National identity : False debate, real questions?
Published; opening remarks.
It is one of those topics that nobody seems to have a clear answer, accurate, and even that seems to plunge every tender participation in a terrible slump, so profoundly gloomy than that which comes ready to forget In light of the high intellectual spheres. Point question here, however, lost in platitudes, false pretenses, to indulge in a mishmash of slapstick pathético-right arrogant and explains that the primary identity France, above all, is understood by our people, or worse!, it is us and the others are apart. A right idiot after all, they do not know reconaître simply where to stand between platitudes and bad faith. I have personally decided not to let myself go as habitus that each player can expect. I do not say that national identity is the product of French society, its image, its face. Because there would be worse than a cliché, it would be a stalemate. I do not say that there is a link between national identity and nation, it's no good if it is to delight in saying nothing. I will avoid also gather the French, who feel they are, simply by geographical positioning. Being French, it is, I believe, not debate the merits but, true, true, tangible issue. Solution point, however, much less simplistic definition of the problem. As to define ab ab hac hoc, it has progressed little. But we know already that this is not. Because identity is inherently opposed to the notion of group, collective representation. Why? Quite simply because a society, nation, is a set - more or less coherent - of individuals. The "big" philosophers defend they have chosen to live together. The reality is opposed to this approach, but again is not the issue. However, we are moving, slowly eliminating our wanderings over the routes of the doubt, uncertainty, the error also. Because before you speak identity, it is necessary to define the nation. Is it simply, all people living in the area? Many say yes. But it is a primary error and gross. There are two reasons: the first being that the area evolves over time and populations change, diversify, become sedentary or move abroad. The "French-born" leaving the territory are therefore excluded from the Nation. Lame anyway. Second thing. For years the Alsace was not a French territory, however, Alsace, in large numbers, feel French. The soil was not much to do with insight, integrated with the person, what it is, his identity, his ego projected in his persona, his "mask" of a citizen, as political element of the group, society. We must therefore go beyond the assumptions of geography. Being French, because that's where the real debate is all about feeling like this, accept the codes of this country, integrate, share them, pass them on. For in the collective identity of the superego as a group training under politics, society, and as a generator of standardization, and the resulting institutions, embodying the defendant, by sanctioning the transgression, we should not ignore the notion, essential to civilization. However, this is the thesis I decided to present here. Because national identity should be more than a means of intellectual masturbation. This subject, a vast, indispensable, must not be an electoral matter, between insecurity, unemployment, and, insidiously, incitement to hatred other. We can not consider dealing comprehensively with this subject without "making a fortune" to the question of integration and immigration, which are inseparable parts. What, after all, immigrants who decided to leave his country to settle in France? What place to grant it, what means should we hire so that it can adapt in the best conditions, and eventually integrate? The left, lovingly cradled ideals, hypocrites by electioneering that idealism, which, finally, by stupidity, say that a mass legalization alone will fix the problem. It's convenient, especially as it allows a significant swelling of the voter lists, providing a new population, uninformed, treated as chattel and leisure. Without hypocrisy, and more seriously, I will discuss further ways of integration and the conditions necessary for their implementation. But I can not conclude these introductory remarks without making a comment. Why ask a population that is more interested in policy thinking, and worse yet, take a stand on issues that escape him as they are - should be - for specialists? Our nation, and I use that term is deliberately terrible, she is no longer able collect, without it needing to require its members to do so in his place, values and codes necessary for its existence and its evolution? In sum, our world is it so sick that we have to think about his form when his heart bleeds to see the children of France to fight against each other?
national identity: between Nation and Civilization, Culture and Identity; of a singular unique to us.
I think some clarification is needed lexical. Not that I like to spread the dictionary definitions, which is a formidable tool of normative language, sharing and use by the speakers, but simply because the terms used above seem to overlap. We are far, however, even if Wagner Valkyries could then ask their wings of glory. For the past glory of a nation is its strength, that it is rooted in its roots, that are doing the dry lips of our intellectuals should inform our thinking when their lights and sometimes, unfortunately, quite elusive or even flickering. The heroes of the past are gone, does not necessarily remain the best for last, but then what hunger if not a golden age of singular still awaited never experienced? The Nation is a group of individuals sharing a territory with a story and structures to ensure their cohesion. Civilization, in turn, is a more diffuse set of abstract factors. It should be understood as an overlap, temporary or permanent, fumes of the spirit, its achievements and its values. Civilization would be a fantastic mechanism whose fruit and water the world that we share with other nations. Civilization is the highest expression of what our nation can offer, it include literature, art, philosophy ... It is, somehow, where the Spirit Nation is the body. These two terms are complementary.
