The question of reputation: "Why do young people engage in fights?" - Marwan Mohammed

Conference link:The question of reputation: "Why do young people engage in brawls?" - Marwan Mohammed

Why I became interested in the subject

A few months ago, in the parking lot of a crossroads located next to where I live, there was a fight between two groups of young people that resulted in one death. As usual, after such incomprehensible dramas, people seek for explanations. And, as usual, the media and political activists from all sides, have decreed that their favorite subjects allowed them to explain/solve the problem.

Thus, the far-right claimed that the problem was the Arabs (sorry, the immigrants, one should not accuse them of racism on the pretext that those concerned have been French for several generations).

The right claimed that the problem was a lack of authority from parents, school, and police. Consequently, for the right, there should be more deterrent sentences, punish parents, more police officers, more surveillance cameras, ... In short, the usual nonsense.

And, on the left of course, discrimination, lack of public service and economic difficulties have been blamed. A discourse that would have guessed it convinces me much more. However, this conference reminded me how wary we must be of our own biases and preconceived ideas, explaining in a masterly way that all these explanations are beside the point.

The causes of brawls

Indeed, Marwan Mohammed is a sociologist who has studied gang phenomena in Île-de-France for years (as well as those of today inQuestioning the people involved as those of yesterday, studying the statistics and police reports from the last century.

And according to him, discrimination, lack of public services, or economic difficulties do not seem to be the cause of violence over 'honor' issues or belonging to this or that neighborhood (even though it's certain that it doesn't help).

Indeed, the presence of these fights in the working-class neighborhoods of Ile de France has been incessant for at least a century. That is to say, they have not particularly disappeared during periods when there was little unemployment and few racialized populations in working-class neighborhoods. Moreover, it should be noted that, on the other hand, they are not present in cities like Marseille, even though issues of discrimination, lack of public service, or poverty are as prevalent there as anywhere else.

According to him, those who participate in his fights do so mainly for the following reasons:

• Participating in fights is a way of acquiring social status and self-esteem. In other words, a kind of social capital. Indeed, it says that outside the minority that engages in fights, there is a whole group of other boys their age (or older) and girls who value these behaviors. And, for young people who do not get along with school or the job market, this is the only way to obtain this social capital and this self-esteem. Succinctly, there is a culture of brawl in Ile-de-France that has been passed on from generation to generation for a century and which values/provokes these behaviors.

• Solidarity with buddies who are involved in a mess.

• Neighborhood rivalries mean that one can be targeted simply because they belong to a particular neighborhood. And this can happen even if one does everything possible to avoid getting involved in trouble. Thus, to avoid finding oneself alone in case of trouble, one might participate when asked to join a gang.

How to prevent fights

However, it's all well and good to talk about fights, but what we're looking for, above all, are solutions to prevent it from happening again.

From what I understand, even if he admits to having a lot of uncertainty about the solution to bring, he thinks the main levers to make this problem disappear are:

• What he refers to as inter-neighborhood diplomacy. That is to say, organizing REGULAR meetings between the young people from rival neighborhoods (with a lot of supervision at the beginning, during, and after to avoid any fights). For example, creating a leisure center.Common, an afternoon playing PlayStation or outings to the mountain among young people from his neighborhoods.

• Ask the assistance of people that your teenagers listen to in order to convey the message of peace and to have them voluntarily participate in initiatives organized by city halls. And, spoiler, it is not the parents, but rather former gang members who have themselves been involved in fights. This involves giving money and responsibilities in associations to people who sometimes have criminal records and a past of delinquency.

• Fight against dropping out of school (broad program).

Otherwise, for him, police measures are indispensable for managing the emergency (that is, returning to the status quo, after a major fight), but they stand no chance of solving the problem in the long term.

Nature and prejudices. Inviting humanity into natural history-Marc-André Selosse.

