideas. He was miles away from the intellectuals isolated from reality. In his "The learned women", in which he opposes persons thirsty for intellectual culture to those more occupied with the everyday problems, did he not have his preferred personality say : "I nourish myself with good soup and not with beautiful language" ?

*

Why were Condorcet's ideas so successful ? Did he himself show a large perspicacity and a large comprehension of events during his life ?

He lived most of his life under the monachy, in a country dominated by the clergy. He fought without reserve the king and religion but conserved his noble privileges and lead a happy life. He was favorable for the revolution of 1789, which permitted him to become a deputy. But he did not understand the reality of the events and, while continuing to profess his beautiful ideas, he became a suspect of those who who wanted to install an even heavier dictatorship. Informed of the dangers he was running, he hid with his wife and child. He even changed his name. One day, thinking he had been recognized, he fled dressed as a tramp. The police had not recognized him but they arrested him for vagrancy and threw him into prison. He was found dead a few days later. It was a destiny really characteristic of a man whose sincerity could not have been doubted.

The success of certain ideas does not necessairely come from their veracity, but simply from their utility, that is to say from the advantages gained by those who support them. Whether they be true of false, they permit a community or a social group to increase their audience and to establish the noteriety of the members. They can also help in taking power. But that does not mean that they truer.

Certain intellectuals seem to be born to give lessons and counsel. Naturally, teaching is the royal route for them. The grand idea of all acquired supported by Condorcet foresaw the day when all children, provided they had received a good education, should become happy adults, have a good trade and behave themselves well in society. Such an idea could not be received other than enthusiastically by the intellectuals. If I had lived during those times, I too would have probably shared this illusion. But to err is human but to persevere is diabolical. So let us salute the good intentions of the intellectuals, but let us regret that they were so wrong.

If Condorcet and his like had been right, their would not have been all those wars, revolutions, crimes and misery of all sorts which have continued since they proclaimed their great ideas.and ideals.

*

Let us return to this period which terminates at the end of the XVIII th century. At that epoch education concerned on one side know-how to live in organized society, which was specific to each community and usually dispensed by the mothers and other women. Then, there was the professional know-how which was dispensed by the "men of art" using apprentisship, that is to say, using example then application . The main beneficiaries were the peasants and artisans.

Artistic creativity is not learned, only the techniques which permit the artist to express his emotions and to produce his works are. and even there it was the confirmed artists who served as professsors for those children who showed that they too wanted to be artists.

Does all that mean that the period was poor in artistic, intellectual and technical production ? At that time France had only one third of the population of today. Machines did not exist and tools were so rudimentary that they would not be used today. Yet, France was covered with chapels, churches, cathedrals, houses, manors and chateaux; while the furniture, the vehicles and the boats combined the functional with beauty. As for works for the mind, today do we have works better than those of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire, Diderot, Montesquieu, La Fontaine, Molière, Pascal, Montaigne ? Yet, non of these men had been trained in schools. They trained themselves !

*

The new French education impossed itself little by little, beginning in the XVIIth century, until the moment when Jules Ferry declared it obligatory by creating the communal and primary schools. The human being had been declared perfectable and education was supposed to little by little transform the children into perfect adults.

In reality, this was a considerable step backward in liberties, for natural diversity was replaced by cultural uniformity. The "black hussards" of the republic were charged to melt into the same mold the entire population who, in the rural areas, continued to speak their local dialect or in languages such as the basque, the breton or the provençal. During the revolution Abbot Grégoire had already become the intransigent defender of a politic of eradication of the "patois" considerd to be the "dens of superstition". During the XIX th century the intellectuals and the politicians busied themselves at destroying the regional particularities which formed an obstacle, from their point of view, to the formation of a national unity based on an abstract model. This was just another step towards the uniformization of France, to be followed by that of the world.

Normally children do not attend school before the age of six or seven, After the years of schooling one found that there still existed many differences among them. The equality of education had not arrived at an equality of results. Therefore, wasn't it necessary to question the all acquire ? Not at all ! It was merely said that the system was still not properly applied, that the child had not been torn away early enough from the family. In effect, they realized that before entering the school mold, that since its birth the child had been submitted to the family education, thus they presumed that it was there the cause of differences and inequalities.

Thus a new doctrine was going to push in this direction. It was the ideas of freudian psychoanalysis giving the essential of the personality by the "traumatisms" of childhood, Freud claimed that one could cure all the psychic maladies by making the adult person become conscious of abnormal affections or incidents having occured during the first few years of life. He even believed that homosexuality could be explained in this way. This new utopia aroused the enthusiasm of the partisans of the all acquired. They concluded that it was sufficient to take the child as early as possible after birth from the family environment , place the child in a nursery, then in a kindergarden so that the child would become that which one wanted him to be.

Of course, this "new education" even though started during the first years of life and prolonged until the age of eighteen, to increase the equality of chance, has never obtained the results expected. We know that only identical twins can do it. even if they are separated at birth and educated apart.

Today, inspite of repeated fallures, the french National Education and our intelligentsia seem to be paralysed. Overtaken by the events, noting an evolution diametrically opposed to that which they expected, the vast majority of teachers have no ideas as what to do, but remain incapable of blaming their belief in the doctrine of the all acquired !

*

In fact, the ancient education in which each man and each woman taught their technique, their science or their art, has not completely disappeared. Without always realizing it, some teacheers in the National Education continue to form certain of their students in their image, thus elective affinities are revealed between them and those who find themselves in the knowledge being offered to them. Thanks to this teaching which corresponds to their inborn aptitudes, the good students could certainly become good teachers. but these same good students will find that they are more or less inapt at exercising other trades or professions.

The heirachy revealed by the scholastic results is not that of the success in real competitive life, but only that in the public service. In effect, it is among the bureaucrates where the school diploma or the entry examination determines definitely the professional career. We know that the heirarchy of the diplomas is not synonomous with the success in life !

Scientific researchers, notably American have often studied the relationship between scholastic success and the intelligence quotient (IQ) . They have noted a correspondance between the two : the higher the IQ, the higher the possibility of scholastic success. However, some of them make a clear distinction between the scholastic success and success in life. Daniel Goleman the author of several works on "emotional inelligence" , estimates for example that "among the factors upon which success in life depends, the IQ represents at most 20 %. Howard Gardner who spent his life studying the multiple forms of intelligence, wrote : "The IQ ignores six forms of intelligence. It explains only a small range, that tied with the logico-mathematical and language."

A simple look at success as it is in private enterprise demonstrates the justification of these observations. In effect, it is by tens of thousands of spectacular successes that we can count the successes made by individuals whose scholastic results were mediocre - and some never went to school. We can cite some well known examples.

Thomas Edison, a genial inventer and remarkable chief of enterprise, left school at the age of twelve after having been judged as "inapt" for stiudies. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, lost his mother and was abandonned by his fatherat the age of ten and studied by himself. All that did not prevent him from becoming one of the greatest French writers and philosophers. Stradivarius began his apprentisship at the age of fourteen and lived to be 91, he was strictly a manual and probably did not know how to write.

The official thesis according to which the more diplomas one has the better one is armed to succeed in life, is only true for the French public service and partially for the state owned enterprises and some other large enterprises. In the private sector, that is 80 % of the workers, it is not the same. If the scholastic success determined the professional aptitude, the bosses of private enterprise, who try to limit there spending, would not use the services of expensive personnel recruiting companies to find qualified personnel . It would suffice for them to publish recruiting announcements and hire the ones with the most diplomas. But they know that this type of recruiting system would be ineffective and they would lose time and money by paying a bad recruit during the long trial period.

We can cite two ancient proverbs which define well the principles of ancient education. The first concerns formation : "Practice makes perfect" , the second recruiting and promotion: "It is at the foot of the wall that one judges a mason."

Although these proverbs are not applied in the new education nor in the public service, they do continue to train on the job in private enterprise and to judge on the results. Napoleon, who wanted an efficient army, said: "Every soldier carries a marshal's baton in his knapsack." This was not just a demogogic propos, as is often used by politicians, for two of his best marshals, Lannes and Massena had begun their careers as simple soldiers and had never attended a military school. Besides, being hierarchised on the battle field was the force of the La Grand Armée.

Let us note that in September 1914 during World War One, after the first six weeks of combat, Joffre fired 134 generals judged to be incapable on the battle field. The large private enterprises can be placed in about the middle between small enterprises and the public function. Certain started as small enterprises then grew thanks to the exceptional qualities of their boss. Other large ones are directed by highly diplomed men parachuted into the job. In 2002 in Europe and the United States, there were a niumber of large firms which collapsed which were directed by "big bosses" . These often resorted to manipulating the accounts to make the firm appear in good health. An objective enquiry, comparing the results of enterprises directed by "self made men" and those directed by men with diplomas from the prestigious schools, shows that without a doubt the new education is on the wrong road.

The form of intelligence messured by the IQ is merely a general abstract capability (that which specialist call the g factor). It permits scholastic success and indicates the capability to be a good executant in all that is abstract, as well as the aptitude to apply complex directives. But an enterprise is continually confronted with new situations for which no prepared solution exists. The solution depends upon the creative minds who know how to observe and decipher the evolution of the overall economic situation , thus to be able to adapt the enterprise to the economic, technological and sociological changes. Now, the gifted one is usually not the one, only exceptionally, who is an observer and an innovator. His major capabilities are to learn quickly, to understand and to memorize all which is intellectual or abstract. These capabilities which are sanctioned by a diploma, are comparable to a computer. There are small and large computers, but not one of them has ever invented something !

Of course, a graduate can very well have the capabilities which the school controls of his knowledge have not detected. A good example is Carlos Ghosn, who had succeeded in making Nissan, a failing automobile company, into a prosperous enterprise. Moreover, his success was unanimously praised. Now, what does Carlos Ghosn write in his book "Citizen of the world ? "When I began my first professional experience I found nothing which resembled that which I had learned. The colleges prepare us perhaps to become civil servants, but certainly not to become good entrepreneurs. When I started my job with the Michelin tire company, they knew that I was a graduate of the prestigious Polytechnique and Ecole des Mines : of couse that permits a favorable a priori, but all is to be constructed and learned."

These statements are more significant since Mr. Ghosn had no personal interest in making them, for they could awaken some hostilities in those schools. But there was no reaction on their part, even by the National Education. It is because the National Education is organized by estimable bureaucrates whose first goal is to form other bureaucrates, thus the members of the civil service. They are ready , if need be, to discuss the methods to teach and learn but never that which must be taught.

