Ode to the Jungle of the Virtual

Science-Fiction must be my favourite genre in literature. Science-Fiction has suffured for a long time, and still does, from a stigma. This stigma has origins somewhere, and I will try to think of a few hypothesis for it in this personal essay. I will also try to explain and outline different argument for my liking for this genre. This doesn't sound much like a personal essay, but it is because I write in parallel a book review for uni, so I am a bit lock in an academic frame of mind. But we are living in a future world where academic frame of mind is annihilated by itself. Thanks mainly to French thinkers, we know that everything that is done by pretending to know better has no justification but the one it gives itself. Observing this self-reference mechanism destroy the power held in such discourses. So I might sound like an academic, but I know and should let you know that it is idiotic.

Academic discourses are scientists lying to themselves not admitting that objectivities can be reach only be reached by shared honest subjectivities. As such, every truth we want to share, we have to do it in our own language, and not in an adopted one. It is in a ideal situation then that these shared subjectivities can be transformed in objectivities – theories on how the word is truthfully, knowing the truth exist and doesn't exist. This is more or less where epistemology is at, or should at least be, nowadays. This paradoxic state of collecting knowledge we are now was outline by Lyotard. No more meta-narratives, no more generalized way to see the world, a lot of ways of observing are good, even better, in knowing that they hold some truth when one single way to observe/tell the truth serves only to blind ourselves from other ways to understand our world.

Another similar way to see where we are in our observation of the world is by adopting Baudrillard dark lense. In his view, because all truth are appreciated, reality doesn't exist anymore. But has it ever existed ? Hasn't it been 5000 thousand years that we have transformed reality through constantly changing meaning ? Of course, Baudrillard is scared of the accelerating way through which objects have different meanings, the fight over meanings become more important ergo the real object is forgotten. Look at Christmas: who knows what it is about ? Anyway, for Baudrillard, everything loose its meaning by being too meaningful and paradoxic. But reality has always changed meaning. For Baudrillard, looking back is now reconstructing a false past and imagining the future is building a false present – the present then not existing anymore. But the present has never existed, has it ?

So what is left for us ? Well to tell each other how our life is, how we want our life to be, how we see our world, how we would want our life to be and more importantly how it could be. Wouldn't it be only an exercise in dreaming utopia that could never exist ? Yes and no. It is an exercise in dreaming utopia, but it is also an exercise in creating future societies. Projecting is the first step towards creating. That is when science-fiction come into play. Science-fiction displays possible and impossible future. The chances for the possible world to happen are objectively unknown to us. We can say that as science is today, we can't recreate a science-fiction world. Of course that is not entirely true, has science has reached today far more than what Jules Verne could imagine a century ago. Science sometimes come to bit science-fiction, but to do so, it needs to know what challenge science-fiction offers.

That is a good point for Science-Fiction, which does here as much as environmentalists and economists at predicting possible future. Of course, environmentalists and economists do not pretend to look so far into the future, but science fiction never pretended to make the future so quickly. We have reduced the size of the world in our mind with the internet. Information is the same everywhere at the same time. 3D printers helps neurology-surgeons operates. Tactile screens helps us communicate kinetically with computers. We can operate moving vehicles with chips in our head. We can produce energy unseen in our solar system in more than a million years. Robots are walking and hopefully artificial intelligence will be self-learning.

But how did we come up with these technological inventions ? By inventing, imagining, observing and changing reality. None of our forms of knowledge are not the source of imagination. Of course, imagination was the source but not the end product. The end product was constructed by making the imagination participate with reality. Ideas and imaginations are more and more conflicting in some fields of thoughts, but that make more realities possible.

The stigma of science-fiction might be held then in a strictly pseudo-materialist perspective. Enlightenment was afflicted by this burden this view: the world is full of pseudo-mysteries. Mysteries since only exists as unresolved natural fact that can be explained through in depth empirical research. Therefore, creating mysteries is deemed useless. The only mysteries we thought we had to work on were the one observable in reality. What was the point of talking about dark-matter before it could be observed? The concept though came before reality. Same thing for robots or pretty much anything discovered/invented in the 20^th century. The imagined uselessness of science-fiction came from the blind we have put on our eyes when we thought that it is entertainment – when we don't understand its potential as a tool.