Conference link:Nature and prejudices. Inviting humanity into natural history-Marc-André Selosse

MA Selosse is a recognized expert ecologist in symbiosis, which means he is not interested in a particular species, but in species interactions. He obviously knows human biology, a primate like any other, and draws our attention to the bacteria with which we live (in our digestive system, on our skin, in our hair and lashes) and which are often beneficial to us.

Presented as such, this conference does not seem exciting. And yet, it covers all sorts of subjects and offers a completely new angle. In order not to spoil your listening, I will only transcribe one of the concepts he conveys in this conference: that of the evolving wall.

In general, the general public (myself included) sees the theory of evolution as an intellectually important theory, but without practical use. However, according to this conference, this is completely false. In fact, we can use evolution as a weapon to get rid of pests that bother us.

For example, the law of evolution states that if we administer an effective drug against the AIDS virus to a patient, then the virus will mutate until a strain resistant to this drug appears and spreads. As a result, very quickly, the drug will no longer have any effect. However, if we subject it to two products at the same time, then if a mutation allowing resistance to one of the products appears, it's not serious. The mutated virus will disappear, killed by the second product. For the mutated virus to have an advantage and multiply, it would require a mutation that simultaneously makes it resistant to both products. And that, that is much less likely to happen than a mutation immunizing the virus against a single product. And, if we add a third product, the chances become infinitesimal.

This is how tritherapy was conceived, which is in fact a treatment that consists of creating an evolutionary wall for the AIDS virus. That is to say, by creating an obstacle that the rules of evolution do not allow it to cross and which condemns it to extinction.

And, what we have done for the AIDS virus, we could do it for the insects/fungi/bacteria that ravage our crops. Instead of spraying them with a single pesticide until it becomes ineffective and it's necessary to increase the dose (or use a more dangerous pesticide), we could use different techniques to create an evolutionary wall that prevents pests from adapting.

But, what we do not do in the fight against pests, we are doing it for man. Man, like all animals, is capable of adapting to the presence of new toxic products in his environment. But, at our time, we introduce so many different toxic products into our environment that we can no longer adapt. And here, we are not talking about pesticides which are the chemical products that although very harmful (it must be emphasized) are the most harmless and controlled ones we deal with, but Mercury, Cadmium or microplastics of which on average, we absorb doses largely exceeding WHO recommendations via meat or vegetables. And this has concrete effects.

For example, as a left-winger, I have always believed that the increase in infant mortality and the decrease in healthy life expectancy in all developed countries (including France) was due to, I'll give you a thousand: the decrease in funding of public services and particularly hospitals. However, according to him at least, this is not the only cause. Indeed, according to him, there is an increase, and even an emergence of fatal diseases among children. For example, over the past 40 years, the number of cancers in children has multiplied. And, this cannot be explained by the decline in mortality related to other diseases that we would treat better or to better detection.

This is a brief summary that might suggest it promotes a slightly reactionary discourse advocating a return to nature and rejection of technology. Or possibly as eccentric as physicist Aurélien Barrau. However, this is not the case at all and I encourage you to listen to this conference for the details of his work, which is really fascinating.

"Leave the brain alone - Albert Moukheiber at the Eurekafé"

Conference link:"Leave the brain alone" - Albert Moukheiber at the Eurêkafé.

There's only one way to summarize this conference without offending it: "We understand nothing about the functioning of the brain and anyone who claims otherwise is lying or mistaken."

Indeed, this conference is essentially a delightful debunking of the ideas commonly held about brain functioning and a denouncement of the misuse of neuroscience for political or marketing purposes.

This time, I will not give examples, because I think it is important to listen to this entire conference, to fully understand the ideas that are being developed there.

Bonus: The conference that I liked the least: 'Can the Left Fight Neoliberalism? - David Cayla'

Conference link:Can the left fight neoliberalism?

introduction

It is a big surprise for me to award the prize for the worst conference I have watched this year to David Cayla. Usually, each of his conferences on neoliberalism is a treat that I enjoy listening to. However, in this conference, he ventured out of his area of expertise to give an opinion on politics. But as he is a serious person, he did it with the method and rigor he uses for his other works.

