黑料正能量

Colloque en ligne organise虂 par la The Tocqueville Society/La Socie虂te虂 Tocqueville et The Center for Critical Democracy Studies at The American University of Paris.听

Information on accessing the conference sessions will be shared with all registrants 24 hours in advance of the start of the conference.

In his Democracy in America (volume 2, 1840), Tocqueville makes the passion for well-being a consequence of equality. When "ranks are mingled and privileges destroyed, when patrimonies divide and enlightenment and liberty spread, the desire to gain well-being occurs to the imagination of the poor, and the fear of losing it to the mind of the rich." (Vol. II, Part 2, Chapter 10).听 Tocqueville paints a bleak picture of a constant threat within democratic society, in which we are alienated by the search for "small and vulgar pleasures" and subject to the "soft despotism" of a political power that "likes citizens to rejoice provided they only think of rejoicing.鈥� It is a nation that "willingly works for their happiness, but wants to be its sole agent" and "which thus reduces each nation to a herd of timid and industrious animals whose government is the shepherd" (II, 4, 6).

He concludes, nonetheless, that what most satisfies government "is the greatest welfare of all" (II, 4, 8) and that no government can be stable if it does not satisfy this democratic passion. Tocqueville's vision proved prophetic, and welfare did indeed become a central feature of modern governance. With the Welfare State emerging as a dominant form of state across the 20th century, assuring the well-being of citizens became an indispensable mode of governance necessary for the regulation of economic growth, for the protection of citizens and for guaranteeing their standard of living against the incessant crises of capitalism and life鈥檚 hazards. But this consensus on the nature and value of well-being and the economic growth that makes it possible has once again been called into question by the contemporary crises of pandemic, representative democracy, financial capitalism and the inequalities it engenders as well as the threats to the environment posed by the race to consume and to ensure our material well-being.听

It is therefore an opportune moment to return to the very notion of well-being and to take stock of its different competing conceptions. Elaborated by the Enlightenment, particularly by materialist philosophers and English utilitarians, the notion of "well-being" ran through the entire 19th century, from works of political and social theory to novels that presented the new economy of desire. In this tradition, it is not always easy to distinguish between "comfort" - the word appeared in 1815 -, the satisfaction of material needs and the feeling of fullness or happiness. In On Liberty (1859), John Stuart Mill made his own case to Tocqueville that well-being could not be reduced to pleasure or to hedonism and that freedom as well as individuality were constituents of well-being. More than a century later, when Amartya Sen introduced the notion of "capabilities," it was precisely to introduce the freedom to act into the calculation of well-being: well-being could not be measured only by the level of consumption and the quantity of resources available, but included the capacity of each person to transform them into utilities, into well-being. The measurement of well-being by expressed preferences alone was thus called into question, and the role of political institutions, social and gender relations, as well as collective imaginaries in shaping individual expectations, could no longer be underestimated.

The aim of this multidisciplinary colloquium will be to bring together philosophers, historians, economists, sociologists and colleagues in French and in English to explore together the different conceptions of well-being at stake and their critiques.

听

听

Dans De la De虂mocratie en Ame虂rique (1840), Tocqueville fait de la passion du bien-e虃tre la conse虂quence de l'e虂galite虂. Lorsque 芦 les rangs sont confondus et les privile虁ges de虂truits, quand les patrimoines se divisent et que la lumie虁re et la liberte虂 se re虂pandent, l'envie d'acque虂rir le bien-e虃tre se pre虂sente a虁 l'imagination du pauvre et la crainte de le perdre a虁 l'esprit du riche 禄 (II, 2, 10). Tocqueville dresse un tableau noir de ce qui menace les socie虂te虂s de虂mocratiques, alie虂ne虂es par la recherche de 芦petits et vulgaires plaisirs禄 et soumises au 芦 despotisme doux禄 d鈥檜n pouvoir politique qui 芦 aime que les citoyens se re虂jouissent a虁 condition qu鈥檌ls ne songent qu鈥檃虁 se re虂jouir 禄, 芦 qui travaille volontiers a虁 leur bonheur, mais veut en e虃tre l鈥檜nique agent 禄 et 芦 qui re虂duit ainsi chaque nation a虁 n鈥檈虃tre plus qu鈥檜n troupeau d鈥檃nimaux timides et industrieux dont le gouvernement est le berger 禄 (II, 4, 6).

