Sociodynamics is a science, a practice and a philosophy of relationships between individuals, within and between organisations. Commonly used in companies, it can also be very useful, more broadly, for guiding collective action in a variety of contexts. Some months ago, I applied this lens to the first year of the Ukrainians’ struggle against the Russian invasion[1]… This time, I am looking at the political dynamics under way in Europe, and on the other side of the Atlantic…
For several months now – and again a few days ago, on seeing the results in Poland – commentators have expressed fear, surprise and dismay at the winners of elections in our European countries, not to mention those across the Atlantic…
The cause: “conservatives”, “populists”, “nationalists”, “liberals” or “illiberal democrats”…, in plain or “ultra” versions, knocking at the doors of political power, when they are not taking it…
In all these labels (except perhaps the last, which is more descriptive), one hears – or at least senses – the same “moral” condemnation. And I tell myself that a single year of philosophy at school is far too little for most people’s education, since one of the pillars of this discipline is called “moral and political philosophy”, marking the complex relationship between these two subjects…
A project does not fail because of too many opponents, but because of a cruel lack of allies
Let me first make clear that I am passing no judgement here on whether these emotions are justified, because an emotion must always be taken seriously. Since it leads to decisions… decisions which, moreover, when they are taken by private or public, economic or political decision-makers, commit the future of a great many people. As for my own opinions and life choices, they are my business alone…
Faced with what many perceive as a threat or a danger – rightly or wrongly, that is not my point – the reactions are always the same: indignation, condemnation, calls for mobilisation… even a few authoritarian measures aimed at raising the “dyke” against a wave that returns more threatening each time. Nothing surprising about that: since the same causes produce the same effects, people mostly carry on doing “more of the same”… Saving on thinking (the popularity of ChatGPT reflects this terrible bias), difficulty questioning oneself, innovating… Classics of “change and transformation management”…
Yet it is an ineffective reflex in the face of complex crises, which cannot be handled like so-called “type 1” problems… problems that are technically or humanly simple, to which a “solution” – sometimes an elaborate one – can be applied with fairly linear effects.
In this situation, two major principles of sociodynamics, and essential contributions of its founder Jean-Christian Fauvet, make it possible to usefully explore other paths.
“A project does not die from too many opponents, but from a cruel lack of allies.”
When leading a project of mobilisation, revitalisation or transformation, it is always easier to find “culprits” than to question oneself.
So, faced with difficulties, people are quick to blame their opponents, who are always too numerous, manipulative, disloyal…
Questioning one’s own ability to formulate a common, mobilising project is obviously harder. And yet…
Proposing a common objective, accepting discussion and conditions for support, gathering and nurturing contributions… this requires talents other than the mere capacity to accuse…
“Antagonism breeds antagonism.”
Antagonism is a relational mode that aims to oppose, or to exclude, the other (in both cases, nothing is built together).
Admittedly, one cannot devote time and energy to everyone. And some stakeholders really do not make you want to have a conversation. But one thing is certain: when you exclude someone from the circle of possible interlocutors, it is highly unlikely that this person will keep holding out their hand to you… and expect them, one day, to behave in the same way.
“Conservatisms”: the new clothes of “fascism?”
Once again, I am not judging the preferences of so-called “conservatives” or of their political opponents. But what strikes me and keeps me thinking – and this is one of the rare advantages of the passing years, having lived “points of reference” – is that some of these “conservatives” seem to claim closeness to, or even support for, Vladimir Putin and/or, now, Donald Trump. Despite the direct threats and aggression that the Russia of the former KGB officer Vladimir Putin poses to our European continent, and the strong tensions arising from the turbulence of the Trump “administration” – including for the affairs of these “conservatives”.
Forty years ago (and even earlier), these same so-called “conservatives” were on the front line of the confrontation with the Soviets and their relays of opinion and “disinformation” (at the time, people said “subversion”) in our European countries[2].
