They are said to be arqueted by social networks and the sectarian logic of algorithms, are young people more open to the debate than we think? According to an Ifop study for The voices of peace In partnership with L’Express and Sud Radio, published this Thursday, June 19, more than 80 % of 15-25 year olds consider the debate as a tool for dialogue and listening, and more than one majority of them perceive it as an exercise of understanding rather than confrontation.
Even more striking, a very large majority does not stick to defending his ideas: 85 % of respondents see in the debate an opportunity to reconsider them. Almost one in two young people believe that the primary purpose of a debate is to reinforce their ideas in order to change their own opinions. It is then surprising to note that 82 % of young people aged 15 to 25 consider that debating also involves accepting to exchange with people whose opinions diverge from their own.
The debate, an ideal always alive among young people …
A majority place as a cardinal principle of the debate mutual respect and listening. The expertise of the participants is only cited by a quarter of them. “The culture of expertise has been a little swept: today, if you do not like a doctor, you consult another. The multiplication of sources weakens the position of authority”, deciphers Yann Boissière, president of the association Voice of peaceWho organized This Thursday in the National Assembly the Third edition of summer diversity (s) devoted to the theme “Debate. For Democracy to live!”
… but tarnished by current practices in public space
If the study reveals real appetite for young people for the debate, a large majority also deplores the poor quality of trade. Eight out of ten young people believe that there is no real listening between stakeholders. An almost unanimously shared observation, whatever the gender, age or political affinities of those surveyed. “Youth appears less ideologized than you might think: there is a fairly homogeneous look at the value of the debate, listening, respect,” notes Frédéric Dabi, director general of IFOP. Two thirds also regret that the debates do not go to the bottom of the subjects covered.
“Beyond this critical look at the debate, there is also an ‘anti-debate’ profile, which is certainly a minority but which remains significant; it concerns young girls rather than boys, and more college students than high school students,” notes Frédéric Dabi. Certain subjects remain perceived as sensitive, even taboos. Thus, 15 % of respondents believe that it is simply impossible to debate the place of religions. “Religion is often associated with dogma: ‘It’s like that and not otherwise’, so people repel it in a corner where we do not discuss,” says Yann Boissière. Racism and secularism are also seen as too sensitive subjects: 14 % and 10 % of young people believe that it cannot be debated. “We also observe intergenerational discomfort: if 45 % say that debating with people of their generation is difficult, 57 % consider it difficult to debate with older than them,” notes Frédéric Dabi.
The “Gen Z” shared on the role of social networks
Among a large majority of young people, social networks retain their egg image of the 21st century. More than three-quarters believe that they allow you to express themselves more easily than in face-to-face, and 67 % see them as a means of reaching new forms of citizen engagement. Even more, almost eight out of ten young people believe in particular in the important mobilizing capacity of social networks.
The “Gen Z” nevertheless remains lucid as to the limits of social networks in matters of debate. If they were to choose, a majority would prefer to exchange face-to-face rather than in line. About eight out of ten young people believe that internet debates promote disinformation and too often derive towards clash rather than dialogue. 62 % claim that online debates leave more room for emotion than face-to-face exchanges. “Young people are torn between the immense potential for engagement of social networks and the fear that these same networks will transform the debate into a permanent battlefield.”