That is where virtual reality is one of the future tools for humanity to discover itself and its possibilities. Virtual realities are not yet what they could be. Google Maps gives us a virtual representation of our world. Wikipedia is a virtual space of shared knowledge. Facebook provides us with a tool to virtualize ourself as we want to be. Games provide us with virtual active entertainment. We are still too passive in virtual worlds, but the internet provided us with examples of a shared virtual realities where we do act. The virtual worlds also hold us with the promise that none of it is real. Consequences and responsibilities disappear in a lot of virtual world – and inconsequential virtual worlds could exist and there, we could do anything we want. It would provide a mirror to our life. We could understand why we do the things we do in the real world. Give our life a new meaning when we understand how our past formed what we are, and paradoxically liberated by this understanding, and the future becomes something to work on and not something we are afraid to be judged on.

The fear that exist nowadays linked to hyper-realities and virtual worlds is because we do live in a real world. But the real world is viewed through our mind. And our mind is not real anymore. We are dependent on symbolic representation of the world. Languages are the best examples of how our world is only symbolically representative to us. Even if, in a face to face interactions, there is more communicated than words but we are learning to control natural communication and to transform it into a symbols. Facial expression are natural reactions to emotions, but poker players are training to control them and read them. So the real has started to disappear a long time ago, to give our mind more power. Acknowledging this power of our mind and working on it, through worlds we can create and live, might prepare us to the next evolutions of humanity. Virtual worlds in cyberspace ( and cyberspace is only an infinite virtual playground) are a lot of time shared, and as such are tools for this shared project that is our future.

Artistic Tergiversation

The first academy was created by Plato. It was the name given to his school as a means to separate it from his Master's ( Socrates) lyceum. Nowadays different academies have been recreated. I won't talk about English academies, which are just semi-private schools. I will talk about art academies and French academies. They are not open to anyone. The entry selection relates them to Plato more than to Socrates. There is this elite position of being able to judge someone's artistic qualities.

This simple initial process prevents changes. There is this totalitarian ideal in Plato's republic, where a Philosopher-King knows better than anyone else. Now, if someone is chosen by this Philosopher-King, it is an honour that when once accepted and legitimized the King's position. No one thinks they don't deserve some honour, some recognition.

But we find at academies different people arguing about different positions. This idea of different people joined to discuss each other's art is an ideal to work on. Reflection behind art provides it with the force for change and a quality going beyond aesthetic.

In the world of ideas though, some are more consistent than others. The extent to which consistency provides quality goes only as far as if the ideas need to be put in practice.

So what is this force beyond aesthetics and consistency ? It is an impossible possibility mirroring our world. A yardstick amongst many helping us to compare our world. It is the force of the virtual, an ideal freedom which can't exist in a secular world.

Would Plato appreciate this idea ? Probably not, as for him, ideas have a hierarchy and are only important if expressed clearly. He had no patience for poets.

Couldn't a beautiful place of art be a Socratic lyceum where only questions are asked, without judgement, just because questions hold more answers than an affirmation? Socrates asked anybody and everybody his questions. If we'd ask everybody to create, wouldn't we offer a tool for every individual's self-development and confidence in the hidden power of art?

For a century now, we have given the tool to read and write to everybody. We are slowly coming to understand that no language is more powerful than another. There are some skills involved in communicating with art, but like anything, practice is the only secret for results.

Shame is probably a symbolically violent tool of the elite to prevent an egalitarian approach to art. Who doesn't think that they are crap at what they try a first time, and therefore doesn't have the courage to persevere, to offer the world what they have imagined ?

Down with shame! If it is balanced by lucidity and sincerity with one-self. Imagine a possibility, an alternative, an original idea, take the tool of your choice (if you don't know your tool, find it, it is the one you love) and practice at representing that idea so you can offer it to humanity exactly as you've imagined it.

In our world now, we have to admit it is great to be part of a collective beautiful and powerful project to produce an unreal. There are some factions who want to have some supremacy, but history has proven elitists wrong, constantly. The only person who can account for the question of the quality of a given piece of art is the artist him-self. Ideas are not attached to reality, can be but are not, and are therefore all worthy of being explored through different lenses and presented as a goal to extend our limitless minds.