It is very evident that the public service formed uniquely of graduates, while most PME's have none, prove not to be very evolutionary and are absurdly conservative. Among the civil servants innovating minds are not particularly appreciated and they do not progress any faster in their careers than those who want no changes. Sometimes their qualities cause them troubles such as systematic criticism by the others and they are pushed into a corner, etc. In order to be efficient, all private and public enterprises must offer continuous training for those who have the capacity and the know-how, and internal promotion without considering the diplomas.

*

The National Education claims that they give the same chance to all children to be able to attend the top schools , for example ENA and the Polytechnique. Let' take a look at reality.

Let us suppose that among a thousand young athletes of all kinds, I decide that after two years of training that I will select the best fifty. To ensure the "equality of chance", I declare that all will be able to train for the 100 meter race, I chose this because I was very good at it. Those who have a natural disposition for this type of sport will be overjoyed, but those who are good at other sports such as swimming, skiing, wrestling, boxing or tennis will be easily eliminated. The equality of chance will only have been a delusion. It is no different in the pretended equality of chance offered to all the children in the National Education system.

Nothing is more assuring for them than to see the child of a worker arrive at obtaining a diploma from the top school, ENA. This is what the National Education calls the "social elevator", that which permits certain individuals to leave the France on the "bottom" to join the France on "top". In january 2000, an important publication "The school of the parents" published a headline : "Is the social elevator broken down ?" Of course in this article they were sorry that this "elevator " had not functioned as well as had been expected. Strange, but it would have been better to be happy ! If the social elevator" had functioned perfectly and that the sons of plumbers, masons, roofers, bouchers, charpenters, bakers, grocers, truck farmers and workers had become civil servants, I wonder in what state our houses would be and how we could feed and cloth ourselves.

As is obvious, the image of the social elevator is completely detestable. By supposing that there are trades which are intrinsically superior to others, it falls into "anti-manual racism" so current in the sayings of today. Of course, our National Education claims that they love the manuals very much and often shows its will to "raise" them, to help them "cultivate" themselves, to "climb higher". But it is exactly the same way that Jules Ferry reasoned when he was minister of Colonies : "The superior duty of civilization alone legitimizes the right to go to the barbarians. The superior race does not conquer to exploit the weak, but indeed to civilize them and to raise them to their level."

In both cases, in effet, we find two fundamental ideas. The first idea is that their are inferior trades and superior trades, or inferior races and superior races. The other is that the individual is a product of his education, and of his social and cultural milieu - that is it is reduced to all that is acquired - in a way that it would suffice that the superior elements transmit their acquired to the inferior elements (whether it concerns individuals, races or social classes) to see them rise to their level. Of course, this logic shows no flaw. It comes directly from the thoughts of Condorcet.

*

The French National Education produces a heirachisation of the children according to the double criteria of a certain form of intelligence and the acquisition of knowlege at the same time cultural and professional. This heirachisation is in conformance with that which we know of the IQ, that is only a part of intelligence is taken into account, the rest is ignored. Thus it is indeed a cause of bad selection which is prejudicial to the proper organization of a community, including the public service which uses it to recruit its members and to define their career profile.

As to the knowledge transmitted by the teachers, which is essentially abstract and theoretical, what remains after several years of schooling ?

I have often demanded that controls be made. These would be both simple and cost very little. It would suffice to take a representative sample of 200 adults of both sexes, all age 23 to 25, and control all that which they still know against all that one tried to teach them to the end of high school : writing, literature, history, geography, physics, chemistry, art, mathematics, biology, etc. Besides its general interest, we know that such a control has never been done., and will without a doubt never be done, because it would probably result in questioning the very principal of the French National Education.

The expected results were already foreseen by the great Edouard Heriot, who before World War Two was the the mayor of the city of Lyon and president of the radical-socialist party (the most important party at the time) , but also president of the counsel and minister of the National Education, liked to say :"Culture is that which remains after having studied for twenty years and then forgotten during twenty years". Myself, for example, in school I learned all about Perou : the area, the number of inhabitants, its capital city, its pricipal products, etc., and I soon forgot it all. This type of emptiness must be a part of my "culture".

If the control of which I write permitted to verify that outside the good students who liked to learn, all the knowledge learned had been forgotten, one could always answer that the "culture remains, which today is considered to be the most precious part. But, alas, we would also learn that the students memorize merely to obtain their diplomas.

According to the dictionary, the first definition of the word "diploma" is: "An official paper establishing a right, a privilege" (in Le Petit Robert) . This sense, which was frequent during the Ancient Regime, has it really disappeared ? While in most cases titles in sports confer notoriety and money for only a short period, the diploma gives rights and privileges for life and mainly in the civil service. Moreover, to obtain a title in sports, the taking of drugs to win a title is forbidden and considered a dishonor. In order to obtain a diploma by taking an examination, we know that the habit of students taking dope to excite the intellectual capability and memory during an examination is a current practice. Finally, in sports it is in the nature of sports records to be continually tested, while the diploma has a definitive value even though the knowledge which permitted it to be obtained becomes quickly obsolete or rapidly forgotten.

This system of giving diplomas to a students at the end of their studies, based upon knowledge controlled partially by an examination, is without a doubt one of the great ailments of our educational system. It confers the advantages and the rights which only the capability of doing ones job well should give.

To make our point, let us take the simple example of a child who wishes to learn how to fish. Among the adults he knows is a man who knows well all the techniques. The man, very happy to teach him his know-how, first teaches him how to choose the right fishing pole, the cord, the real, the flotter, the sinker and the hooks. He then teaches him how to install his line, then how to choose a good place to fish and finally the bait best adapted to the type of fish he wishes to catch, etc. The student and the "teacher" will then fish together and the teacher will rectify the errors of the student. If the student learns well and retains the lessons, it is first that he really wanted to learn and second that he had understood how to retain that which he had progressively learned. This is a typical example of ancient education.

If fishing , as it is explained in books, was a course in the general school curriculum, 99 children out of hundred would learn it just to pass the test, only one to really practice it. The most endowed to understand and memorize this theoretical teaching would most certainly receive the best marks. But at the bank of the stream, this scholastic heirachy would immediately disappear. Since the diplomas for fishing with hook and line do not exist , it is clear that only the children genetically interested by this activity would want to know the practice and the theory.

If in order to become a lawyer a diploma was no longer needed, would mean that the students interested in this profession would now scorn the learning of law ? You would not find one who would want to become a lawyer without first having studied this discipline ! The serious studant would undertake his education himself and practice himself since his only objective is professional effficiency. Besides, we all know that laws evolve continually and that a lawyer who obtained his diploma thirty years ago and had done nothing to learn the evolution, would be completely discredited.

Only efficiency on the job in the field makes the reputation. The doing away with diplomas, which can seem to be a foolish idea, would completely change the mentality of the students. Suddenly, they would understand the need take hold of themselves and choose the training which would be best for the professions they have chosen. Naturally, the teachers, the parents and and friends would be their to counsel them.

For the French National Education, the only thing that counts in the present system is the percentage of those who succeed in the age group. This percentage has been maintained and even increased by lowering the level of the examinations. It is thus that a semblance of equality of chance for the children is maintained. But what becomes of all those who have failed, that is primarily the students more predisposed to assimilate know-how to do than know-how to say ? These, having a great difficulty in finding interest in the knowledge that the good students understand and memorize easily, often find themselves marginalized. Then comes the supreme humiliation, the orientation because of failure towards the "technological" sector, which is often just a disposal dump

As the former minister Roger Fauroux , president of the commission on the reflection on the schools, wrote: "The technological sectors function more as a welcoming structure for students in difficulty rather than as a valorizing option answering a positive choice. This almost nonexistant positive choice reveals other large deficiencies in the educative sysem : three times out of four, the decision of orientation is not taken by the student and the family, but usually against their wishes , without their participation and in an authoritative manner." Believing that all individuals could be educated by words, the disciples of Condorcet finished, without really wishing it, by committing a veritable crime : they had consecrated all of manual France to contempt or rejection.

The technological sector which receives the students who have not been able to follow the general schooling has, in effect, only a small relationship with apprentisship. The teachers there are not real professionals, but just teachers who have their titles thanks to theoretical knowledge of certain manual trades. The training periods in industry is in reality false training. In effect, an enterprise usually wants to train only those it wishes to keep. This is rarely the case for temporary trainees, who are regarded as strangers to the existing organization and thus of little use.

A horticulturist who has hired a graduate of a horticulture school remarks quickly that the graduate knows much more than he does concerning vegetable biology, but he has little know-how. But that theoretical knowledge is of little use to him. Thus, in reality the career of the young graduate will depend upon his concrete capability to learn a trade which the older workers in the enterprise know very well.

In private enterprise, the internal training works rather well, for the older workers teach the young. There also exists continuous training usually given by the suppliers of material, for example for office machines, machine tools and wharehousing. Since they find that it is of prime interest for them, they exercise care in training those who will use the material by teaching only the essential. For example, when computers first appeared, very few workers knew how to use them. It was the suppliers who trained the personnel.

*

We have already noted that ancient education was after all very liberal. One allowed the children to choose their way and nobody questioned it. That is how Molière, who should have succeeded his father as a tapestry maker of the king, an honorific and lucrative job, renounced it to become an actor - which was not well considered in those times. However, nobody in the family blamed him for this indiscretion and his family even accepted several times to pay his heavy debts. As La Fontaine wrote in the moral of his fable, "The mouse metamorphosed into a girl :

"One must always accept ones destiny.
That is to the law of Heaven established :
Speak to the devil, use magic
You will divert no being from his destiny."

In former times, one offered the children all the knowledge they would need to succeed in life - and not only in their professional life. Today, a young lady who has brilliantly obtained her high school diploma knows strictly nothing concerning her futher role as a wife. At the moment she marries she must assume her role as a housewife yet she does not know how to establish a budget, to shop for food, nor how to cook a tasty dish, to wash the laundry, iron, decorate the apartment, etc. Without a doubt she will soon learn, more or less well, but in olden times she knew it all perfectly before she married. The difference comes from the fact that the "new education" considers all manual work as degrading and the female type housework as "humiliating". The intellectual woman is honored and the housewife is despised.

Consciously or unconsciously, the teachers who teach abstract knowledge consider it as superior to know-how are merely valorizing themselves. Alas, it is a normal human behavior common to all individuals. We all have the tendancy to value more those who resemble us than those who are different.