Il n'en conclut pas moins que ce qui satisfait le plus les regards du cre虂ateur, 芦 c'est le plus grand bien- e虃tre de tous 禄 (II, 4, 8) et qu'aucun gouvernement ne peut e虃tre stable s'il ne satisfait cette passion de虂mocratique. La vision de Tocqueville s鈥檈st ave虂re虂e prophe虂tique et le bien-e虃tre est effectivement devenu une affaire d鈥橢虂tat, le Welfare State s鈥檌mposant aux E虂tats au cours du XXe sie虁cle comme le mode de gouvernance indispensable pour re虂guler la croissance e虂conomique, prote虂ger les citoyens et garantir leur niveau de vie contre les crises incessantes du capitalisme et les ale虂as de la vie. Mais ce consensus sur la nature et la valeur du bien-e虃tre ainsi que de la croissance e虂conomique qui le rend possible est de plus en plus remis en question par la crise sans pre虂ce虂dent que nous traversons, une crise a虁 la fois des de虂mocraties repre虂sentatives, du capitalisme financier et des ine虂galite虂s qu鈥檌l engendre, des E虂tats-providence comme des menaces sur l鈥檈nvironnement que fait peser la course a虁 la consommation et au bien-e虃tre.

Le moment est donc opportun de revenir sur la notion me虃me de bien-e虃tre et de faire le point sur les diffe虂rentes conceptions qui s鈥檃ffrontent. E虂labore虂es par les Lumie虁res et notamment par les philosophes mate虂rialistes, et par les utilitaristes anglais, la notion de 芦 bien-e虃tre 禄 parcourt tout le XIXe sie虁cle, qu'il s'agisse des travaux des publicistes ou des romans qui donnent a虁 voir la nouvelle e虂conomie des de虂sirs. Il n'est pas toujours aise虂 de distinguer dans le bien-e虃tre ce qui rele虁ve du 芦 confort 禄 鈥� le mot apparai虃t en 1815 鈥�, de la satisfaction des besoins mate虂riels et du sentiment de ple虂nitude ou de bonheur. John Stuart Mill, dans De la Liberte虂 (1859), re虂pondait a虁 Tocqueville que le bien-e虃tre ne se re虂duit pas au plaisir, a虁 l鈥檋e虂donisme, et que la liberte虂 comme l鈥檌ndividualite虂 sont des constituants du bien-e虃tre. Quand Amartya Sen introduit la notion de 芦 capabilite虂s 禄, c鈥檈st justement pour introduire la liberte虂 d鈥檃gir dans le calcul du bien-e虃tre : celui-ci ne peut se mesurer seulement par le niveau de consommation et la quantite虂 de ressources disponibles, mais inclut la capacite虂 de chacun de les transformer en utilite虂s, en bien-e虃tre. La mesure du bien-e虃tre par les seules pre虂fe虂rences exprime虂es est ainsi remise en question et le ro虃le des institutions politiques, des rapports sociaux et de genre, comme des imaginaires collectifs pour fac抬onner les attentes de chacun ne peut plus e虃tre sous-estime虂.

Le but de ce colloque pluridisciplinaire sera de re虂unir philosophes, e虂conomistes, sociologues et colle虁gues du monde francophone et anglophone afin d鈥檈xplorer ensemble les diffe虂rentes conceptions du bien- e虃tre en jeu et leurs critiques.

听

Program 鈥� Day 1 (Wednesday, October 21, 2020, 15:00鈥�18:00 CEST) 鈥� Download

Pre虂sident de se虂ance : Stephen Sawyer (Director of the American University of Paris)

Program 鈥� Day 2听(Thursday, October 22, 2020, 15:00鈥�18:30 CEST) 鈥� Download

Pre虂sident de se虂ance : Michel Forse虂 (ENS)

For last-minute registrations, please contact ssawyeraup.edu.