Caroline Fourest launches, with her latest opus “le vertigo Metoo”, into a plea for discernment between misdemeanors and crimes, between presumption of innocence and presumption of truthfulness: reason and justice instead of emotions and narcissism. Delicate but beneficial exercise!
Steven Pinker explained it to us not so long ago: civilization progresses in a zig-zag pattern. And backtracking is common when the downsides of change become apparent. However, the change in question can still be of interest, hence the expression “don't throw the baby out with the bathwater”. It then follows a refinement of the system in order to preserve the positive and eliminate the negative as much as possible. It is to this task that we tackled Caroline Fourest in his “ vertigo Me Too ».
We discover an anthology of everything that can go wrong since the word has become free around cases of toxic influence (because there are beneficial influences, Pygmalion, if you look at us…). Each possibility is illustrated by famous cases, dissected so that they can be used in complete generality. Obviously, in passing, our intellectual laziness is being seriously abused. Ah good ? Yes, the one that makes us want to judge in 5 minutes, to put down the protagonist who we already didn't like, and to feel sorry for the poor victim.
No luck for Manichaeism, humans are and remain complex.
Everything he says is full of traps. Here, the verb to tell. Dorothée Dussy, who interviewed many child molesters, understood this well: they all tell themselves a story that “authorizes” them to act as they do. Young people will keep one traumatic memorylikely later to lead to traumatic repetition. It is this phenomenon that triggers “incomprehensible” returns to the criminal: the wounded spirit comes to seek out this part of itself that has been taken away from it.
The child crime remains for these reasons the cradle of helland was also touched by the freedom of speech in the public space of the adult world. This was also reflected in the cry “ we believe you ”, understandable after so many centuries of silence. A whole section of associations and professionals wants to apply “we believe you” in a pure and harsh manner, or by confusing reason and emotion. However, the Outreau affair showed that lying by young people and adults alike exists. It is therefore imperative to stick to “I am listening to you”, in addition to “I will protect you”.
Another desire that haunts many of our contemporaries: the conspiracyso active on social networks. The pleasure of displaying “secrets” full of turpitude committed by the “elites” before the eyes of the average person means that certain sites specialize in “spicy” rumors, which are of course quickly learned and only incriminated.
And, in the same series, let us cite the attraction of divisive ideologies, in the name of which we will promptly award the patent of victim to those of our camp and the opprobrium will be thrown on any member “on the other side”.
What a good job for a political commissioner to settle his scores!
A keen observer of today's world, Caroline emphasizes that the path to notoriety (and the authorization to be aggressive) passes through the “victim” box. This is why the term “ plaintive narcissism » can characterize certain overplayed postures in the media world.
Which does not prevent the list of people implicated in the worlds of entertainment, cinema and the media from being staggering, and causing a “catch-up” with the appearance of a tidal wave. We will not mourn the monsters who took advantage of it for too long.
But our new practices will only be maintained in the long term if we avoid drifting towards unlimited intransigence. We cannot classify under the same term a heavy insistence in the flirting phase with an action with threats or assault.
During the launch of the Me Too movement and its corollary Balance ton Porc, with its desire to distance itself from old practices, the general public mocked Catherine Deneuve and her “right to annoy”. In retrospect, we can see in C Deneuve's position an annoyance at the success of victimization in our society. Caroline deduces a wish: “fewer victims, more fighters”.
In short, it is about reintroduce reason and precision in this landscape dominated by emotions.
As always, it is a question of seeking a balance: of the presumption of innocence with the presumption of truthfulnessnotably. Legal tools can also be improved, but not in a hurry. We talk a lot about consent, which is currently absent from the legal arsenal in France. But, once introduced, the question of present or absent consent would become central in the trials, hence pressure from lawyers on the victims, already so upset as we know. Another sensitive parameter: the limitation period. If it becomes infinite as for crimes against humanity, a barrier which prevents rapists from murdering their victims falls…
At the end of her overview of current society, Caroline lists around twenty tips “don't do this or that…” summarizing her plea to introduce nuance and precision into the debate.
And we mason them? A large part of the book is directly useful to us. It begins with the search for truth and the use of reason at the helm. We also recognize ourselves in the distrust of amalgamations: everything must be weighed on a case-by-case basis, and there is no question of replacing justice. We only open it if we know, and we must treat our intimate wishes with circumspection. It is important not to give in to your bad inclinations, even covered by the impunity of the nickname. Listening is always required, and strives to kindly overcome differences of opinion based on ages or social categories. Let's go!
