The scene immediately aroused the excitement of social networks: Salomé Saqué, a young environmental journalist debates the climate on the show Daily with the mayor Les Républicains of Cannes and president of the Association of Mayors of France. For those who watched it live on TMC, as was my case, the debate could have seemed frustrating, because it would have deserved more time for everyone to develop their arguments. However, he seemed respectful to me.
So why such excitement on Twitter? The journalist came to promote a book denouncing the disqualification by her elders of the environmental discourses carried by the youth, simply on the grounds that the latter would necessarily be inexperienced, lazy, in short not serious. An argument to which I could have been sensitive, I who belong (still) to the vast category of “18-35 years”.
But here it is: there was no question of debating in depth, in this program. This was undoubtedly the main error made by David Lisnard that evening, to believe that a dialogue was desired. Because the author hastened to regret on Twitter that this allegedly disrespectful exchange was “the perfect illustration of what [son livre] is titled Be young and shut up“This is how the search for buzz, the making of a com’ coup based on the diversion of a video destroys the very possibility of debating subjects that are nevertheless essential.
Unfortunately for her, the one who was to serve as her alibi, the perfect representative of reactionary patriarchy, was in no way disrespectful, closed or caricatural. On the contrary, I can attest to it.
Place yourself automatically on the side of good
By dint of wanting to denounce the essentialization of youth, the journalist unfortunately falls into the opposite excess. She reduces her opponent to the rank of necessarily contemptuous white male – which, I repeat, he was in no way part of their exchange. And no doubt reluctantly, she takes advantage of her status as a victim of the anti-ecological patriarchy so as to automatically place herself on the side of good.
No one can blame me for remaining insensitive to the arguments of this journalist. I am almost daily the object of insults and contemptuous remarks on Twitter, from people (often hidden courageously behind anonymity, comfortably installed at the bottom of their couch) not because of what I say, but because of What am I. “Young girl”, “blonde”, “go back to school”… I know. I shouldn’t even have to specify to the reader that she is young, and that she is a woman, because she claims to want to be judged on the credibility of the arguments – based on scientific findings – that she develops. But it is precisely she who, by portraying the victim of boomers and/or patriarchy in a completely inopportune manner, who forces me to talk about who she is, more than what she says or does.
In her defense, Salomé Saqué has no monopoly on this tendency to essentialize the debate and to disqualify the adversary by age or sex. Getting engulfed in the controversy, we were able to read Cyril Dion, environmentalist muse, denounce the “mansplaining” by David Lisnard. For those unfamiliar with this neologism that appeared in the early 2010s, mansplaining “designates a situation in which a man explains to a woman something she already knows, or even is an expert in, often in a paternalistic or condescending tone. ” (Wikipedia). Completely unfounded accusation for anyone with the honesty to watch the video footage in its entirety, and not approach it with bias based on the debater’s age or political etiquette.
Will the climate cause have advanced a millimeter?
This debate, where caricature supplants all argument, would be ridiculous if it did not fundamentally touch on an essential subject. Because once the viewers have chosen their camp, on the one hand out of hatred of a necessarily brainless youth, on the other out of resentment towards the old white males responsible for the destruction of the planet, the climatic cause will have she advanced a millimeter? Obviously not. It would have been interesting to have a real discussion on nuclear power, of which David Lisnard is obviously a supporter. Or on the preposterous procedures which, in his eyes, hinder public action in favor of the planet, in the very name of the precautionary principle… But these debates will not take place. Perhaps Salomé Saqué’s opponent would have had to be a young woman from the left to deprive this journalist of any strategy of diversion.
As long as everyone falls into the ease of the publicity stunt and gives in to the temptation of the caricature of the opponent, no discussion will be possible. And we will therefore be doomed, because we are unable to move towards the necessary compromises around solutions to the climate catastrophe.