Sixth draft immigration law since 2002 and since then the return of Nicolas Sarkozy business. I was worried a few days ago transformation of the ethic of responsibility in an ethic of conviction completely blind. So here's the perfect, and unfortunate illustration.
whole game around "regain control" policy Immigration has been for Nicolas Sarkozy and his camp to present itself as "responsible", that is to say, listening to the French and their problems, and not afraid, against the "politically correct "and" right-thinking "regularly denounced, to address" real "problems. Weberian ethic of responsibility, so. At least that's behind this mask that things arise.
Six bills and a tremendous amount of political energy expended later, it should be clear to all that there is nothing in there that is a little bit responsible. Since all these changes more or smaller but still cumbersome for foreigners in France and those around them were made, who would dare say that things are getting better, that the situation has improved everyone that we live better today than we did before 2002?
Imagine for a moment that France is a sick body. A doctor who tried a first treatment, would see that neither the symptoms nor the disease will stop and propose a new diagnosis and new treatment could perhaps be described as responsible. Having a clear view of its objectives, he continued as the most rational and most effective way possible. By cons, a doctor who persisted to apply to a patient bled more and more low, refusing to see that his diagnosis was wrong, would be considered crazy and irresponsible. It would not be better than doctors in the Molière play, preferring to chant a few Latin words carefully and apply ready-made rather than worrying about the harm suffered by the patient. The therapeutic obstinacy does not appear to us as responsible behavior, quite the contrary. Yet the current coup to have him believe. With a success that should not tire of surprise.
responsibility has been transformed into a pose, an attitude that we are given rather than ethics that are implemented. It is not very different hats and clothes of doctors time of Molière, serving more to enforce than curing. This is for those who would parent to say "Stop! We, we are not afraid!" We, we dare! We, we do! We, we are responsible! ". In bringing the legitimacy that is prepared, even a little, rational action, they hope to divert attention. But this is only a rhetorical device may be less effective.
is the way to understand this latest Immigration Act: as a pose. As the magician's wand, it aims to divert the attention of the audience to any fetish. It should show that we act, we can act and do things. To those who protest, we can always say "You would do nothing? We, we do!". Because the rulers have often caught by inaction, it was possible to believe that being responsible was acting, in the end no matter what you do. Immigration has emerged as the domain par excellence where we can "do" something. No matter what, since the act became the beginning and end of ethics. Extend people at the border is possible, then we do, and since the fact it was ethical. But this is not the ethics of responsibility. Responsibility is to the rulers of today that the cap and gown were the doctors yesterday: a way of asserting their authority they are hiding anything.
and consider the provisions of this new project. Some show a blind belief in the punishment without any consideration about its effectiveness: the case of deprivation of nationality or increased penalties for "gray marriages. It is not whether these provisions will have some effect: increasing the penalties is to act, and act is good. Both changes have the added benefit of attracting them to the spotlight, thereby removing the media agenda other provisions, not least problematic - a strategy that had worked in the era of "DNA tests ". Meanwhile, it reduces the scope for action by the courts and custody: that he must struggle against the "laxity" of those judges who interfere with the action. For he must act, no matter how. Similarly we must make more deportable aliens, to act more in a leak forward where the action becomes its own justification, when deportation becomes the end in itself.
An ethic of action for action that we try to move us to an ethic of responsibility, while we blindly obey What does a general principle: "act to act" . Most disturbing is maybe not such a device is used, but it is so well accepted. I like to think that draws Eric Fassin , there is a "threshold of intolerance" when the French will realize the shallowness and unacceptable "solutions" offered to them. I confess to remain an eternal pessimiste.
whole game around "regain control" policy Immigration has been for Nicolas Sarkozy and his camp to present itself as "responsible", that is to say, listening to the French and their problems, and not afraid, against the "politically correct "and" right-thinking "regularly denounced, to address" real "problems. Weberian ethic of responsibility, so. At least that's behind this mask that things arise.
Six bills and a tremendous amount of political energy expended later, it should be clear to all that there is nothing in there that is a little bit responsible. Since all these changes more or smaller but still cumbersome for foreigners in France and those around them were made, who would dare say that things are getting better, that the situation has improved everyone that we live better today than we did before 2002?
Imagine for a moment that France is a sick body. A doctor who tried a first treatment, would see that neither the symptoms nor the disease will stop and propose a new diagnosis and new treatment could perhaps be described as responsible. Having a clear view of its objectives, he continued as the most rational and most effective way possible. By cons, a doctor who persisted to apply to a patient bled more and more low, refusing to see that his diagnosis was wrong, would be considered crazy and irresponsible. It would not be better than doctors in the Molière play, preferring to chant a few Latin words carefully and apply ready-made rather than worrying about the harm suffered by the patient. The therapeutic obstinacy does not appear to us as responsible behavior, quite the contrary. Yet the current coup to have him believe. With a success that should not tire of surprise.
responsibility has been transformed into a pose, an attitude that we are given rather than ethics that are implemented. It is not very different hats and clothes of doctors time of Molière, serving more to enforce than curing. This is for those who would parent to say "Stop! We, we are not afraid!" We, we dare! We, we do! We, we are responsible! ". In bringing the legitimacy that is prepared, even a little, rational action, they hope to divert attention. But this is only a rhetorical device may be less effective.
is the way to understand this latest Immigration Act: as a pose. As the magician's wand, it aims to divert the attention of the audience to any fetish. It should show that we act, we can act and do things. To those who protest, we can always say "You would do nothing? We, we do!". Because the rulers have often caught by inaction, it was possible to believe that being responsible was acting, in the end no matter what you do. Immigration has emerged as the domain par excellence where we can "do" something. No matter what, since the act became the beginning and end of ethics. Extend people at the border is possible, then we do, and since the fact it was ethical. But this is not the ethics of responsibility. Responsibility is to the rulers of today that the cap and gown were the doctors yesterday: a way of asserting their authority they are hiding anything.
and consider the provisions of this new project. Some show a blind belief in the punishment without any consideration about its effectiveness: the case of deprivation of nationality or increased penalties for "gray marriages. It is not whether these provisions will have some effect: increasing the penalties is to act, and act is good. Both changes have the added benefit of attracting them to the spotlight, thereby removing the media agenda other provisions, not least problematic - a strategy that had worked in the era of "DNA tests ". Meanwhile, it reduces the scope for action by the courts and custody: that he must struggle against the "laxity" of those judges who interfere with the action. For he must act, no matter how. Similarly we must make more deportable aliens, to act more in a leak forward where the action becomes its own justification, when deportation becomes the end in itself.
An ethic of action for action that we try to move us to an ethic of responsibility, while we blindly obey What does a general principle: "act to act" . Most disturbing is maybe not such a device is used, but it is so well accepted. I like to think that draws Eric Fassin , there is a "threshold of intolerance" when the French will realize the shallowness and unacceptable "solutions" offered to them. I confess to remain an eternal pessimiste.
0 comments:
Post a Comment