2.1.2 The respect of pluralism
2.1.2.1 The refusal of
conformism
The traditional organizations are also perceived as being a
limit with the freedom of thought. This criticism is much more frequent in
connection with the parties than trade unions. According to members', the
parties occupy in the political life a role of movement of ideas which is not
currently filled any more. Thus Fabien qualifies the French political life of
« flatness ». It also expresses its concern with respect to
the report/ratio which the young people with the policy maintain. It considers
that there is no more sufficient « effervescence on the level of
the ideas » so that the young people draw to engage politically.
Laurent affirms, on several occasions, that it feels challenged by
« policy ». However, the parties do not correspond,
according to him, with « movements of ideas » but with
« stables ».
Fabien : It is not on the level of the political parties
that one can find effervescence on the level of the ideas. They are a little, I
do not dare to say sclerosed, but locked up in a certain intellectual comfort.
Me what appears serious to me, it is that the political life at present must
have enormously evil to interest the young people [...] What irritates me, it
is that in the political parties, whatever they are, there is much flatness, it
does not have there nothing less filling with enthusiasm. And if I have a
concern to express, it is that I do not see how the young people can truly be
motivated by interests of a political nature.
Laurent : It is a question of people because the policy
in general that challenges me and until now I had never crossed the step to
adhere to a movement. The political movements are for me a little too many the
stables, it does not seem to me that they are movements of ideas. In any case I
would not find to really militate for a party.
This devalorization of the trade-union and political
organizations matches of a criticism of militant engagement. Fabien estimates
that trade-union engagement is « limited ». He regrets that
the standpoint of the direction is followed in a strict way without critical
glance. There exists, according to him, a intellectual conformism within these
structures. It explains, moreover, why at the time of the movements of strike
of 1995, it had taken part in a union meeting during which it had supported the
Juppe plan under criticisms of the trade unionists present. Little time after,
of the members of F.O (working Force) had acknowledged to him that in spite of
their agreement, they were constrained by their trade union to post their
disapproval. Fabien considers that his/her colleagues trade unionists
were « afflicting ». Contrary, it is described as
being somebody of « undisciplined » and
of « independent ». It justifies, in addition, the
fact that he is a professor of university by the autonomy which its work
confers to him. Laurent also devalues the trade-union militancy or policy which
supposes, according to him, of « to put blinkers ».
Adhesion has a party seems to him « foreign » because that
supposes to adhere completely to one « ideology » or one
« doctrines ». Political engagement raises, according to
him, of the same belief as religious engagement; the militant is located in
« vaults » too constraining. One could expect that this
representation is not shared by those which militate in political
organizations. However Cécile, who militates with the LCR, shares a
similar design. She acknowledges to be afraid to be prone, within her
organization, with one « endoctrination ». It is to avoid
« to stop reflecting », that it wishes to militate in
another organization. It privileges for this second choice, an association
since it militated before in Ras the Face of 1996 to 1999 and that it adhered
to Attac in January 2000. This second engagement enables him not to militate
« in closed vase » in the LCR and to keep one
« critical spirit ».
Fabien : I do not know if you remember of all these
demonstrations which took place at the time of the Juppe plan [...] I saw a
whole series of positive aspects there. I found that this plan went rather in
the good direction. I was the statement rather freely and people who were
there, in particular Force trade union Working, were savagely against the plan
Juppe and I was very strongly disputed. It was a general assembly which had
taken place with the faculty of economic sciences. The amphitheater was full
and one was several to express itself. Me much was criticized and two days
later I meet people of the brain trust of Working Force in Paris, and
they say to me «In the content this plan Juppe, it is not so badly that
that but one cannot allow themselves to say it. In the content one does not
find it badly. But on the public place one is obliged to say that it is found
bad». Just as when the CSG had been installation, I had a colleague which
was with the economic service of CGT, CGT had left completely in war against
the generalized social contribution, which at the bottom was not so badly only
that. And this colleague says to me «At the bottom, one is not if against
but it is necessary that it is said that one is against because the direction
said». And that I do not include/understand [...] In the trade unions
there is much sclerosis. I like the trade unions [...] but there are forms of
militancy which are limited a little and it is often these which hold a little
the top of the paving stone.
Fabien : I belonged to a trade union of teachers,
National Trade union of Higher education, the SNESUP. I adhered my first years
of teaching to it to the university. I started in 1970 and I was there during
nearly ten years. I adhered initially to the SNESUP, then I was aggravated.
There is an excessive corporatism, a lack of reasoning. It is a little the
characteristic of a trade union, but there are several degrees. There it was
really corporatism, the nose on the handlebar. I quickly wearied myself, and
then my colleagues were very limited. There were some who were afflicting. To
take part in the meetings had become for me a martyrdom. When the trade-union
literature appears repetitive to you and very automatic in these reactions...
Fabien : I am somebody of rather independent I have evil
to channel myself in a party, the discipline of party is something which is
unbearable for me. I am somebody of very undisciplined and that weighs to me to
be framed by a party. It is a certain number of things which make that I will
not have any more the impression to feel sufficiently free, if I were adherent
with a political party. I do not manage to give an opinion on a side or other.
One leads to total nonsenses, as well within the parties of the trade unions
[...] And often when one is framed by political parties, one is obliged to make
concessions. If I am university, it is because it is one of the trades which
allows one of greatest freedoms to think. This is why I do not want to go to
militate in structures where I am afraid to be channeled too much.
Laurent : That was a source of inclination a long time, I
am interested in the policy but at the same time I have a kind of conscience
this clearness, to engage in a movement I think that some share it is necessary
to be a little idiot in the direction where it is necessary a little to be
limited. In all that is political there is no absolute truth and it is all the
time a question of prospects. And to choose a prospect is nevertheless to put
blinkers, even if it lucidly is done, it does not have there a truth. To engage
some share it is necessary to be a little idiot, the militants pure and hard I
do not like them [...] Blow while having a kind of will to imply me as a
citizen, I never really did it because I do not want to lock up me [...] When I
was student I had met people who were adherent with communist youths and I
looked them like strange people, they challenged me because I wondered who they
are. For me they are different people and I very smell them far from me, I did
not include/understand how one could adhere to the Communist Party. That seemed
to me strange because they are in a vault with an ideology, a religion. Of the
same title than people who believe in a god, as anybody they question me
because I say myself how they make, it is a little the same thing at the
bottom. In any case there are common points between the doctrines that it is
chocolate éclair or laic, less now.
Cecile : Me I always was very afraid compared to the
League to stop reflecting, i.e. it is a party which has an enormous political
tradition and there is a certain number of people who very clearly have a
political positioning with respect to the things and they are able to insert
you. The fact that I see other things in addition and that I have other
reflections that prevents me from remaining in the line. I have a certain
mistrust compared to that, compared to the endoctrination. I will militate only
in vase closed with the League because it is true that if I card-indexed myself
completely what is made on the level of the militant world and I could not have
any more one critical spirit with respect to the League. To militate elsewhere
that enables me to have a critical positioning with respect to my own party. I
nevertheless have the ideas of the League in addition which I have desire of
for diffusing there elsewhere in the associative world and thus for going to
militate elsewhere.
| 