*

Evidently, there is nothing really very democratic in the actual organization of our teaching. It is more like a totalitarian system used notably in the former Soviet Union, in which a certain number of high level bureaucrates decide as to all that will be consumed, even in the knowledge domain. At the top of the National Education hierarchy, a small number of pedagogues decide what subjects must be taught and what methods will be used; All the teachers have to do is to execute the directives... and the students to accept them. Let us imagine what Mozart would have become in our modern educational system. In the kindergarden, would they have taken into account his inborn disposition for music ? Certainly not ! Thus he would not have begun to compose at the age of five. Our doctrine being that a solid general culture must precede all specialization. Mozart would have had to be content to have his high school diploma at the age when he was already dazzling all the music lovers of Europe.

For example, it is clear how neccessary it is to help a child at an early age to choose the training, the subjects and the abstract or concrete knowledge the best adapted to his nature. Generally, that which one learns by pleasure and interest, one conserves for life and one forgets the rest.

Today, general culture is a convient junk box where one can put almost anything, even snow and sea classes. If, however on the contrary, horresco referens, the National Education was to answer the desires of the children and the parents : that is to learn only that which is needed by the end of studies to exercise a trade or ar a profession, it should justify all the knowledge programmed. But first they would help the children to choose among the trades and professions those which correspond to their inborn aptitudes. Thenthey would teach them all the concrete and abstract knowledge and know-how common to these activities. Then, little by litle, they would prepare them more specifically to exercise a chosen profession or trade. But today, it is exactly the inverse which takes place.

It is the National Education with its ministers coming from the civil service, which has decided that the children should be obliged to attend school until the end of high school. It is they alone who determine the programs and how they will be taught. To combat absences, not only do they want to punish the students, but also the parents. If such as system was used in a fascist regime it would be denounced by those imposing it in France.

Is the tyrannical power of National Education conform with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, which France has made into a sort of new religion, since it is by the measure of its contents that we judge all nations ? In paragraph 3 of article 26 this text stipulates that: "the parents have as a priority, the right to choose the type of education given to their children." The "type of education" signifies here the ensemble of the education modes. Therefore, there is not even the smallest educative sector which escapes the choice of the parents. But this liberty of choice has its corollary : it is the liberty of offer. To tell a child that he has a right to choose his desert and offer him only an apple or a banana, is to make fun of him.

Actually in France, the parents have a choice between free public schools and private paying schools. the later, by contract, must dispense the same education as the pubic school given by teachers formed like the others. The only right they have is is to teach additional subjects. This is not easy since the students are already overloaded with work by that which is obligatory. If, in spite of all, many parents choose the private schools, it is almost uniquely because this selection by money permits the elimination of certain young rascals who render the climate in many public schools insecure and violent. Thus the private schools have become more bourgoise and the public schools more lower class. From a purely educative point of view, the alternative is not very gratifying.

Thus, without a question, the parents are completely disposed of the right to choose the education of their children. The most stupifying aspect is their silence and inertia, especially of the associations which are supposed to represent them. Let us analyse this inertia.

Certain public soundings tell us that the parents are satisfied with the National Education system. Why ? First because it is an immense kindergarden where, often, they pick up the children at home and return them after. The mother usual works outside the home and the children are no longer as in olden times a precious help in household work, since most of the tasks which were formerly done in the family (education, mutual help, care of the sick, help of the dying, etc.) have been taken over by society. Besides the school-nursery system is free and there is the additional hope a diploma and a job for life as a bureaucrat, which is the dream of many parents today .

But what of those who do not obtain a diploma ? Why do they not use the system as that in Holland where they say that the school is first made "to help the children choose their way" ? There are only private schools elaborating their own programs and they are subsidized by the state prorata to the number of students inscribed !

*

The French educational system, as we have noted, is constructerd around the doctrine of "all acquired". The system tries from birth to erase all the differences in acquisition in order to make a "better" man. Since this objective could not be obtained with very young children who receive the specific acquired from their family and social environment, it was deduced that, as soon as these children entered school they must receive an education identical for all.

My reform proposal is based upon the inverse doctrine, that of the all inborn. From this point of view, even the predispositions for assimilating selectively the acquired are inborn. To speak of an influence of the milieu is in itself deceptive, since it is with the capabilities which he inherited that the individual little by little constructs his milieu. Thus, we return to the ancient ideas according to which the child has a destiny, which he can realize if we help him and if the circumstances and events are favorable for him.

I also insist that we must stop thinking that there exists an abstract knowledge which is noble and concrete know-how which is vulgar.. We should on the contrary try to find an equality between the two. We must renounce a purely intellectual education, considered wrongly as more gratifying, and offer other roads for the unfortunates who cannot follow.

However, if already at the age of ten we could envisage a differenciated education in accordance with the personality of each one, it is necessary to teach all how to use the instruments of communication, even if at the same time one cannot learn to observe and to imitate, which is the base of the teaching of know-how to do. Thus, we must teach how to express oneself, to read, to write, how to use a telephone and a computer, without forgetting geometry and industrial design (the meeting point between the abstract and the concrete) and the means used in other times by the artisans to communicate.

During the Middle Ages, in the construction of a cathedral, the foreman - a carpenter or a mason, - was the chief architect. He wore a design indicating his rank : a ruler, a square, a compas, etc. These designs represented instruments by which he transmitted his instructiions. To know geometry and design is extremely useful in many trades and indispensable for artisans and the handyman. Napoleon liked to say, : "a small sketch is worth more than a long speech."

At the end of this type of teaching, which has enabled one to discover the inborn aptitudes of the children, they must be taught that all activities are noble, whether they be professional and lucrative or just domestic. We must also begin to teach them reponsibility, that is, to make them understand that it is up to them to choose, to decide and to take their destiny in hand. We would no longer have on one side the school and on the opposite side Life, but simply "the school of life".

In today's schools, the children only know that they are obliged to go to school, that they are obliged to learn that which others have chosen for them. They are like the soldiers in a camp who do not ask questions concerning that which they must do but wait until they are told what to do. Here is what should change : one should teach children that they are not going to school just to obey but to prepare their lives, and that nobody can decide their destiny in their place.

That which preoccupies most the children, as well as their parents, is to be able to learn a trade or a profession, and not just to "cultivate" themselves in the abstract and to enrich the mind, pleasures which can be offered in adult life. Therefore, we must help to orient them by informing them about all kinds of trades and professions, but which correspond to their natural predispositions. One could, for example, show them documentation on trades which attract them, then organize veritable apprentisships with professionals able to really form them.

While today, it is always theory which comes first, then some vague practical work. It is just the opposite which should be done : the Know-how learned from a professional should preceed the theoretical teaching, of course in view of the desire the children show to learn. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink !

I wrote above about the domestic activities of a housewife and a mother of a family for the women and a handyman and gardiner for the men. For example, one would allow a girl to take courses in cooking instead of mathematics.and she would be proud of her art. Besides it is symptomatic when we hear the publishers complain about the disinterest of the public for books ; yet during the past fifty years two activities have continued to increased markedly : gardening and doing odd jobs. It is even said that women are returning to embroidery and knitting.

And what is "culture" becoming ? It cannot be neglected. Once the demands of a professional activity are satisfied, cultivating oneself becomes a real pleasure . Moreover, our modern society offers means at little cost, thanks to libraries, conferences, evening courses of all kinds, television, documentaries, etc.

*

We will close this chapter on our National Education by considering the question of the islamic women's headscarf. This quarrel was started in an artificial manner during the general debate concerning secularity in schools. It included some passionate arguments, assorted with numerous imprudent affirmations. Finally, the headscarf was forebidden in the name of secularity. But finally, this is a monumental error or deliberate lie to try to say that the "secular" school means religious neutrality of the students. In our schools of the Republic, it is only the teaching which must be secular.

The teachers have the duty of being neutral concerning religion, but not the students . The students have the right to follow the practices of the religion of their choice (or their parents), as long as this does not disturb public order and they do not practice proselytism. How can we support the idea that the wearing of a headscarf is an attack on public order ? After all, the students know who in their class are catholics, muslums or jews. To respect the beliefs of others is a part of civility, and it is certainly not up to the National Education to legislate on the sense or the value of religious practices. The public schools should be a place where children learn liberty of expression and tolerance. It must not be a place of exclusion.

 

In defense of the French language

In Europe, for many centuries, there existed only regional languages, some latin, others germanic, slave, celte, etc., and all belonged to the indo-european sphere defined by the historian Georges Dumézil. Then, certain french provinces - thanks notably to the royal centralism - were able to dominate all of them and to form a whole.

However, in the France of the Ancient Regime no measures were taken to impose the french language on the immense peasant population who spoke only their regional language. The only real National and even European language was latin, which was exclusively used in all religious ceremonies, which all the peoples were subject to.

It was not until the 19th century with the obligatory schooling, that the French language was imposed, and the use of a regional language or a dialect were severely punished. Thus in all the countries of Europe the national language prevailed and the writers took the reponsibility of keeping them pure.

Words formed of letters serve to construct a language just as materials serve to build houses. What would a mason say if he were obliged to use pell-mell millstones, cut stones, granit, silex, bricks and even wood cubes ? He could only make a very ugly , fragile and incoherent house. Now, that is exactly what is actually occuring with our French language.

During several centuries the beautiful European languages only remained coherent thanks to the strict observation of rules concerning the use of words and their prononciation.

Formerly, in France, they gallicized all the foreign words generally in use and even modified them. For example, that is how the city of Den Haag in Holland was baptized La Haye, the German city of Aachen baptized Aix-La-Chapelle, London baptized Londres, Genova baptized Gê;nes, Firenze baptized Florence, etc.

Of course, there is no impropriety in adopting a foreign word to designate a new thing or invention created outside our frontiers. This has been done by all the European countries, but each time a prononciation conform to the that of the national language was given. For example since the railroads were invented by the English we adapted the words "wagon" and "rail". but of course with the French prononciation.

Since the end of World War One, in France we have been assisting at a curious drift due to a sort of snobism : French names have been replaced by English words having the same meaning. It is thus that the pretty exxpression "salon de thé" has been replace by "tea-room". Moreover, the prononciation of these new words has been left to the appreciation of each user. Here are several examples of the difference in prononciation of certain letters in French and in English :

French       English prononciation

a                         é

i                         ail

p                        pi

w                         you

v                         vi

w                         dobeul you

When a French child learns to read, he pronounces in French all the words he reads. Thus in the phrase: "This part of the hotel is reserved for V.I.P. " , when he hears it on the radio, the V.I.P. is pronounced in French as "vi ail pi"? He wonders what that means. It is very important person. Why have they changed our words for others which are for us difficult to pronounce and often incoherent ?