Nothing is bad doesn't mean nothing is good in art, only that it is all good.

Afghanistan is the new Ibiza: Everyone comes back fucked up or legless.

On negation of reality through comedy and freedom after a night out. 

http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B5a-s9kLo5kaMTU0NDIzYmEtNGEyNC00NzQwLTg1MmEtMmRkZTczNDBlMGJk&hl=fr

Why be good ?

  Hi there !

 Thank you for reading me, or at least the first two lines. I know that in an era with so much media to distract us, it is hard to concentrate on lengthy articles like mine. So here's a new option I'm trying out. The crazy kind : talking to myself....

 Enjoy :  http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B5a-s9kLo5kaYTY3OTZlZWUtYjE0Yi00MmQ5LWEwODUtZWJkZGRhODg0MTY3&hl=fr

Notes from the party

The party was all an idea to be with new and old friends and have them mixing. I was talking to a few friends on facebook and set up a date. A theme, I find, is always required for a successful party, as well as good way to communicate the party informations ( facebook in this instance). And here I am writing about it.
I am happy I don't have to drive anywhere. I'm high from joints passing, drunk from my whisky bottle, I've giggled a bit on a laughing balloon and accepted a ritual offering of a line. I'm writing and Dom is talking to me. Dom is my good parisian friend's boyfriend. He studies sociology and film studies, and I enjoy talking to him. I'm smoking a cigarette and drinking my whisky and he is curious about what I write before it is written. He won't be the only one and I don't mind.
The theme of the evening is movie characters. Any movie. I thought I would do a theme wide enough so everybody could come just dressed up as anything they wanted and find the movie afterwards. The real souls of the party where recognized though as the people who selected their character first and made the costume afterwards.
The evening ended up being a convention of alternative controversial protagonists. There was Ennis Del Mar from Brokeback Mountain, Marla from Fight Club, a tranvestite Edward Scissorhands, a lonely Blues Brother, two Minnie Mouse ( Mice ? ), a cross-dressed Lara Croft and Tinkerbell (Dom), a magnum P.I. and women pirates from the eponymous movie. No Indiana Jones, James Bond, Snow White. That makes me happy.
My flatmates and I have all cleaned and rearrange the house to make it party proof. Saturday was the day. I woke up early because of an accidental phone call to me by a friend. I did all my washing and went to the drier, There, I received a call from my girlfriend, a good reminder of love and puts me in a good mood.
My room is clean. Even if the house's vacuum cleaner's is deficient. I moved my bed and desk to hide the different spills and disorders. It looks clean precisely. What helped was my flatmates enthousiasm for moving all the furnitures out of the living room. I ended up having the big sofa, so I had a square made of the bed in the corner, the dest at the window and a sofa covering my book shelf wall.
I have a history of failed parties. But this one will be the exception. While writing that, I have Ace Ventura who wants to leave a quote for me, and he writes: " I can only experience a party through my body,but then I influence my body with powders, my body schema changes, the Gestalt shifts and I get BATTERED !" Thank you Ace for this quote that expresses some of the entertaining aspects of the party.
I'm just enterering now a conversation about taste. The usual top 5 favorite movies. The state of a strange mesmerizing witch in black are True Romance, Platoon, Nightmare on Elm Street, When Harry met Sally and Toy Story. Hunter S. Thompson's ones are Amores Esperos, Chopper, Monster, ,Monsters Inc. and Halloween H2O. Everything flies. The conversation change to a grand question nf art: is the appropriation of a piece of art's meaning by the public is a good thing. And as the conversation evolve, so is the spirit of the party. I just noticed that my small room, after a moment while it had only three people, has now, let me count...15 people.
When I've set up the date on the facebook group, I didn't consult my flatmates. They complained a little bit at the beginnning, or they had other plans that turned up to be not that important. A flatmate of mine tried, and succeded a bit, guilt tripping me for doing that so quickly. But every was set. We were Patrick Bateman, Ron Burgundy, Ennis Del Mar, Freddy Krugger and an un-dressed up, Hosts of the Party.
I want to thank my neighbours for really working on their costumes. I have harrassed people I'd invite about their costumes, trying to make them feel they risk stigmatization if they wouldn't come dressed up. And now, my brand new toothbrush is the new wand of Minnie from Paris, and it goes in the mouths of everybody in the room. It won't go in my mouth, I have a cold, I wouldn't want to share it.
Hosts have prepared their rooms and all rooms have different personnalities. I bought covers for the sofa and my bed, on which I poured fake blood. I also got myself a bottle of whisky that I shared, and which is now corrupted by a strange mix my flatmate did at this end of the night.