And in the countries that were to free themselves, at the very beginning of the 1990s, from the occupying Red Army and its auxiliaries – in Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia – they (or their parents, for the younger ones) were among those who ran the networks of Solidarność, Charter 77 and others… who ran them and suffered directly in their own lives the relentless repression of the communist regimes – at best, in the depths of the occupier’s jails and those of its local henchmen.
What has happened for them to want (so we are told) to return to the regime and the inevitable practices of the man who, from his youth, was in charge of organising repression? And who has since plundered his country and those he occupies or indirectly dominates, relying on violence, mafia practices and oligarchs with outrageous fortunes and unfailing submission – at the risk, otherwise, of drinking a tainted cup of tea or suffering an unfortunate fall…
To try to understand these behaviours, there as here, I used the MICE typology, which offers some keys to motivation and action in the world of intelligence.
Money, money, money…
For Russia, as for other foreign countries, the lure of money is fairly common. And some specific features of French political personnel (and others, fortunately or unfortunately) show how vulnerable our countries are in this respect.
Because – it is enough to observe the longevity of many “political decision-makers”, whose presence sometimes exceeds half a century – many are “professional politicians”. Many come from the civil service and therefore enjoy relative economic security during the inevitable “years in the wilderness” that democratic alternation brings. But for the others, these periods are always a source of anxiety. And when one is used to the gilded halls of the Republic, it can be hard to return to the life of a middle manager – in the best of cases, and given the skills of many.
So some income (always legal, of course!) is always welcome, in the form of “consulting” fees that are most often nothing more than introductions made possible by an address book fed by an omnipresent State and public organisations… Or now, in the age of social media, through public statements claiming a form of “authority” (ah, our television-studio experts…), which will usefully contribute to the war of perceptions.
Not forgetting that, when the system of political party funding requires welcome transparency, but openly supporting a “controversial” party is made difficult by a system of denunciation and social and/or professional exclusion, one can imagine that, amid the difficulties of election campaigns and daily life, the temptation to accept “sponsors” from elsewhere is strong…
Compromise, always possible?
Another classic lever is compromise – the famous Soviet “kompromat”, which Putin and his regime have mastered perfectly. Compromise may be linked to the previous lever – since political decision-makers can, a priori, only suffer from exposure of their financial dependence on foreign powers… (even if the longevity of certain personalities known for their financial ties to foreign powers raises questions about this moral dimension, which seems to be losing ground).
But compromise may also involve the threat of revealing the “private life” aspects of an individual, whether their real or supposed choices are condemned by law, or simply by the “morals” of some, particularly those around them.
And in this case, one may wonder why and how those some call “conservatives” can form close relationships, or even relationships of submission, with certain Russian or American decision-makers whose personal life choices are, in reality, the opposite of those of their supporters (or at least of the choices they claim, even if only for show).
As for the real freedoms they would keep if they came to power in European “oblasts” or provinces, one can only be surprised by the imagination of these so-called “conservatives” who are thus putting themselves in danger. Unless they imagine that, having pledged allegiance, they will escape the authoritarian, even totalitarian, rule that will strike ordinary people…
The temptation of the “dacha” – a habit indeed of all authoritarian regimes, until, inevitably, “there is always someone purer to purge the pure…”.
Ideology, really?
In the days of the Berlin Wall (and before), the Soviet regime’s allies were rather on the left, in the name of the internationalist communist utopia and its variants.
Some can still be found in France, among supporters of “humanist” regimes à la Chávez…
And of course there must have been a few “red-browns” – specialists mention the existence of “National Bolsheviks”… But this category probably represented only a handful of individuals, no doubt more motivated by the transgression the label evoked than by the adoption of any accomplished political synthesis.
Transgression, in fact, and provocation – the pleasure of shocking the “bourgeois”, especially if “bohemian”: fairly common drivers in these movements, often outweighing real convictions… the taste for action for its own sake often being a stronger driver than a real political project.