Thus, without wishing it, our media are beginning to massacre the French language to become a lengua franca with a double pronunciation of the words. After all, perhaps this smug admiration of that which comes from the United States, this indifference to the lose of our national identity, are really a sign of our decadence.

It would do well if the French Academy took hold of things. They should convince the government and the media that it is time to adopt only one pronunciation for the letters of our alphabet which are used to compose the words we use. Moreover, article 24 of the statut of institutions stipulates : "The primary function of the Academy will be to work with all diligence possible to give sure rules to our language and render it pure, elegant and capable of treating the arts and the sciences..." Thus they have the power to intervene. But without a doubt, it was easier to legislate in former times when a specifically French civilization existed.

Let us hope that when we question our legislators individually, that they show their regret for this drift in our language. However, it is solely up to them to stop it. It would suffice to impose the coercive measures - of course unpopular in the beginning. But can an elected government take such measures if it is not obliged to ?

There is another danger menacing our French language. It is a question of the obligations imposed by financiers who own and direct the large enterprises, that is to speak exclusively English during the meetings of the French cadres. That the English language be utilized as the international language in commerce, is in the order of the times. But why impose the use of this language inside our enterprises !

Please allow me to terminate by relating an incident I remember. In 1965, I worked with nurserymen among whom certain admired the american innovations: first the growing without soil of vegetables and second the selling in "garden centers" of plants and gardening tools. These two innovations were adopted, but far from being happy to use the American words to identify them, our nurserymen tried to frenchify them as was done in the past. The English word "container" was replaced by "conteneur" and the words "garden center" became "jardinerie". These changes were adopted , thus showing that the lowly French sometimes defend the French language better than those on the top.

 

The evolution of art

"Tastes and colors should not be questioned" , says a popular wisdom. In effect, nobody can objectively pretend his as a criteria of good taste , whether it be in gastronomy, music or the fine arts (painting, sculpture, architecture). However, if the fame and the fortune of famous cooks always depends upon the pleasure procured by their dishes, this is less and less true for the other forms of artistic creations. Today, many persons make a living thanks to government subsidies, and not by the success they have had with the amateurs of art. Thus to make a living and prosper, they must try to please those who have the money and consider that their judgement determines the criteria of what is beautiful and what is ugly.

But the persons who belong to this group think that only "culture" is susceptable of forming tastes. But the dictionary "Le Petit Robert" defines culture otherwise : "The ensemble of knowledge acquired thus permitting the development of a critical sense, taste and judgement ? But if that is really the case, how were we able to witness such a flowerring of artistic creation of all sorts until the end of the 18th century, when the artisans had as culture only that of knowing how-to-do ?

The emotions procured by works of art and the capability of creating more, are they due to acquired knowledge or to an inborn sensitivity ? This is the basic problem.

In former times when art came from the heart, it was spontaneously understood and appreciated by the entire population, for it was easy to understand. The cathedrals, realized entirely by hundreds of artisans, all essentially illiterate, are the most accomplished symbols and examples of this ancient art. But today the people remain largely indifferent to modern (contemporary) art. This modern art, which has little to do with esthetic values, has been intellectualized and thus is understood only by a cultivated elite.

*

Until the 19th century, it was considered that the techniques were at the service of artistic creation : it permitted the artist to translate better his sensitivity. Learning the techniques during many years was indispensible, but technique itself was nothing. It was one of the conditions necessary for the realization of a work of art.

Today, we are assisting in a double drift. In painting the technique tends to disappear to be replaced by pure imagination. Not having taken the time needed to learn the techniques of his art, the modern artist produces a series of arbitrary "creations", by applying principles which vary according to his personal desires. In a totally different discipline, artistic skating, it is exactely the inverse. The artist is just an executant of a series of remarkable acrobatics accompanied by some music. This music does not inspire the skater, it just accompanies the carefully prepared performance which the skater could perfectly execute without the music. The exercise is just a series of technical prowess for which the skater is judged. Obviously, in "artistic skating", the word "artistic" is not needed !

As for music, in which there are very few real amateurs, it is merely an arrangement of sounds to which one can correspond a spectacle, as in operas. The composer Richard Wagner considered that the orchestra should be dissimulated in a "mystic pit" - as was done at the Bayreuth festival - just as they hide those who work behind the scenes but who are also necessary.

Since our auditive sensitivity increases at night, we enjoy more listening to music in the dark. This is now possible thanks to the marvellous recordings offered by modern techniques. On the contrary, nothing is to be more advised against than classical music on television, where to amuse the spectator who is bored they show close-up shots of the the musicians.

*

Just as the inventor, the artist is a creator and his will to create is an inborn need. When Mozart began to compose at the age of five, it is evident that he was not motivated by glory or money. His father and his entourage did it in his place. But he obeyed his nature, which had given him the irrepressible desire to create - and especially - the inborn capability to be able to do it.

Until the 19th century, painting was one of the means available to express an emotion when facing a landscape , a face, a still life or a historical event. The painter tried to fix for eternity that which he felt in order that others could perhaps feel the same emotion. Without the classical painting we would not know the faces and the appearance of famous personages, as well as the way they dressed, ate and lived in the various social classes of the past.

Each painter learned a technique over the years which, as in all the arts, is not an end it itself for him, but a means to better express that which he feels. He also had a style which, after the inevitable proceeding by trial and error, remained the same for the rest of his life. Only the sensitivity, the mastering of his art and certain events in his life could make his creation evolve. The artist's clients were the aristocrates and the rich middle class for whom the painting was not an object of speculation or a possible source of profit. It was above all a pleasure in itself and at the same time a familly treasure to be transmitted from generation to generation.

If there was an eventual intermediary between the painter and the client, he did not promote the artist. He was neither a commercial nor an "impressario", just a simple agent. Moreover, the customers were generally connaisseurs who were not looking for a good buy and were not thinking of a possible profit.The idea of buying a painting to resell it for a profit did not exist. All that counted was the pleasure of possessing the painting.

The art of painting changed tremendously towards the end of the 19th century. Naturally one could think that this change was the result of the intellectual evolution of the artists. But the veritable cause is to be found in the technical innovations associated with the sociological evolution engendered by them.

Until the end of the Middle Ages, art was essentially sacred and the artist in many cases did not even sign his work of art. The only thing that counted was the spiritual messaage that he wished to pass. Then during the Renaissance, individualization of behaviors overtook the ineffable expression of the metaphysical message. Humanism and the Reform placed the individual to the fore. The sculptors, the painters and the writers freed themselves of the established rules to give their own interpretation of the world. Thus began to appear the premises of modern art, with all its drifts.

The innovation which overturned the most the graphical arts was the invention of photography. This soon fascinated the painters and the designers. Many even thought that it could give them a precious help by allowing them to have a first sketch of that which they wished to paint. In reality, photography was a new means to communicate the sentient world, while until then only painting permitted it. This new procedure did not transmit more impression nor emotion, but it was much more exact, faster and infinitely less costly than all the former methods. Certain artists renounced the traditional painting and design to devote themselves to this new form of expression. Others continued in the traditional way, but figurative art of the painters and designers lost public interest and expecially its audience.

At the same time ,a social upheaval occured with the appearance of a large number of new rich having made their fortunes in industry and commerce. Little by little they replaced the aristocrates and the grand bourgeois. Now many of them who dreamed only of social advancement, thought they could obtain the style of life and the status of the aristocrate thanks to their money.

They were heirs of the "bourgeois gentihomme" and "Monsieur Jourdain" who Molière had so well described. The works of art obtained at high prices to be exposed in beautiful residences, could but contribute in giving them the illusion that they were now "gentlemen". Monsieur Jourdain tried hard to learn good manners. It was much easier to buy paintings and sculptures by following the advice of experts. Thus one saw the appearance of many merchants of art, whose principle objective was to make a profit.

*

Until the end of the 19th century, almost all the paintings and sculptures represented the real. It was a figurative art understood by all. Besides, all the great painters, designers and sculptures of classical Europe were unanimously recognized during their lives. But with the arrival of non figurative or "informal" art, very surprising changes occured. It is thus that Van Gogh - neither his passion for painting nor his talent can be doubted - did not at all interest his contemporaries. He did not sell even one painting, yet today his works are sold for the highest prices. Does that mean that the art critics of his time were incapable and stupid and their successors were excellent experts capable of knowing the value of these works?

The truth is that at the time of Van Gogh we entered the epoch of the "business" of paintings. In other times it was the admiration which the painting awakened which determined its value. Today, it is the popularity of the artist - which, of course, can be manipulated by sharp commercial operations. Today, should one find a painting in an old attic that can be attributed to Rembrandt , the finder has found a fortune. If it is not authentic, in spite of its beauty, the painting is worth nothing. In the case of Van Gogh, simple chance had found that not one merchant of paintings had believed in the profit possible with his works.

The surréalist painting, which is still able to awaken an emotion and a feeling of happiness in the viewer, has practically disappeared. Art has become a completely intellectualized domain i.e., comprehensible only to a minority of initiated and according to critia known only by them. Molière, in two of his plays, already showed mediocre poets who tried to valorize their works by lengthy explanations while reciting the verses. Modern art, which no longer seaches for beauty, is now also an art which must be explained to be understood.

Formerly, it was natural that from birth one had a taste for gastronomy, paintings, music, architecture and furniture. Today, they try to make us believe that all is a question of training and of acquired culture, that all must be explained to be understood. In reality, just as one can always memorize that which is fit to say when drinking a certain wine or when tasting a certain dish, everyone can also memorize that which one must say when looking at a work of art in order to appear "cultivated" . But inwardly nobody will be fooled.

*

Picasso was the symbol of this new era. A very talented painter with multiple personalities, he understood the system of painting "business". What was his painting style ? Very difficult to say. The books written about him indicate that he changed his styles according to the epoch :

- Blue and rose period : 1901 - 1905

- Cubism : 1906 - 1907

- Neo - classical : 1920

- Surrealist and abstract : 1925 - 1936

- Expressionnism : 1937

The genius of Picasso was to also use politics to promote himself. During the period when the communist party was very popular with the intellectuals, he became a party member and invited people to share his ideas - but not his fortune, which was already considerable. At the time of the war in Spain, which he avoided, he realized a master's stroke when he produced the large painting named "Guernica", which was the name of a village in the Pays Basque bombarded by the Nazis. He thus became a figurehead of the antifascists.