The party started with us lonely hosts waiting for our guests in a house prepared for anything except desertedness. So I went to my neighbours' who put me in a joyfull mood, dressed up in comical manners and yet so remarkably well. They came back to my house and suddenly the party kicked off with every other guests following in line behind them. It was 9.30. A good time to start a party.
I am Patrick Bateman. Suited up with blood spatter on my face, I handed my business cards with my phone number on it all night long. Next morning, I'll receive of course text messages from unknown numbers asking for my service as a cold blooded killer. Thank you Marla by the way for having provided this idea. I have discovered during the evening it is a consensus that this character suits my persona. I don't know how to interpret that. Maybe I should kill someone to see if I really share the pleasures of American Psycho's protagonist. Any volunteer ?
Our living room being empty, it was the perfect spot for our guests in a dancing mood. Our speakers weren't loud enough, so Minnie from Paris went to get hers and the party really kicked off. If I was in the living room, I would have asked for "Thhhee Paarrrttyyy" by Justice. But I wasn't there and the party didn't need any introductory song anyway.
When the party was well started, I tried to meet everybody and give my time to everybody, a hard task. I had a few friends I hadn't seen for a long time, there was catching up that needed to be done there still. I walked a lot around and maybe didn't distributed my presence well enough. If anyone feels I wasn't there enough for them at the party, I'm sorry. (No surprise, I am highly self-centered)Still, every groups of friends at some point broke and people met new people. I wasn't needed that much for the matters of introductions.
We had four of our rooms open, an empty living room and the kitchen. The key places of the party were, as always though, the hallways and stairs. You could see migrations, interactions separations and avoidances of people. What made the life of the party. I have to say arrogantly now that my room was an almost consistent nexus of the party and have been complimented to have made it so. Upstairs were the people taking different drugs, in the front room was a guy selling laughing gas balloons - I'm still not sure how he landed at our party- in my room were some joints running and generally in the house people had drinks in there hands.
I'm glad I've bought my bottle of whisky. Ennis Del Mar bought two bottles of vodkas and I think a lot of people should have thanked him for that. On their behalves, I thank you gay cowboy. It's sunday and I don't feel that sick since I stayed on my alcohol all night. Everybody brought cans and bottles of cider and beer. I don't care what people drink, but I'm trying to picture the volume that will represent in bins.
I have a party loot as well. It's not exactly a loot, I'll give the stuff back if asked. I have Hunter S. Thompson's pipe, I have Lara Croft's gun, I have a wig and a sword. I feel it's the beginning of my career as a pirate. Looting is my only incentive for such an laborious but much needed cleaning of my room needs.
Now that I'm caffeined up, I can still see that good parties have a great life. The party ended slowly - I have to make a point that I am proud as well that the first people to leave left for being too drunk or sex which are always signs of a good party-, I wasn't part of the final breaking and death of the party. I'm afraid I might, by the end, have alienated maybe some people by writing. But now, I know what was my intention when starting to write this. I wanted a general picture of the party at its peak.
I'm sitting majestuously on my desk chair, observing my whole room. Next to me on the sofa, there is a tall manly Lara Croft talking about a philosophy of time to two Beetle Juices. On the other side of the sofa, there are pirates talking and laughing with Freddy Krugger and his holiday hat. Jasmin from Aladdin and the german Minnie are talking to Tom Cruise from Top gun and a Grease's bearded Pink Lady. At the door of my room Magnum has some difficulties socializing but he manages, listening to Elwood Blues and a student of Battle Royal talking movies. In the hallway, just outside my door, we can find Catwoman and Bugs Bunny having a couple's chat in polish.
In the living room "Crazy" by Gnarls Barkley is kicking on. Edward Scissorhands and a haired Death from Lost Highway ( the bold guy dress in black in the movie is Death, but that is just my personal interpretation) are making out in a corner. It doesn't disturb the dancing of the a male Tinkerbell, Minnie from Paris,Cleopatra, Charlie Chaplin (dancing like Michael Jackson), a skier, Poison Ivy and her basket of treats and the Ugly from the good, the bad and the ugly. I ignore obviously in my description anyone not dressed up, they are extras only.
In the Kitchen, there is a swisso-malaysian drug lord couple talking to the Devil. While upstairs James Dean and Hunter S. Thompson are corrupting Ace Ventura, Ron Burgundy and Froddo. The question has to be raised though: is it because of drugs that Ace talks to animals ?
Finally, at the bottom of the stairs, there is Marla not giving a fuck and elegantly chain-smokes.