Today, beyond support for an explicitly formulated political project, the “ideological” lever probably lies in belief, or not, in a “providential man” (the man may also be a woman).
Because in the face of crises and uncertainty, many (too many) take refuge in the hope of an omniscient, omnipotent saviour. Which suits those fighting to reach the top of a pyramid very well. And their courtiers, who will reap the resulting benefits – limited “trickle-down” – while waiting to tear each other apart, inevitably, to reach the supreme seat. Because believing in a “providential man” is incompatible with support for a genuinely collective project.
In our companies, we obviously see this. There are those who cling to bureaucratic authority, standards, rules and status. Who confuse power, authority, leadership… and other polysemous terms.
And then there are those who play on collective dynamics, influence, conviction…
But is this an “ideology”, and therefore a common project? Clearly, a taste for personal power is not enough to unite Putin and Trump – not to mention the other players, of equal or lower rank.
That leaves the dimensions of a “societal” project… But can societies as different as North Korea, the United States, Russia or the democracies of Central and Eastern Europe share the same project, the same “worldview” – particularly of “their” world?
Egos, egos, egos…
That leaves one lever that resonates perfectly with the “ideological” dimension of MICE: ego.
Ego is a very powerful lever: the one that makes it possible, for example, to dress up a very ego-centred bid for power as “our project”.
Of course, in France we have the “excuse” of the monarchical and Bonapartist tradition… And of a culture deeply steeped in Cartesianism (“Descartes, useless and uncertain”, as Jean-François Revel wrote), which implies that the most “intelligent” person is always right.
But can one be “right” alone?
People often object that, in a “crisis”, only vertical authority is justified. And one can even call on the self-proclaimed authority of a few brass hats who wrap themselves in the glory of the armed forces to support their own words. Words that are rarely based on real experience, which, because of the geopolitical context of the last thirty years, few have had (and those who have are not the ones speaking).
Because they overlook (or ignore) that, in combat, it is the autonomy of forces guaranteed by cohesion, free submission to common rules and full understanding of “the commander’s intent” that make it possible to carry the mission through to the end, even deep in the fog of war. Not the possible omnipresence – impossible and ineffective anyway – of a “warlord” controlling every move of the “strategic corporal”.
And that while emergencies may justify very directive, and sometimes solitary, command, crises (which are too often confused with emergencies) require, on the contrary, collective dynamics, in order to be more effective and to last.
So when, in a political field (and not only in France) that encourages court phenomena, egotistical domination joins the economic dimension and relies on the ideology of verticality or even authoritarianism – because verticality may be merely symbolic, but some often extend it to very real interactions and decisions – we see that egos are a particularly powerful lever.
But those who enjoy it should beware, in autocratic dynamics perfectly mastered by the heirs of dictatorial regimes, in which counter-powers disappear… Because the first “victims” of any revolution are always the revolutionaries themselves… “There is always someone purer…”.
To misname things is to add to the misfortune of the world
So, while the keys of the MICE model may explain some sincere commitments (without implying any moral judgement on my part), perhaps what some describe as a “conservative” takeover (or one of the other terms mentioned in the introduction) can be “explained” differently.
Starting with the fact that these very partisan labels are above all attempts to exclude some political actors – and therefore, in a democracy, some citizens – from public debate.
It seems that the phrase some attribute to Joseph Stalin – “Call your opponents fascists; while they justify themselves, you can do something else”, or something along those lines – actually comes from the far-right online sphere… and is therefore not admissible.
Whatever its origin, the phrase is nonetheless interesting, because it illustrates quite well what part of political debate has become – including in official chambers. Where people hurl anathemas at each other (insults had been used for a long time, but with more talent).
People no longer debate; they hurl abuse.