A curious thing, when France was invaded by the Germans in 1940, Picasso was on the C"te d'Azure from where he could have easily have left for the United States. Yet, he did not stay in this privileged part of France, with a climate made for his mediterranean temperment. He went to Paris which was governed by the German national-socialists, the enemies of "degenerate art". Why this decision ? Perhaps he thought, like many frenchmen, that Germany would win the war. So, it was important for him to develop new relationships with the german officers charged with artistic questions for occupied northern France. In concluding, we cite a letter which Picasso wrote in 1952 to his friend Giovani Papini :

In art, people do not look for consolation and exaltation, but the refined, the rich, the idle, and the distillers of quintessence search for the new, the strange, the original, the extravagant and the scandalous. As for me, since cubism and after, I contented those masters and those critics with all the changing peculiarities which passed through my head. The less they understood the more they admired me.

As a result of amusing myself with these games, of all this nonsenses, of all these headaches, all these puzzles and arabesques, I became famous and very quickly. Fame for a painter means sales, profits, fortune and riches. And as alas, today you know, I am famous, I am rich. But when I am by myself, in my solitude, I do not have the courage to consider myself as an artist in the large and antic sense of the word. The great painters were Giotto, Le Titien, Rambrandt or Goya. I am just a public amuser who has understood his times and who consumes the best he can the imbecillities, the vanity and the cupidity of his contemporaries...

In any case, let us pay homage to this great painter whose commercial genius and his love of money prevented him from expressing his veritable talents. But let us also compare him to the poor Vincent Van Gogh, who insisted on producing paintings which did not meet the tastes of the day and whose life was as miserable as admirable.

Today, painting and sculpture, as in a general way all the fine arts, by ceasing to be above all sources of emotion and pleasure has become simple merchandise defined by speculative calculation and commercial strategy. Thus, the sense has changed completely. They have become mere articles in fashion - which soon are no longer in fashion - but then only beauty is eternal.

 

The Bible and the New Testament

In general, before the fifteenth century few knew how to read and write for their were little means and few schools. Let us cite that which Henri Caillavet, of the National Commity of Ethics wrote in 1998 concerning the subject of the invention of the printing press : "Let us recall that it was thanks to this discovery in the fifteenth century that knowledge was able to leave the small circle of intellectuals, cenacles, the abbeys, the cloisters and the imperial and royal courts.

The copier, descendants of the scribes of antiquity, abandoned little by little the art of illumination and that of calligraphy of essentially sacred and philosophical works... The multiplication of information had, in effect, important consequences on the evolution of the mind, the morals and indirectly on the ensemble of political structures. Without exagerating, I will say that the French Republic and democracy are more or less the daughters of the printing press."

Henri Caillavet has perfectly understood the importance of innovation which the printing press represented in the evolution of human society which had adopted it at the end of the Middle Ages. But let us remember that at the time when the old testament was written the situation was far worse than during the Middle Ages !

Today we have the habit of speaking with horror of despotic or totalitarian governments which suppress liberty of expression and communication. However, even in most of these regimes - except perhaps in the ancient Soviet regime - it is possible to listen to foreign radios, to telephone, to travel, etc., in such a manner that one can become aware ot the ideologies in force in the other countries.

In Palistine, during the times of Jesus, the quasi-totality of the population was composed of peasants and artisans who did not travel, except to go once a year to visit the Temple in Jerusalem. Most did not know how to read or write and the only ideology they knew was religious. - thus they practiced their religion conscientiously. In fact the word religion comes from the latin word "relier" (bind) , for religion binds the believers among themselves at the same time that it binds together all the faithful and the priests to God . It is the priests who are the intermediaries and the intercessors designated by him.

During those times, the memory was little sollicited, but even though most of the population did not know how to read they could memorize by heart most of the texts in the Bible. Today it is just the contrary. almost all know how to read and the Bible is the most sold book in the entire world ; but how many really read the Bible and know some of the precepts ?

*

The scribes and the Pharisees studied theology and the religious questions which were essentially founded on the sacred texts, the dogmas and tradition. In the old testament there appear a number of personages who probably never existed historically, such as Abraham and Moses. In any case, it is the words which they supposedly said which are important. It is they who affirm in the the sacred texts that a revelation is at work.

The latest researches by archeologists indicate that the episode of the Exodus of the Hebrew people from Egypt is in itself only a symbol fabricated entirely after the return of the Hebrews from their exile in Babylon - Egypt having replaced for the circumstance the country of Assyria. In fact only the Hebrew writings speak of the enslavement of the Hebrews at the time of the Pharaohs. There are no written traces in the egyptian chronicales. But after all, it is the texts which are of importance and not the historical or pseudo-historical frames in which they were placed. It is thus that during the time of Artarxerxes, the successor of Cyrus the "Liberator", that the scribe Edras was supplied with an authorization to impose the Law of Moses assimilated to all the Persan sayings and decrees.

But it is not always easy to interpret sacred texts, especially when it concerns Hebrew texts, which have always been the objects of different translations (literal, symbolic, numerologic, etc.). Josy Eisenberg and Armand Abecassis, in their admirable work "an open Bible", indicate for example that the first word of the Genesis, "Bereshit", "At the beginning" , had been translated in seven hundred different ways, each as plausable as the others. Each verse of the Torah have also been translated in a hundred ways, not only concerning the words but also the concepts and the ideas expressed.

It is true that the discussions among theologists were not known by the people, who accepted the teachings of the priests and followed the examples of the scribes and the Pharacees by studing and scrupulously observing the commanments (misvot) of the Torah. But that is exactly what Jesus did not do.

*

In most countries, when a doctrine - religious or political - is well established and accepted by the people, whoever puts in doubt its truth and honesty or the loss of interest of those who are the guardians and the propagators, he is considered as a heretic whose actions sometimes provoke veritable cataclysms. Let us recall the scandal provoked by Molière's play "Tartuffe".

Yet, Molière attacked only one particular case of hypocracy, while Jesus did not hesitate in his preachings to denounce the actions of the ensemble of scribes and Pharasees. Therefore, it is not surprising that the entire religious heirarchy were united in condeming the iconoclast.

Jesus had not tried to enter into the religious institutions of his day ; he spoke directly to the people by going from village to village accompanied by his disciples. Besides, he rarely referred to the sacred texts to dispense his teachings because, as it is said in the Gospels: "he speaks of authority not as the scribes and Pharasees"; which means that he searched to spread the truth without referring to the texts of the old testament. Therefore, he did not dialogue with the scribes and Pharasees. When they reproached him for not applying the Torah, he answered : "The law is made for man and not man for the law". He considered himself to be inspired by God.

Rather than referring to the Torah in his sermons, he used parabola, that is to say: "stories which are taken from everyday life", so that the illiterate peasants and artisans could understand better. All the people of the land, accustomed to live in the concrete, in effect find it difficult to understand the terminology and the concepts used by the intellectuals. They preferred judging men by their behavior rather than by their words, their ideas or their morals.

Jesus himself used as an example the bad shepherd who must not judge on that which he pretends to be. He said, "you will judge him by his acts, as one judges a tree by its fruits. If the tree gives bad fruit, it must be torn down and burned." It is thus on the level of behavior that he attacked the scribes and the Pharasees, and he did it in a very violent manner : "The scribes and the Pharasees are also seated in the chair of Moses, so do and observe all that they say, but do not act according to their works; for they say but they do not do. They make heavy loads and put them on the shoulders of men, but they do not want to even move a finger.They do all their actions to be seen by men. They like the best places in the meals, the first seats in the synagoges and the salutations in public places..."

Jesus never ceased in condemning the hypocracy of all those who cared mostly about their appearance in their attitudes and in their words. Here is what we can read in the new testament according to St Mathew (6.2- 8): "When you offer alms do not sound the trumpet as do the hypocrites in the synagogues a in the streets in order to be glorified by men. In truth, I say to you they have recieved their reward [...] But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your father [...] While praying, don't repeat vain words like the pagans who imagine that by loud words their wishes will be granted. Don't resemble them, because your father knows what you need even before you ask him."

These attacks are not the only ones we can read in the new testament. On the contrary Jesus never stopped in multiplying his criticisms which attacked frontally all the religious heirarchy. That is why it would be vain to reproach the jewish authorities for having condemned Jesus. Almost any authority would have done the same under the same circumstances. Especially since for the religious authorities, and even for a good part of the people, Jesus was not the Son of God but simply an agitator doubled with a demagogue and magician. But Jesus was not content just to denounce the behavior of the scribes and the Pharacees. He did not hesitate to criticize the ancient religious laws. We can cite numerous examples.

The Old Testament preaches an expanionist and domination doctrine. In Genesis (1.28) , God says to men : "Increase and multiply, fill the Earth and conquer it : dominate the fish of the sea, the birds in the sky and all the beasts which swarm on the Earth. The Bible also judges the human faults with a severity which excludes all pardons. In the Levitic (20;9-13) we can read: "Whoever will curse his father or his mother will be punished by death [...] If a man commits adultry with a married woman, if he commits adultry with the wife of his neigbor, the adulterous man and woman will be punished by death [...] If a man sleeps with a man as one sleeps with a woman, both have committed a horror, they shall be punished by death."

On the contrary, Jesus declares : "Judge not and you will not be judged." and also : "I have not come to bring justice but mercy." For Jesus human justice came from the political power, that is from Caesar : "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.", thus he takes from the religious power the right to judge political acts. Moreover, he remains in the domain of the sentiments, which is neither that of politics, which cares for the practical questions, nor that of the mind, the apanage of the intellectuals whose language is not understood by the people. Blaise Pascal, after having reflected on the catholic faith finally said : "It is the heart which feels God and not the mind" ? Upon saying that he put in question all the intellectual hierarchy, by intimating that the great theologians, the men most impregnated with spirituality were finally no closer to God than the most lowly of men.

Finally, the doctrine of Jesus is : peace in the family by pardon, amnesty in the midst of society and among nations - by this pardon which is accompanied by the forgetting of offenses Jesus wants to break the chain of hate, which in each family entrains a duty of memory which leads to a wish for eternal vengence. Mirabeau also affirms that "to pardon is to forget." We should also cite the Edict of Nantes, promulgated by Henri IV to put an end to the Wars of Religion between the catholics and the protestants :

"Firstly, that the memory of all past things on one part and the other, since the beginning of March 1585 until our accession to the throne and during the other preceding troubles and at their occasion, will remain put out and calmed, as things not having happened. And it will not be free nor permitted that our attorney general, nor other public or private person , at any time, nor for any occasion whatsoever, refer to, proceedings or lawsuit in a court nor juristiction whatsoever... We forbid our subjects of whatever state and quality, to renew the memory of it..."