Anyway, I had a great time and I'm sorry that I can't depict better the atmosphere of that night, but I think I'll remember it.

Unveiling the french veil problem

The question of the veil ( in all its forms ( niquab or burqua) and its interdiction in public spaces is the question that devides the population of France like the question on abortion is in U.S.A.. The question of the right of aborttion in USA is discussed without an historicity on the problems, something usual for the USA. My little brother pointed out to my attention that the moral compass of values of "pro-lifes", the christian churches, has only been recently considered abortion a crime.

Just like the lack of historical perspectives on the abortion question, there is an anachronistic element in the introduction against the veil. It is in the name of laicity that the interdiction is legitimized. Laicity was important in France in the 19th century as an ideology, because the church had still legal powers (e.g. over marriage) in the name of their god. The church being a bit of an ademocratic institutions, the battle against the church as hegemonic secular institutions ras rightfull. As much as atheism rights are not that defended, laicity is here used as an ideology to combat an evilized religion, not defend democraty.

So we can observed the history of the separation of the state and the church. But as much as French can defend whatever moral values they find behind their subjective opinion of laicity, they should admit that a deeply ethnocentered idea push too far can easily be seen as a violation of human rights. It's ironic that laicity has an element of trying to free people from ethnocentrism, but is used for such restricted ideas.

A solid argument, my mother's excalibur argument on the question, for the interdiction is that it is a symbole of patriarchal oppression. And in some ways it is. Families, husbands and cohorts who force women to be covered should be prosecuted for psychological harrassement. It is though also a form of symbolic violence when women are brainwashed to believe that they are inferiors or servants.

The other party has a counter-argument, individuals right. There are more women who chooses individually to wear a veil than forced to do so in our countries. More over, from my experience, and it is a shared perception, most of the musulman women I've met in the developping world where proud of wearing a veil. From the biology teacher in Thailand to the multilingual guide egyptian, intelligent women told me that they honoured their faith and didn't ask the west to come to their rescue.

This argument doesn't hold when we observed that embedded practice of oppression against women, that the veil represents, exist. So France said let's forget the right to practice a faith, let's protect women.

And what of the consequences France ? First of all, what about the limitless collateral damages of not allowing any religious signs at school? The law was passed against the veil, but not to look islamophobic, they decided it should extent to all religious signs. As an example, let's picture a sikh in France. These peacefull people believe it is forbidden to cut or shave their hair. They do then have to wear a turban hat to hide all their hair, explaining why they can be stupidly mistaken for a afghan hat. Sikhs have already abandonned their ritual knife, understanding the fear of it, but is the french government asking them to cut all their hair, or let the hair hang and be misunderstandbly stigmatised?

Another consequence that French do not want to observe is that they do present themselves as being on a crusade against Islam, but only their imagined version of Islam. They are fuelling primordialism and political racism in islamic countries by victimizing Islam. How can the west lead by example if it imposes sets of behaviors and dressings. How not to be insulted by being targeted by a governments because of a few dangerous people that shares the same faith in name only and not in practice. It is a good way to create anti-racism racism.

My final point is that all in all, it is a political decision that is only trying to look like the average voter is protected of his fears. The average voter is racist, so lets create a problem and proposes to solve it. But as much as the problem could exist maybe before, they don't tackle anything. Forcing people to behave in a certain way has no educationnal value. The veil can be a representation of oppression, but getting read of the representation only is not getting rid of the real problem. Other forms of oppression will exist as long as the social structures that feed that oppression exist.