Will you tell me what I am complaining about in this case? Seeing an intellectual take the risk of getting politically involved should delight the activist that I am. And, a politics enthusiast like me should be captivated by such a program.

The FI abandons the social for the benefit of the societal.

Well, the problem is that, in my eyes, due to lack of knowledge on the subject he is discussing, he is talking nonsense.

To take just one example, in order to form an opinion on Mélenchon and left-wing populism, he went to read the books of political scientists Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe who inspired him. He concluded from his readings that left-wing populism was exactly the same as the strategy recommended by the Terra-Nova report (the think tank of the socialist party) which caused a scandal in the 2000s by suggesting to stop trying to seduce the working classes with measures of social progress and wealth redistribution, so as to focus on the seduction of urban elites with a liberal policy and societal measures such as marriage for same-sex couples (basically what Hollande did 10 years later).

In a more concise way for him, France Unbowed has abandoned the class struggle in favor of societal battles such as feminism or anti-racism.

Usually, it's a message that I hear only from editorialists on sets or in videos from far-right YouTubers between 2016 and 2020. As a result, I just respond with a disdainful look, telling myself that they don't really believe it and only bad faith and a good dose of ignorance can lead to such conclusions motivate their words.

But, to hear from the mouth of someone I have no reason to question their good faith that he does not see the difference between the Terra-Nova report which advocatesto fully subscribethe class struggle for the benefit of societal battles and the writings of Chantal Mouffe advocating forto give the same importanceto all his struggles, forces me to reconsider this position and explain why I think it is wrong.

Different feminism

Already, he completely ignores that there is not one feminism or one anti-racism, but feminisms and anti-racisms that cordially detest each other.

Thus, he does not understand, that the bourgeois/liberal/mainstream feminism advocated for adoption in the Terra Nova report has nothing to do with the materialist/Marxist feminism which Chantal Mouffe advocates for giving more space within left-wing movements.

And one could say the same thing about the anti-racism fight, but due to lack of time, I will focus on giving you an understanding of the differences between these two feminisms so that you can better understand my point.

What unites feminist movements is the belief that there currently exist inequalities between the sexes and that these must be fought against.

However, the bourgeois/liberal/mainstream feminism will propose solutions compatible with the liberal ideology, which will primarily bring about an improvement in the living conditions of women from the upper-middle and affluent classes. Whereas materialist/Marxist feminism will strive to improve the lives of women from the popular class and will often promote solutions incompatible with liberalism.

For example, all feminists note that female-dominated jobs are less well-paid and less prestigious. For example, nurses and cashiers are predominantly women, and they are paid less than doctors and workers who are predominantly men.

Liberal feminists believe that these income differences are justified by different levels of qualifications or by supply and demand in the market. They will not seek to challenge this wage inequality and will instead wish that there be as many men as women in every profession. Concretely, this often takes the form of quota policy in the highest paid jobs of our society, such as corporate boards of directors. Or advertising campaigns/scholarships specific to women to encourage them to attempt studies leading to the highest paid careers such as engineering studies. As you can guess, this is of little help to women of the working classes who will never have access to these positions or studies.

You will understand, materialist/marxist feminists are more likely to question income inequality between male and female professions and ask that the state intervene to increase women's income (to the detriment of shareholders and not men, even though these two categories often overlap). And then, it immediately becomes clear that the societal battles that Chantal Mouffe talks about correspond to and reinforce economic and social battles.

I should note that this is a quick and partial summary that will make connoisseurs scream in pain, but that is not the subject of this article which is already way too long.

Conclusion

In short, what can we conclude from all this: In my opinion, this proves that one should not listen to a specialist who is out of his field of expertise, even if he applies a good method.

Even the best method will yield a bad result if one does not have enough knowledge of the field being studied (As is said in computing: bullshit in, bullshit out). Or rather, one should give it the same credibility as any unknown person on a blog would have (randomly, me).

However, this does not prevent him from being extremely relevant in his field of expertise. And, I encourage you to watch the rest of his videos. (I repeat, but they are gems)