Culture is, in turn, more restrictive and more moving. It is only the output at a given moment in the nation. But then, what do distingo between Civilization and Culture? A clean cut, honest, saber of reason is needed. Culture is one factor in ensuring the cohesion of the nation, it is the flesh of standardization, a form physically allowed values to which every French attaches importance. But again, to establish two categories, firstly the fundamental human values - respect for life - and other cultural codes - the politeness, customs language, etc.. -.
In short, oppose the bodies and minds, the physical, material, geographic (place of birth, family) and spiritual values, education, social mimesis. Yes and no. Why? For the ideal of living together with the fact that men need to unite in society, and philosophers speak there better than me on this subject, because we need each other and that peace is constructed by taking involving a reciprocating permanent individual to the collective. Nobody would dare to question, in full mode on Human Rights, the perfect interchangeability of people (whereas we are all equal and that, logically, equal beings are necessarily similar, just not able to compare them) However, we can not, either, trying to defend equality, physical, moral, intellectual, between individuals. Because, and the name given to this term is enough to enlighten us about its meaning: the individual, undivided Latin, meaning all the constituent features of a being, the identity card of their differences , its singularity. Let the Marxist-socialist care to prove otherwise and have no doubt that lean their crops could be accounted for with the grains of wheat and obtain agricultural performance can keep all our planet from starvation for a few millennia. Utopians do not remove the enlightened care of their sickly obscurantism not recognize the right of everyone to be different. But why this digression on the specifics of the individual? Because the Nation is a collection, unique, mono-block "consisting of individuals radically different. The glue that will bind them together, or not, it's national identity, which is not the will to live together but we should be wary of such a debate. That you ask the right questions to the right people at the right time. There would be constructive. For a nation is an ongoing dialogue whose policies must be responsible, a federation of individuals, ego, multiple and varied, to ensure the general interest in time and space. In short, to convince everyone that shares values with others that make it can hear, discuss, share and learn from diversity.
One who seeks me, a you hiding?
The company is in essence a group. A single person, individual, a single undivided, is condemned to disappear or sink into madness. It is so hard narcissistic inherently present in every being, and who, precisely because he wants to stay single. But the group imposes codes, rules, normally, to be respected on pain of being excluded. The individual, fundamentally different, do not be that much. So is its construction. One is not born French, and the extreme right mind me terribly, you become one. Each can be French, he is born around the world, and parents of diverse backgrounds and varied. It is not his color, geographic origin, or his fortune, making him that he is French but his education. For it is in self-construction that asserts his membership in the group. It is by integrating the codes, values, one becomes a person accepted. Everything plays in the transmission, social mimesis. Because everyone must begin to assert themselves by integrating not transgress limits and learn to flourish. It is therefore free to accept the constraints on him, a freedom charged, distorted by relativity terrible standard, but this is blood money. Be free to be always begins with the discovery of his condition of submission to the group then the group maintains links with other groups, which eventually form the nation. For can we say that there, seriously, a standard magical, all powerful, that exists in France, everywhere and everyone at the same time, to encourage them to be similar from one end to another territory? No. The weakness of mind is not there a quality guarantee of responsibility ... One is not born French, you become and it's entourage, institutions, to bring the ideals of our time and the values that should be ours. A conditional here is needed. For two values, two families clash, on the one hand the common values, the Republic, secularism, gender equality, and other individual values, religion, atheism, philosophies and religions, local customs ... Being French, it is therefore torn between a common set of values and personal choices. But it's also a beautiful ideal of equality, which deserves, I think, very widely, that we should fight for him, but an intelligent equal, equality of diversity, equality of treatment between individuals inherently different; equality that respects the will and desire to be within the limits of each other. This, I believe, and it is necessary to emphasize enough the role of policy: adapting to changes in the nation and keep us in the desire to discover us.
The political challenge of tomorrow is not so much to define our common values, which is quite simple but also quite unnecessary: we can ensure the cohesion of a population composed of groups with different needs, expectations sometimes terribly far from the ruling class if one does not have a permanent dialogue between the individual to the collective. This does not ensure the sustainability of a model, since any mechanical, in its heyday, knows a terrible fall and renewal. We can not hope to keep afloat a boat whose rowers are already beginning to dismantle it. The sea of history not wait for us and a new rudder avoid coarse coral but not a slow drift towards the sands where we will die of gloom. We need change, want to give back to the people of France to live together and build in diversity and common values, a right to difference and respect. This, it is necessary or not by arms or by law, nor rhetoric. We must revive in the hearts, the desire to live together.