And what about women magazines promoting a stricter body-discipline than men in the name of beauty? Women reading this message are victim of symbolic violence, but no measures has been made against it. We do tell ourselves that forbidding women magazines will not solve anorexia in top-models or the social construction of womenhood being only a beautifull object. Telling women what are the different forms of oppression and prosecuting the people forcing a symbol on them should be the solution. Restriction is no synomym of education. Also, giving them the informations so they can come to a rational conclusion was the central ideal of real laicity, not justified racism.

This post makes me look good when you read the one before!

Stuck in Social Constructions


Cultural relativism exists since I don't know when. It actually appear in lot of texts, not under the heading cultural relativism, but under the image of a heuristic device meant to criticize a society. Voltaire, a French philosopher of the enlightenment period would use it a lot to mirror the French society and its given ideas. Cultural relativism also implies that most of our thoughts, attitudes and behaviours are the result of a social construction. We are animals, but how we see the world is not in animal way at all, it is as a political animal. The Chinese would tell the Japanese for example that there is no hierarchy of Teas in nature, but only the person tasting the tea would make that hierarchy.

But this idea that everything is the result of a given society, and is therefore not absolute, can be criticize to be ameliorated is not growing as the technologies of the world are. Logic would have said that as we have more comparative examples to make, we could liberate ourselves more from our societal cages of thoughts.

Well this conclusion has easily some counter-arguments to be made. Cultural relativism was well explained by the French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss, who had the occasion to visit South-American tribes in the middle 20th century. Also, the different movements of the sixties were based on this idea that society wasn't and shouldn't be such a cements of thoughts and hierarchies. So what do I mean ?

Well I believe that as much as we have grown wiser maybe, we still have a long way to go to be free, and the first step is still to admit that we are far from intellectual freedom as we can be. It is in my everyday life that I do notice this conflicting processes of global-village and cultural absolutism growing without bring to us much more liberty of the mind.

The first example is the question of the nation-state. Throughout history, our spacial identity has changed. But this is something that we are not accept to see, except when our ethical education lets us use this fact as an argument. But there are not many people who are ready to accept that countries do not represent much. Coming from Belgium, it is maybe easier for me to say it, Belgium being a construction of foreign powers, and our national identity never existed before, and it is still an on-going discussion to know if there is still one. The thing is that it is the same for most countries. Belgian are maybe the only one ready to accept that there country is not an absolute.

I'll take the Irish as an opposite example. They are an island, so there is more an idea of a spacial identity there that has lived maybe throughout history. But that is the only thing. Their Celtic culture and origins can be found as well in Ireland as in England as in France or even in Spain. They do have their own language, but it is living alongside English, and as proud they are of their identity, when it facilitates them, there are not ready to get rid of the colonial language. But when it comes to Euro-phobia, they invoke, like their ex-colonial power, a defence of their culture and new nation-state as arguments against the facility of a powerful alliance. The logic of the nation-state is not a irrefutable one, since all nation-states are the products of an international history, of an international population, defending a nation-state has no real logic, except this illusion of protection of the immutable. ( I would also like to point out that nationalism is the excuse of lazy minds for not being capable of imagining an alternative global world).

An other example of social construction that people tend to favour and stick to are technologies. Technologies are embedded within a society, and other technologies, or information sources or informations tend not to change much. Even in the promises of the world wide web, individuals keep themselves to their society. A good example is the variety of social networks within the web which are restricted to only certain cultures and economies. Facebook might be a huge one, but it represents only a small part of the population. Facebook groups are only the one to which our close friends have invited us or we found, but our researches are restricted to our social knowledge. Facebook has never opened much minds, at most it embeds us into our identity because we use it as a tool of identity reaffirmation more than a tool of intellectual development. Of course, certain fields in society do use internet as the globalizing tool it should be. I have mention technologies, and to show an other example of our incapacity of opening our mind to other technologies: new operating system scare us. Who is not on Windows or Mac ? Who would want to get out of these operating systems of our prime cyborg resources to try a new things that could liberate us from this two multi-nationals monopoly? It does require someone to accept that our society can change, especially that we could be freed from a strict capitalistic system which took the appearance of monopolizing the technological field. But it is a social construct also that we are too deep in our societal structure to resist it.

