From a Bird’s Eye View
Spotting Note No 7
Of Nahel M, Emmanuel Macron, Conscription and Les Misérables
Exclusion and violence. Both take root because of a lack of empathy, a lack of dialogue, and a myopic present with lip service given to the rear-view mirror and little use allowed for binoculars. The rioting across the Paris region and numerous other cities in France is, tragically, déjà vu.
This week’s spotting though is not only about the riots and rampage. Rather, it is French President Emmanuel Macron calling for the parents to keep their children off the streets. The youth made up the better part of the rioters and parenting is a responsibility that, in the mind of President Macron, did not appear to be a given for some. “La République n’a pas vocation à se substituer aux parents” (it is not the Republic’s role to replace parents). The Minister of Justice warned parents that if they were not willing to exercise their parental authority, criminal responsibility could be invoked and sanctions imposed, as provided in the French Penal Code.
The President’s comments were somewhat disquieting. The inability of this President and his Government, as well as that of predecessor Presidents and their previous Governments, to foster environments where flourishing could be nurtured in these “banlieues” and maintain, as may be warranted, order, make it such that parents are now called in to restore order alongside the police force. The State has failed so it’s up to parents to exercise their parental authority. It is somewhat ironic that this parental authority has, over the years, been eroded by that very same State’s intrusion in the everyday lives of its citizens and necessarily, in the parental home. In a way, President Macron was alerting parents that they had a duty towards their children. Clearly though, the State would benefit as a result. It sounds like conscription of parents for the State’s service.
On June 27, a 17-year-old teenager, known as Nahel Merzouk (initially simply called Nahel M), was stopped, and killed by a policeman who pulled the trigger of his firearm for failure to comply after Nahel appeared to be taking off. The officer was charged with voluntary homicide. A video (which contradicted the initial police account) circulated on social media and protests that turned into rampage erupted in Nanterre, a Paris suburb where the fatal shooting occurred. These spread throughout the Paris region as well as several other towns in the country during the following days. Over 45,000 policemen were deployed to constrain and quell the violence. Some calm was finally restored earlier this week.
The shooting was yet another tipping point to the ever-present tensions and sporadic violence of the “banlieues” in particular those where multi-residential projects were constructed for low-income earners who immigrated to France. Many have talked of cheap labour brought to France’s cities and struggling to make ends meet all the while, over the time, ignored and considered third-class citizens by many French people. Hence, the societal and cultural toll is readily perceived, violence is apprehended, and the third-generation youth turn to crime or embrace radicalism.
It has been reported that, over the last 50 years, a dozen infrastructure plans have been devised for these “banlieues” and over 100 billion euros spent. So, clearly, the problem is deeply rooted. Nonetheless, haven’t the successive governments learned anything from the past? Why hasn’t policy been formulated around empathy, and humanistic sensibility? France chose economic immigration to better itself but put aside true integration on the basis that the less seen these immigrants were, the better off French society would be. Over and over and however harsh this may read, the drumbeat to these “banlieusards” has been that white French is most desirable, so just be good immigrants and play according to white French rules. The reality today is that all countries are pluralistic. Whether through books, the arts, music and dance, and cinema, it would be advantageous for young, and older, to learn more about cultures and traditions which differ from theirs, thus providing perspectives and better understanding. And, this brings us back to parenting, and education.
Both have gone through profound changes over the last 70 years. At home, spontaneity has been given more latitude that authority, understanding has supplanted discipline, good manners are, well, rarely mentioned. “Eat your dinner!” is now replaced more by “that’s ok, if you are not hungry!”. At school, being first of the class is somehow not the objective but rather,“do your best”, punishments are rare whereas reinforcement is the privileged approach, and the teaching of civic values is not prioritized. Moreover, between parents and teachers is a cottage industry of tutors, psychologists, social workers, counsellors and the like, a telltale sign that parents and teachers are struggling. It’s as though parenting and education have been privatized. In certain countries, parenting at home becomes conflicted with education at school because of the quandary posed by morality, ethics, values, culture, to name a few. Parents and teachers disagree, and the dialecticism of education is forgotten. And lastly, not too long ago, there was the home, the school, and in between, the street. A fourth space has emerged. It disturbs and interferes with parenting and education. It’s called social media which permits the whole world to contribute to the education of a child, teenager and young adult.
According to Kant, education is articulated around three broad successively staged themes. Care to protect the child, discipline to shape the teenager and teaching to free the young adult. Kant taught that once these three stages were completed, human beings would “dare to know”, while abiding by the laws of society without foregoing an ability to criticize them as well, and all the while showing respect for the traditions and values taught at home.Broadly speaking, those are the ideals of The Enlightenment.
Today’s society speaks in terms of the rights of individuals, even of children who must become autonomous and respected according to their interests and wants. The rules of civility rarely come into play because these are too restrictive and might impinge upon the rights of the child or teenager on whom the focus is. Individuality is the new norm. Consequently, convention, politeness, kindness, good manners are artificial constraints to being dope, hip, fab or cool. The self is the first object of meaning. It is liberating.
Well, to the contrary, it should not be all about you. Respect for others and reciprocity are essential to true autonomy because societies require that human beings provide to each other what each expects for themselves (“do not do onto others what you would not want done onto you” is a refrain familiar to my ears). Sociability can thus be fostered and enriched. Good manners and civic values avoid the reliance on laws and the judiciary, and public coercion. Some will posit that violence and conflict will invariably animate human beings and are unavoidable. Others, the enlightened, the optimists, will counter that civility pacifies, establishes trust and respect. Think of cigarette smoking in public spaces. Good manners did work to accommodate people acting with politeness. The problem could not be resolved though when dealing with those who asserted the right to do as one wishes, even if that meant to harm oneself (and others). Clearly, those people were never taught about civility but rather, that their individuality was of paramount importance. In the end, laws were needed because nicotine was harmful to human beings and the associated healthcare costs to society could not be sustained.
French President Macron would have been better advised to admit the ingrained, but long eclipsed, standing of “the Great” France, and the failures of numerous policy makers. He should have expressed empathy and immediately engaged with families to listen, and learn. Ultimately, he should be the ardent advocate for the re-introduction of civic values to the State’s educational choices. Compulsory parental authority will not produce the anticipated effects. It is saddening that, back in 2019, President Macron was reported to have been “unnerved” by a private showing of the 2019 Oscar-nominated Best International and 2020 French César for Best Film movie “Les Misérables”. It was not the acclaimed musical, but the gut-wrenching story of everyday life in the “banlieues”. He had refused the offer to watch the showing amid one of the depicted neighbourhoods. Such a pity.
Enjoy your weekend!