And as far as “conservatives” are concerned, commentators do not, in my view, call enough on political scientists (but do they want to?) to describe more precisely and neutrally what brings together, distinguishes and characterises “conservatives”, “populists”, “liberals”…
I remember, for example, my younger years, when Margaret Thatcher was running Britain: the label “liberal” had become an insult intended to avoid real debate between supporters of the market economy and those of the planned economy.
Since then, and because in other countries “liberals” are also the political opponents of “conservatives”, people have had to change tack… Hence the prefix “ultra” added to liberal. Which makes it possible to exclude the accused from the “circle of reason”…
Because some have discovered that “economic” liberalism – condemned by some, and embraced more than discreetly by others – did not always go hand in hand with “societal” liberalism. A “liberalism” that, for its part, is welcome, “naturally”. Because, in the name of a certain “emancipatory” direction of history, this paradigm can only unfold inexorably.
But as Olivier Dard puts it, “the conservative is not the reactionary, in the sense that the reactionary will hope, perhaps always with some nostalgia, to return to an old order. The conservative accepts, even if it does not necessarily suit him, that the situation evolves; he tries to adapt to his time, except that he does not consider progress to be necessarily the best thing there is, nor that every change is necessarily to be approved”[3].
And perhaps this is where these “unnatural” alliances or rapprochements can be explained, between those who fought to free themselves from the yoke of those to whom they now seem to want to submit.
Antagonism breeds antagonism, and exclusion can turn the other into a useful “target” for skilful adversaries.
The consequences of an imposed – and therefore failed – transformation
Let us return, then, to the analytical – and, where appropriate, practical – power of sociodynamics… with one of its best-known variants: the “allies strategy”. But also others, ignored by some superficial pedants, which nonetheless show all the subtlety of the thinking of the late Jean-Christian Fauvet and of his very operational experience in very diverse contexts.
There is no “inevitable” transformation. An organisation – and a company, like a society, is an organisation – lives and evolves… It is subject to external and internal influences. One can welcome transformations, or be saddened by them. One can bring them about, encourage them, contribute to them. Or oppose them. Each at their own level. But there is no “direction of history”.
Our Western societies are undergoing profound transformation – but so are others, except perhaps a few isolated ones (though even Albania eventually opened up a little… so North Korea, who knows…).
Transformations driven by social change in other countries, by cultural influences, wanted or not, by climate change, by technological innovation, by population movements…
In France, since the 1980s and a certain Michel Noir, who formalised this shift in an interesting book, some political players reason in terms of “market share” rather than “convictions”.
And because it is easier to promise a bright future than to explain patiently and act with measure, many have chosen the “societal” field to structure their “political” project. Because it is a field that allows promises that do not necessarily cost “a crazy amount of dough” (as a French president once put it).
Conversely, defence and international relations have been terribly absent from every election campaign for decades – including presidential campaigns, despite the President’s “reserved domain” and the specific nature of French nuclear deterrence.
Elsewhere in Europe, particularly further east, these subjects are more present – but our French commentators have neither the curiosity nor perhaps the understanding to notice.
The “societal” field has therefore been placed at the heart of our political affairs.
One dimension, however, has been neglected: time. Strength of conviction, or simply the need to offer “ever more” at each election?
And yet “societal” matters take time. Because they question, and where necessary challenge, personal beliefs and habits, which are themselves rooted in family, even religious or “civilisational”, habits.
By pushing ahead at a forced pace – and above all by avoiding in-depth debates, which naturally take time, and by “excluding” opponents and even the “hesitant” – the promoters of societal change have put our social cohesion, and now our security, in great danger.
A necessary moderation, or risk the backlash
These “societal” changes have been carried out in the institutional field, with structuring laws on “rights” or on the limits of freedom of expression.
But also in companies. Readers who work for multinationals controlled by American companies have certainly experienced the consequences of DEI policies, including in France. And many companies and public organisations have also taken part in this movement – sometimes through education and on a voluntary basis, but sometimes more directively, in the name of a necessary “re-education”.
When proposed, these approaches were virtuous.
