OPTION –
An attentive teacher knows that his students are not all the same in their use of language. Some have a predisposition to communicate orally, others are clearly more comfortable in writing; while some prove to be more gifted in mathematical logic and others stand out for their manual intelligence – often devalued by a school system that invariably prefers sacrosanct methodology to any form of creativity.
But beyond social determinism and the impact of the environment on the being under construction that is the child (access to culture, reading education, etc.), these differences mainly concern evident genetic factors, which will inevitably continue to assert themselves in adulthood. In this sense, the true and functional “intelligence”, far from the myth of the American-style monomaniacal genius, lies in the versatilitynamely in the potential mastery of different areas of performance – which is theoretically required of even the average student.
But let’s go back to the language. At school, at work or in society, it is certainly the first factor of discrimination between individuals of the same group: “knowledge” establishes a hierarchy. That is to say, more simply, that those who know how to express themselves are listened to. However, this hierarchy has its functional limitations, as reason et express yourself they can be seen as two distinct exercises, the first relating to “knowing how to think” and the second to “knowing how to say”. This is a first “materialization” – and therefore possible denaturation – of the idea before its possible final realization.
We can therefore segment the action (born from an idea or a social need) serving a project, into three operational phases which each require different skills: planning, formulation and execution. As has been said, some – the “pragmatic idealists” – are naturally skilled in handling concepts or words (an understandable idea being clearly expressed), and others – the “pragmatic idealists” – in wielding the tools to apply these same concepts. concepts.<span data-ccp-props="{"201341983
However, one cannot reasonably move from the planning to the execution phase without going through the pitfalls of formulation, which is the most accessible and therefore the most vulnerable of the areas, each having been educated, through ordinary mimicry, by simple contact with those around him, managing the tongue. The mass media, like political representatives, have largely worked to pervert, through more or less lazy, more or less interested propaganda verbiage, this operational chain necessary to carry out the action. In short, the action is neither thought of nor performed: it is simply denigrated or, on the contrary, claimed in front of the cameras as a dogma.
At a time when politicians (those who think, say and act) have disappeared from platforms and ministries to make way for communicators (those who say), our dear president Emmanuel Macron admirably embodies this tyranny of language empty, which frankly has to do with a form of theatrical hypnosis. No doubt he partly owes this talent as a seductive speaker to his theater teacher, with whom he fell in love, in any case it is fascinating to see to what extent speech is enough for the people, before any type of reasoning. That is to say that the illusion of depth prevails, due to the average laziness of the seduced intellect, over the search for meaning.
In essence the message is: be careful a priori speakers, because language often betrays action. There is something fundamentally fishy about the chatter. Furthermore, if I talk about the figure of the teacher, it is because he is particularly suited to knowing that an individual endowed with certain communication skills (sometimes dictated by simple verbal conformism) will not necessarily be endowed with deeper qualities, including freedom of will, critical thinking or common sense, necessary for group harmony.
Therefore, it is not uncommon to observe dyslexic students, who have learning or behavioral disorders, who show above average comprehension and assimilation skills, being capable of reasoning in a remarkable way about everything while expressing themselves with difficulty through language. Some may see violence as a desperate form of expression in the face of frustration and injustice caused by failure to master linguistic codes.
In the cultural sphere, we also see the extent to which contemporary French literature has condemned the style and art of reflection, producing “works” that claim, even marginally, neither substance nor form, under the guidance of spineless editors, subject to the rigor of hypocrisy or dogmas of their financial masters. But which models do we intend to offer? Models of courage and elegance, or of vulgarity and submission?
Hasn’t the time come, under the weight of chatter – worldly or populist – and permanent disinformation, to rediscover the radicality of body language, of universal language? This social instinct that brought the Yellow Vests to the streets of France and made an illegitimate authority tremble, ready for any maneuver to stay in power, through a common desire for sovereignty and tranquility?
Isn’t it time to sanction those who see in speech only its anesthetic and accommodating functions to hide their predatory and incompetent actions from the people? Drive out demagogy to rehabilitate pedagogy? Hasn’t the time come to purify the foundations of public discourse, and first and foremost of the controlled media, to restore language to its real meaning? utilitydesigning new forms of governance freed from the influence of words?
The passage discusses the varying communication styles and intelligence levels among students, emphasizing that not all individuals express themselves the same way. It highlights how some are skilled in verbal communication while others excel in writing, mathematical logic, or manual skills. The text critiques the education system for favoring traditional methodologies over creativity and suggests that these differences stem from genetic factors as well as environmental influences, such as access to culture and education.
The author points out that language serves as a significant factor of discrimination within social hierarchies, where those who can express themselves effectively are often more listened to. However, there is a distinction made between “knowing how to think” (reason) and “knowing how to say” (express oneself), signaling that the capability to articulate thoughts does not necessarily equate to the depth of understanding.
The passage also discusses the phases of action—planning, formulation, and execution—each requiring different skills, and underscores that movement from one phase to the next is not always linear; particularly, the formulation phase is described as vulnerable and easily manipulated by societal influences, such as mass media and political rhetoric.
The author mentions the current political landscape, criticizing leaders like Emmanuel Macron as representatives of a trend where style overshadows substance, emphasizing appearance over genuine reasoning and meaningful discourse. The passage articulates a cautionary message about the reliance on eloquent speech, suggesting that superficial communication often conceals deeper issues such as the lack of critical thinking and genuine understanding.
it touches upon the experiences of dyslexic students who may struggle with verbal expression but possess strong comprehension and reasoning abilities, along with a broader critique of contemporary literature that may lack substance and depth in favor of adherence to commercial pressures. This alludes to a broader cultural issue regarding the quality of expression and reflection in various spheres, especially within education and literature.