*

During he three years of Jesus' public life, profound divergences appeared between him and the scribes and Pharasees, who were after all the the most active intellectuals of the Hebrew religion. He also let known how much he disapproved of a form of commerce which always searched for the means to make more profit. Let us reread again the new testament according to Matheu (21.12-14): " Jesus entered into the temple, he chased all those who sold and bought in the temple, he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of the pigeon sellers. and he said to them : "It is written : My house is called a house of prayer. But you make it a cavern of thieves." That is why the scribes and the Pharasees never ceased wishing to find his acts and his words at fault when referring to the Torah.

On his way to Jerusalem could Jesus have known that he would be arrested, judged an condemned by those to whom he had said that it was not necessary to go through them to talk to God ? His death administered the proof that he had spoken the truth.

Today certain persons try to attribute the condemnation to death of Jesus to the Romans. By affirming himself "King of the jews", Jesus could have represented a danger for the Romans occupying Palistine at the time. Alas, in the last year of his life, Jesus had very few persons who supported him. He had been denied by certain of his disciples, and the power of the religious hierachy was so great that it was easy for them to have Jesus hated rather than loved.

As for Pontius Pilate, as all the governers of occupied countries, his only mission was to preserve the interests of Rome and thus he must show a perfect neutrality concerning all the differences proper to the occupied nation, especially since Israel had conserved its traditional administrative and judiciary structure.

Fearing above all the resistance movements to the occupation, Pontius Pilate had certainly put into place what we call today a secret service. Therefore, he knew perfectly well all the hostile acts and words of this preacher who over the past three years preached while traveling from village to village. But nobody was able to report to him one single hostile word that Jesus would have pronounced against the roman power. However, Pontius Pilate could not intervene to protect Jesus without arousing the anger of the Sanhedrin and the High Priests. To save Jesus, he would have committed a fault incompatible with his mission vis-a-vis Rome. It would be justice to salute such a courageous act , examples of which we see so seldom today among our higher civil servants...

It is without a doubt that it was only the jewish powers of the time who condemned Jesus, but it would be really absurd to accuse them of deicide, because nothing existed which could incite them to see in him the son of God. The Sanhedrins and the High Priests could not have acted otherwise without losing face.

 

Is crosbreading the future of the world ?

The famous French socialogist Edgar Morin wrote an article in "Le Nouveau Obserateur of 21 november 2002 entitled: "Crossbreeding is the future of the world". But he did not indicate if he was speaking of racial or cultural crossbreeding, which of course is not at all the same thing.

A famous French cook can very easily create a new dish inspired by moroccan cooking ; this is then a question of cultural crossbreeding and not racial. His dish may obtain some temporary success or perhaps a durable success. In the latter case, it will be integrated into French gastronomy. The racial crossbreeding is more difficult to define, especially if one considers, as do volontarily the western intellectuals, that races do not exist.

Certain affirm that the notion of race has no meaning from a scientific point of vue. On our Earth there are merely different individuals, with the exception of course of identical twins. From this point of view, evidently one cannot readily understand that one can recommend crossbreeding. How can you mix races which do not exist ? That is why dominant ideolgy sometimes accepts to admit the existence of races, as is shown in this definition of the words "ethnic group" in the "Petit Robert" : "Ensemble of individuals which are close together by a certain number of civilization characteristics , notably the community of language and of culture (while race depends upon anatomical characteristics)."

In any case, one can note that the genetic imprint of each individual is unique (except in identical twins) whether it be in his brain or skin cells. We do not know why the genetic patrimony of an individual gives him unique anatomical characteristics but only one brain.

The "Petit Robert" seems to be terrorized by by the idea of defining that there exist different races who have created civilizations which are particular to them. Yet, they would only be repeating that which innumerable and honorable intellectuals have always said.

If we insist upon the definiton of race, we would say that the race is a immutable container which is part of the inborn, while ethnic group is a container coming from culture which is acquired. For example, If a Black native of Africa is born and raised in China, he will belong to the chinese ethnic and culture group ; if he is born in Norway, he will belong to the norwegen ethnic group. He will be of chinese or norwegen nationality. However, It is diffficult to deny that whatever be their nationality and their culture, the Blacks will always show everywhere evident predispositions for certain types of music or dance, as well as for certain sports activities. A 100 meter race final in the Olympic games unites athletes from several nations, but it is a fact that most are Blacks.

When Edgar Morin writes that "the crossbreeding indian-black-white in Brazil has created a magnificant civilization" and that "the indian-hispanic crossbreeding has created a properly mexican reality", we can therefore ask ourselves of which crossbreeding is he writing : a purely cultural or a purely racial crossbreeding ?

Let us take as a criterion the notion of civilization and let us compare 17th century Europe with the countries described by Morin. He claims that a civilization is more perfect and "magnificant" if it is made of crossbreeds. Now, the populations of Brazil and Mexico of today are numerically larger than that of all of Europe in the 17th century. Moreover, the means at their disposal to build, construct and manufacture have been multiplied by at least a hundred.

Our poor Europe of the 17th century, with its regions closed to crossbreeding and its few work tools, should have had an insignificant nuimber of magnificant creations compared to those of Brazil and Mexico. The city of Brazilia should be a hundred times more marvellous than the city of Florence. Our European cathedrals, chateaux and all our classical civilization should be be insignificant when compared to that which the Brazilians and Mexicans have produced. Is this really the case ?

*

Let is return to the distinction between race and ethnic group. An ethnic group is said to be an ensemble of individuals who are drawn together by a certain number of civilization characteristics, notably a community of language and culture. But from where come this language and culture ? Did they exist before the population itself, are they a gift of God, and why are there so many different among them ? The answers to these questions are generally left in the shadows. We must therefore suppose that these question are embarrassing.

We read in the Bible that God first created the universe and all that lives on the Earth, vegetable and animal, and that afterwards, on the sixth day he created man "in his image". From then on, all men should have been similar, exception made for certain anatomical differences. But if all men have the same psychological characteristics, the same intelligence and the same creativity, how come we have seen appear among them so many different languages, a diversity which is moreover not of a nature to aid universal comprehension ?

It is true that the Old Testament speaks of the Elected People who perhaps would be the only ones created in God's image. But language is not the only problem. Why the creativity which distinquishes man from the animal and which gave birth to civilization is it so different from race to race ? Does it suffice to explain it by alleging the anatomical differences&bsp?

In reality, each civilization and each language represents a specific accumulation of creations, innovations and inventions. All of these were of course not the work of all the members of a given community, but only of a few of them. They were then adopted by gregariousness and by the habit of immitating the dominants - at the beginning each community was formed of individuals having a certain attraction and a certain empathy for each other, thus this was favorable for their capability to adapt to innovations.

To let believe, as would like the dominant ideology, that by replacing all the German babies by African babies which then would be raised in the German language and in the German cultural environment, that one would obtain a new population which could perfectly perpetuate the German civilization seems to be pure utopia. That this change would occur over a long period of time does not solve the problem.

The difference between races (or inborn anatomical characters) and ethnic groups (or acquired culture) is in most regards plausible. We know that the anatomical specificities of a man are imposed upon him by his genetic patrimony, which commands his development. Even if he eats a lot of soup, a child born to be small will not be able to become big, unless one manipulates his genes. But the role of the genetic patrimony, which is constituted at the moment of conception, is not limited to programming the anatomical character, it also commands the personality, the character, the tastes, the aptitudes and the predispositions.

*

To affirm that crossbreeding is the future of the world, that is to say that the genetic crossbreeding , the mixed man, would produce a civilization superior to that produced by a homogenious population, is easy to say. In effect, it is not easy to explain how it could be done . How would it be possible to oblige the men and the women to marry only persons of their race. Only a rigorous totalitarian regime could do it. In the United States where several races have lived together for a long time, and where today racism is regressing, the crossbreeding is regressing and not increasing. Most of the American television films and series show us principally couples of the same race.

There remains the purely cultural crossbreeding. But it has not at all been shown that the mixing of cultures produces a civilization more interesting and more beautiful than that created by peoples exempt from all genetic and cultural mixing.

If Jean-Sebastien Bach had been placed at birth in a family of chinese musicians, in a China without any relations with Germany, would he as an adult have composed the same type of music or chinese music, or no music at all ?

On the island of Reunion, where an extraordinary mixing of Blacks, Indians, Chinese and Europeans has occured , it does not seem to have given place to an excptional flowering of cultural innovations. In fact, the civilization of the island of Reunion does not appear to be assuredly as rich as that of the Incas, where the population had never been touched by foreign cultures.

As for the Arabo-Andalousian civilization during the upper Middle Ages, which is constantly presented to us as a model of cultural crossbreeding, it was much more "Arab" (and Islamic) than "Andalousian", and besides without a doubt the reason for which it ws incontestably brilliant. Finally after several centuries of cohabitation, the Arabo-Spanish crossbreeding did not occur, since the descendents of the Wisigoths finally chased the Moslems from their land

Let us put aside this criterion of civilization, which moreover remains poorly defined, and let us consider perpetuation on which the others depend. In nature, the animals and the plants are assured to be able to perpetuate except for the effects of the environmental upheavals due to climatic changes or the actions of man. In effect, they are are perfectly adapted to a stable or slowly changing environment.

The genetic patrimony which is transmitted from generation to generation is essential immutable : it always programs the same behaviors which are the best adapted to their environment. But, the condition for this continuity is the absence of crossbreeding. However, among the birds it is often difficult to distinguish between races and species. For example, the difference between a bartevelle partridge and the choucar partridge are tiny. It is the same for the half-collar and full-collar black fly-catchers, or between the brown and the black warblers. Each one of these belong to different species which, by definition cannot be crossbbred.

Let us note, that on the contrary to wild animals modern man does not live in a stable environment. Under these conditions, it serves no purpose that individuals transmit their genes in order that there descendants find themselves at birth adapted to their environment, since, after a generation or two this environment can be completely transformed.

With animals who live in communities, the integration of an individual coming from another community , even though completely similar to theirs, is generally impossible. When a bee keeper installs his hives side by side, a worker bee returning full of nectar can make a mistake in picking her hive. Far from being welcomed with joy, she will be killed. In effect, a certain specific order reigns in each hive, and the bees of the hive work to prevent all that could perturb it.

