“The uniform can help play its role as a schoolboy”
In your work, you say that the school uniform has a large and discreet consensus within the French population. Where does this conviction come from?
You just have to look at the opinion investigations: the majority of French people declare themselves favorable to the uniform. The most often advanced argument in favor of a “common outfit” is simplicity: avoiding morning tensions linked to the choice of adolescent clothes. Others see it as a way to fight against social stigma and the grip of brands.
But this support remains discreet, because, in France, the uniform is immediately politicized. It is expressed without displaying it really and without deep justification, in particular of being considered retrograde. Today, the uniform is, in fact, largely perceived as a “right -wing”, a reactionary symbol. By forgetting its history: it was historically promoted on the national territory by the radical left, before it turns away from it.
Elsewhere, it is not the object of debate?
No, and it’s striking. All over the world, the uniform is seen as obvious. In the United States or Canada, where it has developed for twenty years, it symbolizes unity and pride, without provoking debate. In Great Britain, it has been an integral part of school culture since the 16th century.
Continental Europe, in reality, is an exception. We often continue to associate the uniform with a vestige of the past. However, what we do not know even more is that it is indeed present today all over the world, and even in our schools.
That’s to say?
In overseas, the school uniform has largely imposed itself. In New Caledonia, primary schoolchildren wear a unique polo shirt. In Polynesia, most colleges have reintroduced it. Same evolution in Martinique and Guadeloupe. And all this without national directive or ministerial text, but by a movement from the field.
There was no experiment piloted from above, but a contagion effect: one establishment influencing the other, the heads of school institutionalizing it little by little. If the uniform progresses thus, it is good that it meets a real need.
So why did we turn away from the blouse long worn in mainland France?
There is a misunderstanding around the blouses. Although they were widespread, they underwent family initiatives intended to protect civil clothes from ink stains. They carried no republican or military symbolism, imposed by the State. They therefore in no way constituted a school uniform.
Little by little, they disappeared, deemed archaic. Modernity had to go hand in with individual freedom, especially for children, called to assert themselves and build their personality. In this context, the uniform appeared as a constraint that prevented self -expression.
This movement of affirmation of the individual has been amplified since the 1960s, to the point of constituting a real anthropological revolution, undoubtedly one of the greatest that has known humanity. This is what I called the utopia of individual freedom. It is based on a simple idea: I am master of my life, I can invent myself. I can choose my genre, decide if I want to be a man or a woman. I can choose to study, or not. Everything becomes matter to create his identity.
With what consequences?
It is an extraordinary utopia, an unprecedented emancipation, but also very destabilizing … Let’s look at the child again: in the past, he was hardly right to speech, and educational violence was common. Today, he is listened to, respected, valued. It is immense progress. But did we not transform him into a mini-adult, always ready to say “I”, to oppose his parents, to challenge his teachers?
Would you say that there is a crisis of authority?
Undeniably. Parents are often distraught, they no longer know how to go about it. Regularly conducted self -assessment surveys are very talking: most parents believe they are less good parents as thirty years ago. And the plan on which they most severely judge themselves, it is precisely that of authority.
In the past, a conflict was quickly settled – sometimes by spanking, bad solution, but immediate response. Today, parents hesitate, fear being too hard, and find themselves in permanent discomfort. This floating leads to that some children grow up by feeling all-powerful, sometimes tyrannical, and become fragile, disoriented and unhappy adults.
Is it not illusory to believe that the uniform would restore order in families as in school institutions?
He can help students enter their role as schoolboy. Among the youngest, this makes it possible to promote investment, even if it is less true among college students. At home, the child has his freedom; At school, the uniform recalls that it belongs to a specific framework. It is more likely, too, to develop effort, self -giving, and empathy, thanks to the feeling of belonging to a community, a group.
And is that enough?
No, of course. Uniform is not a miracle solution. Teachers rightly recall that priority is first to have a teacher in each class, and worthy material conditions. Nor should we forget that the uniform can also be instrumentalized. We see him in Russia, where Vladimir Putin makes him a symbol of national unity in the face of an external enemy, a disturbing nationalist drift.
But if a common outfit is not presented as the solution to all our problems, it can contribute to restoring benchmarks. And that’s what our society needs most.
Finally, what you emphasize is less the need for uniform than that of collective benchmarks …
If we want to continue to guarantee individual rights and to promote emancipation, it is essential to fix benchmarks, to establish regulation and to ensure support. This applies to education, for the question of gender that I mentioned earlier, but also for public debate, where moderation is gradually disappearing, especially on social networks.
At 20 years old, in May 1968, I thought like many that all rules and prohibitions had to be abolished. At the end of four decades of sociological work, I changed my mind: we cannot destroy all institutions, otherwise it is society that collapses.
In this individualist society, are we really more free than before?
Well no, and that’s all the paradox. Since the Middle Ages, we have never known as many standards as those that we are imposing ourselves. This is one of the conclusions of a study that I published in 1995 on the behavior of men and women at the beach. In the early 1970s, women from the wealthiest and graduate circles began to remove the top of their swimsuit. This gesture started from a claim of freedom, but I realized that it immediately led to new rules, new tacit constraints, conveyed by a look, a remark, an attitude. We saw the men turning our eyes away, talking with women with distance, women themselves isolate themselves from each other. All these micro-events clearly showed that, far from expanding the freedom of individuals, this type of conquest reconfigured it, even restricted it.
Observing everyday life, objects, microcomporting, has always been your method. What does this study of manners bring?
The details reveal the major collective logics. I wrote on the socks, handbags, or the first morning after a night of love. Through these micro-observations, I think I have detailed the two deepest transformations of our societies since the 1950s: the reign of the individual and that of identity.
This approach makes it possible to explore in depth what people really think, at the most intimate. It also helps to capture what is expressed in the depths of the country, beyond official speeches.
The example of the sock is particularly revealing. Behind her apparent banality, she imposes herself as a tool of distinction. Minor object deemed worthless, it is a social sign, a mark of belonging to its environment. She immediately says to which class we belong to or to which we aspire. It shows how very divided society is still very sociologically. It is, in my eyes, the role of the intellectual: to make these background movements visible.
Are they sufficiently taken into account?
In cultivated and graduate circles, the idea of progress, individual emancipation and modernity stands out as shared evidence. This vision seems so self -evident that you forget that, in the popular classes, the gaze is often quite different. These soon be qualified as reactionaries, and their position is reduced to membership of the National Rally.
However, behind these reactions, is something else: a request for respect, a quest for landmarks. And that deserves to be heard. We investigate too little to grasp what is expressed in the depths of the country, contenting ourselves with disqualifying these voices.
Your books are written in a clear language, far from the academic jargon. Is it an assumed desire to speak to as many people as possible?
I try to build them like stories. It’s not easy: I have complex things to explain, references to mention. A sociology book is not a novel, but I want a living writing. I love this exercise, even if it is restrictive.
I have always considered that the dominant academic style, namely we cut in a, b, c, we classify, does not allow to train an audience. Exposing arguments, based on solid references and investigations and trying to convince the reader, whether a student, citizen or Nobel Prize: in my eyes, writing in a readable way is an integral part of scientific work.
