Gaston Bachelard, philosopher of science, introduced in 1938 into Training of the scientific mind the concept of epistemological obstacle. According to him, obstacles to knowledge come not only from external constraints (lack of data, limited techniques), but also from deeply rooted intellectual habits. If Bachelard identifies the obstacles to the evolution of scientific thought, today we could try to identify the obstacles to thought itself. Because the feeling is general: the content of the exchanges, particularly on social networks or during the arguments of the National Assembly, force us to admit that the level of reflection has become worrying. What obstacles must be overcome to rediscover the interest of a debate and the promise of a thought?
The first obstacle seems to me to be the Manichean hypnosis in which we constantly dabble. Our system of thought too often remains dualistic. Each subject falls into the trap of simplifying opposites, for or against, of militant combat. We prefer, out of ideological loyalty, to be wrong with our side than right with the other, as Raymond Aron says. But moving forward with ideas presupposes overcoming oppositions in a dialectical movement that reconciles them by overcoming them.
The second obstacle would be that of “globalism”. Criticizing one aspect of a reality is taken as an integral challenge to this same reality. Questioning certain excesses of wokism immediately makes you look like an antiwoke. It is difficult for some to admit that within this movement there is both a defense of just causes and an uncompromising ideology. To overcome this confusion, conceptual nuances are necessary. For example, an offense is not harm; a microaggression is not a crime; remaining concerned about discrimination is one thing, falling into a moralistic trap is another, etc.
Speak at the level of ideas and not identities
The third could be said to be verbal. It is that of words which, poorly defined, block any discussion. I had a recent example of this with the term “right-thinking”. Using this expression on LinkedIn, what was my surprise to see that a significant number of Internet users confused right-thinking (a derogatory term designating unique and dogmatic thinking) with the fact of thinking well. As if the word “good” referred to something good! Any debate should be preceded by a preliminary exercise of definitions to equip oneself with precise vocabulary and an accurate lexicon.
The fourth obstacle, that of “positivism”, is one of the most robust. Beneath its pleasant trappings, the idea we are talking about can appear so pleasant that those who question it inevitably come across as critical or reactionary. How, for example, can parity be called into question? This notion having a strong positive charge, it becomes impossible – especially for a man – to invalidate it. But this forgets that parity, despite its good intentions, can serve women badly by hiding their real problem, which is no longer so much that of accessibility to positions as that of equality of life. Getting around this obstacle would require never charging a word positively, because certain hidden vices can be eclipsed behind its apparent virtue.
Last but not least, the most difficult barrier to overcome is the need for identification. To identify is to reason “as”: as a woman, as White, Black, Green or Yellow. It is preferring corporate interests to the truth of ideas. It means privileging the comfort of belonging to the accuracy of the facts. It is to replace the singularity of one’s thoughts with the opinions of a community. It’s choosing conformity to the group rather than the courage to be yourself. Rediscovering the promises of a thought would imply freeing oneself from all identification, to speak at the level of ideas and not of identities, which are more sensitive to flattery and intolerant of criticism. These are, in a non-exhaustive way, some of the obstacles to overcome to allow us to rediscover the strength of a thought and the interest of a debate.
* Julia de Funès is a doctor of philosophy.
.