Where cultural relativism does not find its place where it seems the most logical, in this global world is the field of cultures. I will talk about taste being a pure social construction because it is. We like what we like because of the society we've grown in, our education and our restricted degree of personal interest. It is no excuse that we are stuck within a taste, within a culture, to make fun of others. And that is what still happen. The most interesting thing to observe is how people stuck within such a frame will make fun of people with a high degree of personal interest. Our cultural paradigm is attached with ethical paradigm which forbid us of any openly tribal criticism, most of the time. Though how many people haven't I seen laugh at a witch doctor ceremony. But the restricted frame people find themselves in is most observable when on television, someone has a deep personal interest in one subject under all its angles. This people are treated by TV-shows and their spectators as modern freaks, because they are capable of ignoring the general consensus of taste and behaviours.

Culturally, it is funny to also observe how people selects their team in national sports. It has nothing to do with the sportive quality of the team. It is only mildly related to the region of the team. It is highly related to the media representation of the team spirit. The team spirit is not related at all to some sport spirit in any way. The team spirit represented is only an image of the socio-economic background of the fans. The big winning team of a country will most of the time be the one supported by the powerful class and the easily manipulable population of the nation. The rival team will represent the opposite majority. The third team will represent the new-comers in a high class, the people who believe in the American dream, the nouveau-rich. The other more local clubs will be supported by the local population, in a quasi-tribal way, and most of the time, there will be two teams so class conflict can be represented. Of course, cultural construction will forbid fans such observation to the selection of their team, and only pseudo-sportive arguments will be presented.

Finally, I would like to present two important examples of the impossibility of thinking of our culture relativity in the field of morals and ethics. My first example is on our political ideals. Population have real difficulties changing political perspectives. Fukuyama was really wrong when he said that the end of history was represented by our liberal democracies. African multi-ethnic populations will admit that democracy is only creating a battlefield for them. A dictator is not any better because he will have fight to have power without learning the responsibilities of powers. But are we, the previous colonial powers, ready to see a monarchy re-establishing itself once again in a country? No, just like no parties will propose a truthful universal welfare state on its program, because as much as it is proven the best social help structure, it involves to much change, and too much change or difference do scare us.

The second example is our view on genders. There are lots of voices still raised for gender equality in the world, but without considering that gender equality does represent only a culturally constructed vision of gender equity. Of course, our system is as biased as societies were choice is not given. But should a couple decide as a couple who has what kind of power through discussion and through giving and receiving power? So if men, for example, would help for the chores in the house, that does give him real power within the house, he can decide what furnitures and how to raise the children. But if he wants to have a bigger buying power for himself by working only in the office and not doing much for the house, shouldn't he have only a restricted power of decision within the house ? Then what is wrong with women working at home and having full power at home ? There is only the illusion, within each society, of gender equity or equality, at least at home, but not one society has reached a true fair system, so no society should allow itself only to criticize others.

My final point is the one where in discussions, has raised the most voices. It's my belief that our view on paedophilia is highly restricted to our social construct of it, and that we still have a long way of self-criticism to go before we can find a solution to the problem. People have a lot of difficulties to understand how paedophilia is a social construct. They have no knowledge of the evolution of the representation of childhood within our society, and our representation of sexuality and emotional involvement as well. The most difficult part for people to understand is that our social view of paedophilia probably created the atrocities that paedophilia has created. Because we have represented paedophilia as an evil incarnated, people who are attracted by children will fall into a vicious circle of shame and alienation which will not give them the occasion to openly talk about their fantasies. This self-hatred or the hatred for such a judging society can only lead to the preservation of this secret and if they are too pushed by society, to act on their fantasies in the secret, with evilness. Their intentions will not be in their eyes acceptable to anyone else, so how can they come up to people before to talk about and see if there is another way out?

I don't know, it seems to me that our incapacity to liberate ourselves from our social perspectives, to adopt, if not for only a little while, other perspectives is growing. Our history permits us to make giant steps towards real peaceful discussions. But weak people will hide themselves behind modern society as an unmoveable society, as the idea of a better world being impossible. Or worst, I do know people who can only imagine living in idealized past, like conservatives,or ideals of the past, like French republicans, both perspectives only representing limited minds.