When imposed, they led to disastrous results. Superficial support and, above all, resentment that is now being expressed on the other side of the Atlantic, before reaching our shores.
“Antagonism breeds antagonism” – and the “polarisation” we unfortunately see did not come about by chance.
So, must one be right alone? And impose one’s “truth”?
Democracy is the regime in which it is possible to oppose contrary views, even firmly. It is uncomfortable. But necessary. And we sorely miss the thinking of Raymond Aron, among others – fortunately, there are his books.
Because resentment, even revenge, always finds expression, even in the most totalitarian regimes.
But above all, when the promoters of “transformations” change the rules of democratic life in the name of building “dykes”, they potentially hand those whom alternation will bring to power the keys to an authoritarian regime. Unless they take the reasoning to its conclusion themselves, by imposing “the camp of the good”.
Montesquieu himself recommended touching laws only “with a trembling hand”… Have we forgotten this in the name of an “omniscience” acquired over time thanks to information technologies – which are not technologies of knowledge? Personally, I fear so…
Formulating a common project to face threats and aggression
Let us return to our sociodynamic analysis.
By making the “societal” field the centre of attention and excluding those who had doubts about, or opposed, the changes being driven – who may be called “conservatives” in this case, even though most of them have more legitimate questions than settled convictions – political leaders have deepened the fractures in the social body.
They have weakened our societies, turning part of the population into “targets” for enemies of our liberal democracies who skilfully denounce precisely those undemocratic practices that they, we have no doubt whatsoever, would make even less open – one need only look at what they do in their own countries.
So let us not fall into the trap denounced above: designating culprits. Because what matters is to strengthen the resilience and mobilisation capacity of our societies.
Any profound transformation in a democratic society can only be nourished by dialogue.
Because even in companies – which are not democracies – authoritarianism always comes at a high price: disengagement, resignations, the loss of talent and customers…
At the risk of disappointing those who feel that “it’s not moving fast enough”, we must accept the time that societal transformations need: they belong to the long term.
And let us reassure them by reminding them that other transformations are much faster – though not necessarily easier.
Economic reforms do not touch the identity of their stakeholders, but flows and organisations. These are transformations that can be carried out more quickly.
And rebuilding our collective security policies is also a lever of collective mobilisation with more immediate deadlines – because they are vital.
In the face of the totalitarianisms that threaten our freedoms, we must therefore use two complementary strategies drawn from sociodynamics.
An allies strategy, naturally. By identifying the “allies” – those who do something for the common project. And by taking into account the misunderstandings and conditions for support of the “hesitant”.
And also this original but indispensable strategy in this context: the “leap of faith”. Holding out a hand to those who today appear as “opponents” – if only because, for some, it is our own antagonism that led them to this hostile stance.
Of course, a mobilisation strategy has a prerequisite: formulating the foundations of a common project. The foundations, but not everything. Because degrees of freedom, negotiation and contribution must naturally be left. Compromises that will bring as many people as possible on board.
Not because we are “right”. But because we will be more numerous, and therefore stronger… “A project does not die from a large number of opponents, but from a cruel lack of allies.”
And when it comes to collective security, I am convinced that many “conservatives” (on societal questions perhaps – and even then) will affirm their attachment to what is essential: our individual and collective freedoms.
Because, despite the cries of horror and “moral” condemnation – justified or not – it would still be terrible (and surprising) for those whose parents fought to free themselves and regain their freedoms to voluntarily return to the yoke of their former oppressor.
It remains to work on it… together.
[1] Ukraine, a magnificent sociodynamic actor
[2] The book « L’anticommunisme en France et en Europe, 1917-1991 » (Anti-communism in France and Europe, 1917–1991) is eagerly awaited, due out in mid-June.
[3] In the podcast « Le conservatisme : une critique de la démocratie ? » (Conservatism: a critique of democracy?), « Les chemins de la philosophie », France Culture, 26 December 2018 (in French)
Leave a Reply