The famous WWF (Wild Welfare Fund), whose primary activity is to assure the protection of wild animals, published in their magazine the following observations :

"Genetic pollution : The genetic patrimony of a population is unique and adaped to its biological environment. This patrimony is the guarantee of the survival of the species. It is the fruit of a long genetic selection. Its variability permits the species to adapt, if necessary, to future changes in its environment. The genetic patrimony is weakened when the animals come from a small group of individuals having evolved in isolation, or when arificial selection modifies the character of the "wild" type. As a consequence, the release of bred individuals who then mix with the wild population "pollutes" the genetic patrimony.

"Sanitary pollution : The great density of animals in modern farms is favorable for the appearance and multiplication of pathogenic germs. The game raised on farms when released in naure are often carriers of bacteria, virus and parasites which profligate during the time of stress and privations which accompany the release into an unknown environment. These are veritable time bombs which are put into contact with the indigenous population which in turn risks to be contaminated."

We can arrive at two conclusions concerning this text : first that biological crossbreeding, when it occurs in nature, has multiple inconveniences; then that the mixing of individuals where not all are immuned to the same diseases can produce epidemics which are sometimes benign but sometimes catastrophic. Of course, here it is a question of observations made concerning animals, and we all know that man finds his glory in claiming that he has "freed hiimself from nature" the better to dominte it. The natural defenses have been replaced by vaccines and muliple medecines, which improves the health of man - theoretically ! - much better than that of wild animals.

But we can in any case deduce from the observations of the WWF that if the groups of the same species were able to survive for so long in many different countries, it is because each one was able to create natural defenses to protect themselves from bacteria and virus which existed in their proper environment.

In fact, when two different communities meet, it can be the cause of a catstrophy. Today, it is suspected that the Inca's were disseminated primarily because of a type of grippe brought in by the Spaniards against which they were not immuned. The great plagues of the Middle Ages were introduced into Europe by the sailors coming from the East, where the disease had already ravaged the population. As concerns our modern day AIDES, certain researchers suspect that it came from a race of monkeys already immunised against the disease and that it was transmitted to man by sexually contact. .. plausible !

*

Independently of the criteria of health and perpetuation, which are the basis of the thesis developed in this book, one can be astounded at seeing so many intellectuals who do not cease in speaking of culture and civilization and to foresee a humanity unified by this "mixture", where all the individuals would have the same values, and the same behavior, where the same supermarkets would offer them the same products and the same objects, where they would all wear the same cloths, practice the same sports, would speak the same language (probably American English) and would attend the same shows, while the same archtecture would make it impossible to distinguish a difference among Hong Kong, Sao Paulo, New York, Tokyo, Berlin or Moscow. It is even more astounding to see the same intellectuals consider as "progress" that which can be naught but an impoverishment.

If we compare closely the words of Edgar Morin with those that the emminent anthropolgist Claude Levi-Strauss declared in a speach at the United Nations we can note their opposite views :

"One cannot put into the same category, nor automatically attribute to the same preconceptions, the attitude of certain individuals or groups to certain values which renders them partially or completely insensible to different values. There is nothing inadmissible in the fact of placing a model of life above all the others, or of not being attracted by individuals or groups whose way of life, respectible in itself, is very remote from the system to which one is traditionnally attached.

This relative incommunicability does not evidently authorize anyone to oppress or destroy the values one does not accept, nor there representatives : but under the condition that it is not repugnant. It can be the price to pay so that the system of values of each community or each spiritual family be preserved and that it finds within itself the necessary resources to renew itself."

Edgar Morin wishes mixing and Claude Levi-Strauss legitimates communitairism under the condition that equality and mutual respect exists among the communities. However, one notes the differences between the spiritual families he wishes to efface and the other between the spiritual families he wishes to maintain - but neither one of the two explains these differences.

 

The perfect man

To render the human being perfect is a program which one can at first sight only approve. This was one of the first objectives of the intellectuals of the Age of Enlightment. who followed in the steps of the clergy but wanted to do it by other methods and also without a doubt because of a new definition of the perfection of man. Whether they did or did not believe in God, these intellectuals were in effect convinced of the infinite "perfectibility" of man, and they thought that it was coupled with the unlimited plasticity of human nature. Thus they totally opposed the thinkers who remained closer to the world of the third estate, whose philosophy was so well translated by La Fontaine in his fables.

The difference as I have shown throught this book, is fundamental . The changes in the life of men since prehistoric times, as noted by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, are due according to him to a quality specific to the human being : "his capability to perfect himself". Rousseau, thinking that the human being is more and more perfect, thought that all these changes are due to his will and his intelligence, that it is his mind which is being perfected"; He writes : "and it is this mind which controls his behavior. The thinkers who believe in the inborn and who base their beliefs on the results of scientific research, think that one is as one is born and that if the human being has been transformed, it is because his genetic patrimony has been modified.

*

The champions of the perfectioning of man by education were Condorcet in France and Leibniz in Germany. The first declared that "there is no difference between the men and the women which is not the work of education". The second declared : "Give me education and I will change the face of Europe within a century." Yet, while a part of the theoreticians of the Age of Enlightment wanted to change man by education, another part were impassioned by the natural sciences. For the latter, it was above all by selection that the human qualities could be improved, in the way in which one improves those of animals and plants.

George Cabanis (1757-1808) who was a friend of Condorcet, was one of those who believed in selection to "perfect" the human being. In his: "Report of physics and the moral of man", he writes : "Curiously after having occupied ourselves with the means to render useful and agreeable animals and plants more beautiful and marvelous, after having remade a hundred times those of horses and dogs, after having transplanted, grafted and worked in many ways the fruits and the flowers, is it not a great shame to have totally neglected the human race ! As if it was less important ! As if it were more important to have an ox big and stronger than men vigorous and healthy, beautiful peaches and colorful tulips rather than good and wise citizens."

This text did not at all chock the intellectuals of the time. It expressed well that which they thought and had as the same objective. Of course, it was easier to oblige the children to go to school to "perfect" themselves than to oblige the adults to mate in a selective manner , by following the directives of the scientists !

These two different ways to attempt to create a perfect man continued to have a great posterity. While the "educators" continued to take care of education, the "selectionists" caressed their own dreams. This is how Charles Richet, Noble Price winner in physiology and medicine in 1913, wrote in "La sélection humaine", a work printed in 1922 :

"It is a question of improving the human species. We are suddenly placed before this strange contrast : on the one side the immensity of this progress; on the other our prodigious frivolity which prevents us from tackling it. What ? Why we busy ourselves with producing selective races of horses, dogs and pigs, and even prunes and beets and we make no effort to create a less defectuous human race, to give more vigor to muscles, more beauty to features, a more penetrating intelligence, more memory acuity, a more energetic character and to increase longevity and robustness.. What astounding neglect ! What criminal negligence in face of the future !"

Thus, Charles Richet thought that the qualities and the faults which characterize a human being are not caused by education but they are hereditary. However, he also thought that it was possible, thanks to selection, to create a perfect man. To tell the truth, his ideas were already popular since the time of Darwin and Galton, that is since a half century. At his epoch they were certainly not rejected with horror or indignation, in fact those who professed them recieved all kinds of honors, even the Nobel Prize !

*

When one refers to Condorcet, Leibniz, Cabanis or Richet, one sees quickly that the two methods have the same weak point. They aspire for "perfection" but they never clearly define what the perfect man would resemble. It is because all definitions of "perfection" are necessarily subjective. Each one of us tends to see as "perfect" the one who equals or surpasses us in the subject which we know the best. For the sportsmen, the perfect man would be the greatest champion of all times; for the scientist, one of the researchers who has made the most discoveries; for a priest, one of the most venerated saints. The perfect man for an industrialist would be Mr. Ford, for an inventor it would be Mr. Edison.

But let us suppose that we could agree on a definition of the perfect man, which one of the two methods proposed to do it is thought to be the best. The first is based exclusively on the theory of the all acquired and which foresees to either render all children identical by means of a uniform education, or to make any child an athlete, a famous surgeon or a great pianist through education, are of course doomed to absolute failure. Education can help a child to develop his inborn talents but it cannot create them. From a scientific point of view, it is this theory of all acquired which explains the total failure of Soviet genetics during the time of the notorious case of Trofim Lyssenko.

As for the second method, that of selection, inspired by that which has been practiced for a long time with plants and animals, today it could be helped by the acquired of biotechnologies. Without minimizing the perspectives which seem possible by genetic manipulation, it is possible, if not probable, that selection could arrive at some results.

But those results in my opinion should be totally condemned, because the method is based on the idea that there exists a type of perfection that could be defined objectively, although in a unilateral manner. To adopt a unique criterion to judge human quality would be to establish a rigid heirarchy between individuals which is completely contrary to the natural order. In effect, nature ignores absolute superiority or inferiority. Nature does not know the differences. The aptitudes or the inaptitudes are a result of these differences which are always relative to a precise activity and which cannot be appraised other than in accordance with a particular context. The superior indivual as such does not exist. The perfect man does not exist !

 

Conclusion

>The human being is an animal gifted with imagination. He is rather sensitive to images and is sometimes even more sensitive to them than to the real. This particularity, this difference has played an important role in the evolution of the human species. In effect, the animals are not sensitive to images. A cat is completely disinterested seated in front of a film showing birds, while one bird alone moving in a cage fascinates the cat. On the contrary, since prehistoric times man already painted animals on cave walls, thus showing that he could imagine the real and represent it by a design. He also imagined arms and traps to increase and improve his food supply, defend himself against predators and feed and dress his family and his clan.

Not only did the human beings continue to increase in number, but by adopting innovations created by their imagination and their environment , the quality of their life style and of their food have evolved continually. As his sentient world evolved, the human being was also modified. For example, this is how our ancestors were insensative to the suffering of animals , while in our times many of us cannot accept it and we become militants for the interdiction of hunting and bull-fighting.

Today, many people think that our ancestors were "barbarians" and that we have become better from the standpoint of morals, thanks to the intellectual evolution we have enjoyed. But in reality, it is the evolution of our envirnment which has modified the sensitiveness of our five senses, at the same time it has transformed our genes which we transmit. Notably, from that comes our evaluation of what is good and what is bad.

But this same evolution has also seen the appearance of deviants in our behavior : it has become more and more different from the behavior of our ancestors. At the same time it has progressively moved away from its biological finalities. When certain deviants occur in numerous individuals, for example in the sexual domain, we have a tendency to accept them as normal. However, one cannot say that it is reason which has created these deviants; they limit themselves to justify them a postiori. These new orientations and these new pulsions are inborn. They come from the life style which was that of our ancestors.

