“A fever has seized the public debate” ; extremes lead to ” civil war “. No doubt: Emmanuel Macron watched Feverthe latest series from Éric Benzekri, the director of Black Baron. The synopsis of this fiction is simple: a (black) football player headbutts and insults his (white) coach. Two readings of the event clash through influencers. A far-right stand-up comedian with a large following on social media sees it as a clear case of anti-white racism. A particularly vocal indigenous activist recognizes it as yet another colonial scenario.
By imposing their own narrative, these two figures virtually pit the communities against each other and order everyone to choose a side. France, split in two, then finds itself on the brink of civil war. This script (admittedly excessive) is not totally foreign to us. Death of young Nahel, tragedy of Crépol, controversy about the singer Aya Nakamura, Palestinian flag in the hemicycle: nothing escapes the fever of the polarisation.
” U.S. against them “
Political polarization, like its electromagnetic equivalent, reorganizes the social body in a simplified manner around partisan and impervious worldviews. It draws crude dividing lines between a familiar “us” and a threatening “them”. If this division into poles is watertight, it is because it is not based primarily on inequality but on identitiesSocial inequalities are negotiated, identities collide and hurt each other, according to sociologist François Dubet.
You can be “more or less” well paid, but you cannot be “more or less” Muslim, Christian, Jewish, atheist, homosexual or woman. The inflation of societal controversies, sometimes to the detriment of social problems, mechanically tends to feed closed monologues where experiences and values are juxtaposed. Since these antagonisms are easy to tell, traditional media and social network algorithms increase their degree of visibility.
How to depolarize?
How to lower the temperature? How to “depolarize”? Should we call for moderation, dialogue, or the magic of “complex thinking”? If we are to believe the inventor of the concept of polarization, the Dutch philosopher Bart Brandsma (Polarisation. Understanding the Dynamics of Us Versus Them, 2017), the one who positions himself in the center is not in the best position to bring down the fever. Whether he wants to “block extremes” or “build bridges”, his middle position redoubles the polarization because it confirms the existence of the antagonism he fights. And above all, by placing himself above the fray, as arbiter, he disqualifies all other words and confiscates the point of view of truth, therefore dialogue.
To depolarize, we must not fight the poles but replace the simplifying and toxic divisions with other more functional divisions. Fever, one of the communicators responsible for the crisis suggests taking the problem out of the closed emotional space of identity and bringing it back into the sporting field. It manages to highlight the footballing and strategic disagreement which actually pits the player against his coach. The same is true of politics, which is the art of intelligently organizing the disagreement. Contrary to what is often said, the French do not aspire to be brought together but correctly divided. However, polarization, aggregates of contradictory demands or unnatural alliances do not draw clear dividing lines.
For three weeks, the particles of political life have been swirling in the media test tube, searching for relevant divisions. Will they succeed in precipitating an offer that is not a default choice for the voter?
Find, as soon as they are officially published, the results of the 1st round of the 2024 legislative elections, municipality by municipality.