Until the XVII th century, the idea of progress as a change for the better did not really exist. In the immense class of peasants and artisans, neither the idea of a continual perfectability of the human being nor that of an evolution necessarily leading to an eldorado were present in their minds. It germinated in only a few heads due to a wild spirit which our ancestors named "imagination".

However, certain intellectuals were seduced by this idea of progress and gave it the following defintion : "The evolution of humanity and civilization to an ideal end". Thus imagination was not fought against nor put in its place, but on the contrary it was praised . Along with several right ideas, one saw many ideas of utopia flower.

Basically two essential themes were constructed : that of the infinite perfecting of the human being thanks to education, and that of the constant improvement of material life thanks to the techno-sciences.

Evidently, the perfection thanks to education was only possible if the human being was formed by the acquired which were given to him. Unfortunately, it is based upon a false idea which the development of modern science has disproved. Man at birth is not a ball of virgin wax, a bare table. He is already the carrier of determinations and predispositions which are proper to him. Of course, he could eventually benefit from the acquired, but it will always be based upon the inborn which are his. Besides, one cannot impose the acquired. It will always be his inborn nature which will choose those which he is able to assimilate and which will be profitable to him.

Of course, this idea according to which man is formed thanks only to the acquired inherited from the family, the school and society is very seductive. We can regret that it has been revealed as being false ! But the fact is that it continues in spite of all the denials which have been brought against it. It is this principle of all acquired which determines for example the organization of the French National education, where unfortunately only a minority of the students assimilate durably that which they are taught, while unfortunately the majority content themelves with memorizing a little knowledge to be able to pass the examinations , a knowledge which they will have soon completely forgotten. It is also the principle of all acquired that allows one to afffirm that a France populated by Africans and Asians would be just the same as she has been for the past centuries, provided they be born in France.

However, it seems obvious that if there exist on our planet Earth multiple cultures having their proper languages, their mores and their civilization, it is because the people who have formed them have different mentalities, personalities and creativity. We know that inventions and innovations are spontaneous. One does not learn to be an inventor, one is born an inventor. It is the reason why there exists a fundamental difference between that which one learns and that which one creates. A German or Italian violinist, pianist or organist are interchangeable, but Jean-Sebastien Bach and Rossini are not. That which distinquishes peoples one from the other is the creativity specific to each, while the learned culture can be assimilated by any people without their nature being fundamentally changed

Of course, today we no longer really believe in the perfectability of the human being by education, because the failure of this doctrine is obvious to us. Yet, the dogma of the constant improvement of our material well-being remains as strong as ever. This conviction which comes from our nature and our sensitivity has evolved with our environment. We have become dependant upon all the innovations which we have adopted, just as drug is for the drugged, without our being able to show that we have become happier thanks to them than before. We have simply became dependent upon them.

We could easily calculate that our standard of living has been multiplied by a thousand since the 18th century, the times when there was neither running water, nor electric lighting, nor central heating, nor washing machines, nor gas stoves, nor refigerators, nor radio, nor television, nor telephone, nor automobiles, nor all the medicines which we absorb. But are we a thousand or even ten times happier ? When watching a play of Molière, who painted the life of our ancestors so well, can we really say that we are a thousand times happier than they were ? Can we really believe that the little dog, whose rich owner does not stop petting it, is infinitely happier than its savage ancestors were ? To imagine so equals confusing change with improvement.

Another great error which the choristers of progress make, is to forget that our primary source of happiness is emotive and not material. Love, friendship, companionship and faith in shared values, these are what allow us to be happy even in mediocre material conditions. Let us not forget the simple joy of living. That which we name "progress" has not ceased in regressing the veritable factors of happiness. Our society has become a creator of anxiety (as is shown by our increase in consumption of anti-depressers of all sorts) and the statistics concerning numerous diseases show their constant progression : cancer, Alzheimers disease, allergies, diabetes, boulimia, anorexia, dylexia... At the same time it has carried along the disappearance of organic communities and the dissolution of social ties which were powerful factors of cohesion and solidarity. Anonymity and mass solitude have replaced social life. In the city of Paris half the apartments are occupied by single persons. And sexual obsessions render more and more rare the love which draws two beings together for life.

Until the 19th century the human species consumed primarily things which were renewable or practically inexhaustible. Today, this is no longer the case. Now our life is more and more dependent upon natural resources which are being used up, as for example, oil, gas, coal and metals. There are others which do not renew sufficiently such as wood and fish. While a world oil crisis is already announced, we can note that the replacement solutions concerning energy are very insufficient and present multiple inconveniences. Petroleum, which plays an important part in our civilization, is an object of a decreasing return on exploitation, while the demand continues to increase. Considering the place which oil occupies not only in transportation but also in agriculture and industry, its exhaustion can only result in terrible upheavals.

We also note the multiple pollution of the air, the earth and the water, as well as the increase in the carbon dioxyde in the air which provokes a greenhouse effect, the consequences of which can be disasterous. The warming up of the atmosphere engenders more and more frequent natural catastrophies of a greater and greater amplitude. The melting of the polar ice caps will rise the level of the seas which will cause intollerable flooding.

Thus in fact, the improvement in our well-being by overconsumption is translated into an exhausting of the resources, the lowering of our happiness, a fragilization of our health and the devastation of the nature so important to our lives, all of which is preparing a very uncertain future for us.

It is necessary to explain this mechanism of the continual augmentation of consumption whose consequences have revealed themselves to be so disasterous. I have tried to show in this book how the first usurers had changed their status as their system of loans with interest expanded. They become the financiers whose fortunes became greater and greater as the people in advanced societies began to live more and more on credit. With their giganitic capital assets, they undertook to speculate and they acquired all that could permit them, by increasing their revenues, to realise substantial increases in value. They have bought the best enterprises thus leaving only a small part to private investors. They have acquired numerous agricultural domains, especially the vineyards, certain of which now carry their names.

They have entered into the commerce of works of art and have also invested in spectacle sports. Let us recall that in the sports domain the Olympic games , made famous by Pierre de Coubertin, were originally supposed to be friendly sports competitions where the essential was to participate. In fact the definition of the games was : "Physical or mental activity purely free which has in the consciousness of he who takes part, no other purpose than the pleasure which it procures." Of course, nothing in common with the enormous "business" which the Olympic Games have become.

But let us return to the enterprises, for the root of the problem is there. From the lowly worker, to the foreman, the staff and on to the (real) director, all normally work so that the enterprise makes a profit and generates an increase in value. This objective is not contestible in itself. But the earnings and the increase in value , which can sometimes be considerable, do not go to those who created them. In other times, the peasants and artisans considered that the profits should serve as reserves against bad times and that their working tools were inalienable property which made it possible for the owners to make a living. To sell the goods received from parents was considered dishonorable and the expression "increase in value" simply had no sense. Today, in France, the inheritance taxes on an enterprise with a single owner are so high that he cannot pay them. So, the financiers having the necessary capital buy the enterprise.

A good enterprise is normally a lucrative investment, of course under the conditon that it continues to develop, for if there is no growth there is no increase in value. Today, it is the owners who name the directors, whose mission is to increase the profits and the value. In order to arrive at these objectives, they have two means : first by increasing their sales, usually by offering new products and using publicity. Then they must improve the productivity and profitability by replacing personel with machines. Now, if the increase in sales demands an increase in personel, an improvement in productivity makes it possible to decrease the number of emplyees. Because of the competition among enterprises they are obliged to improve their productivity and to increase their sales, otherwise they will risk disappearing. Thus, there can be either an increase or a decrease in the number of workers.

Let us consider two simple examples. First the one of the farmers, whose sales have increased notably over the past three centuries, primarily because of the improvement in productivity. The result is that within the past few decades the number or farmers has gone from about 95 % of the population to a mere 3 percent. The second example is that of Germany which today has become the first exporter in the world, thanks to the excellent productivity of its industry, which, however, has five million unemployed and a very low economic growth.

Let us review the adsurdity of the system : 1) The enterprises are obliged to improve their productivity and increase their sales. 2) The profits from this activity go to the owners (the stockholders) who have done nothing, but who want the system to continue. 3) The consequence of this increase without end of the consumption are: the weakening of health, the increase in various pollutions and the exhaustion of numerous natural resources.

In order for France to break this perverse system, to excape this fatal enmeshing, there are only three possibile solutions: 1) Retire from international competion, that is to say from the liberal economic system which is very favorable to the financiers, put very unfavorable for the producers. 2) Gradually surpress credit. 3) To consider the enterprise as an inalienable property belonging morally to those who make it work. Then, the profits would not be distributed but put into reserve in case of bad times. The stock market would then disappear, since it lives only thanks to the increase in value which is a result of growth; but there would no more be growth in that sense.

We have just mentioned the competition among industrial, agricultural, commercial and service enterprises. But there is another : the military competition among nations. While several billion human beings live today with less than one dollar per day, The Defense budgets of most nations have become absolutely gigantic. Tens of thousands of researchers and inventors work hard to develop arms which are more and more deadly and more and more easy to use. In olden times, the wars were potentially less murderous and disease and famine were the major killers. Today, those who are responsible for using the arms of mass destruction are much more protected than the civilian population which would be the principle victim.

France of today has become a very small military power which could only serve as an auxilliary force to one of the great powers. But to participate, even weakly, in a world conflict, would be to expose France to terrible reprisals. That several nuclear missles strick our nuclear power centers and France is on its knees.

Alone, can our small country be of interest to a great power ? Our agriculture lives mainly thanks to subsidies. Our largest industries already belong to foreigners or to the large multinational firms. We do not have many natural resources - neither oil, nor gas, not even gold and precious stones. Shoudn't we look seriously at the possibility of retiring from the armements race ? We should seriously consider the possibility of declaring ourselves politically neutral and to do away with our arms. We could then use the enormous Natioinal Defense budget to pay our (enormous) debts, construct hospitals, retirement homes and all kinds of useful things for the entire population. Our actions could also serve as an example for the people of other nations who could also give up the armements race

Our nation and the world will soon find their backs to the wall. In the years to come, let us hope that humanity will little by little become aware that this evolution which we call "progres" is in a sense senseless, and that it is time that we disengage ourselves from this fatal enmeshing ! ".

 


End of Part III
MAXIME LAGUERRE
Translated from the original french
by Edward S. Maykut
(5 January 2006)
(intertitres de Marc Schweizer)

 

Ce livre est paru en français aux Éditions du Petit Chemin
Copyright by MAXIME LAGUERRE novembre 2005
Envoi postal Prix 23 Euros franco de port Europe chez:

Amazon.fr