Showing posts with label Sainte-Marie RIOM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sainte-Marie RIOM. Show all posts

Thursday, May 2, 2013

You think that’s funny?!

Lucile: Welcome to our very serious conversation on laughter and humor! What is humor, and can we laugh about everything?

Alice: Why do people laugh?  Humor is the affirmation of ourselves, an awareness of our place in the world. It is the ability to see reality, at least the absurd aspects of it. Or maybe it is the nervous acceptance that we are unable to see or accept reality for what it is, our place in the vast universe? As Woody Allen said: “God is dead, Marx is dead, and I myself do not feel very well…” Laughter is also self-mockery.

Bénédicte: Laughter is not just a reaction to absurdity, it is also about communication. Through laughter, people share ideas and feelings with others, especially when they have the same sense of humor. Humorists provoke thought and discussion by making us laugh.

Marilou: Humor is also a means to be part of a group, of friends or at work. Someone with humor is usually well-liked; everybody likes to be with someone who makes them laugh. Humor is a means to feel happy, and we shouldn’t put limits on that. How can you forbid someone from being happy?!

Wesley: I agree that laughter is a factor of social integration, but it can also be used to exclude. Think of business people; they have to laugh at the boss’s lame jokes because he is the boss! Humor helps maintain the hierarchy in society. It is also an efficient management tool, useful in breaking the ice, in team building, in the all-important after-work parties, etc.

Alice: Humor can be nasty, used to mock someone's physical appearance, family situation, religion, or ethnic origin. There is a violent side to humor too…

Bénédicte: Yes, but there are legitimate targets for humor: the rich, the corrupt, the intolerant, the cruel, etc. To laugh is indeed to react, to react to injustice. You can make fun of other people if those other people do bad things.

Alice: Yes, but the danger is that humor becomes a weapon which destroys someone’s reputation… Think of DSK.

Bénédicte: I think DSK is a totally legitimate target for satire: a public figure who did something wrong!

Marilou: I personally think you can laugh at everyone and at everything. Nothing should be taboo when it comes to having a laugh. It’s almost a matter of survival, especially in the work place! I mean, if you couldn’t take the piss out of your colleagues or your boss (behind his back), you’d go nuts! According to a survey of 600 men, 73% said they worked better because humor was tolerated in the work place. Did you know that, according to researchers at Loma Linda University in California, laughter reduces stress by 38%? Our way of life today is very stressful, be it at school, at work, or at home, so laughter is a means to relax; it’s even, indeed, a means to stay relatively healthy in the brain and the body! People who laugh 10 to 25 times a day have fewer health problems than others according to a 2009 study published in the International Journal of Medical Sciences. When you laugh, your heart rate and blood pressure go down and you become calmer. This is why you feel a sense of relief after having a good laugh. Laughing at everything, at everyone, at someone, or at nothing in particular makes you live better and longer!

Wesley: There are different types of humor. The two main categories I would say are humor in private life and the one in public life. People have a more personal sense of humor in private life, as they know their entourage well, they may also laugh at the same things as the people they know well. In public life, people will be more universal so as to be understood by as many people as possible; it’s a means to be included more easily in the group.

Alice: Some people think it is rather dangerous to confuse public and private life… I feel it is different in countries like the UK or the USA, where there are more pubs, parties and so forth?

Wesley: I like political cartoons, don’t you? I think they’re clever, they put over a message quickly, usually because they make good use of satire; Le Canard enchainé for one uses cartoons to sometimes devastating affect!

Bénédicte: Yes, but it is sometimes difficult to share the joke, either because you disagree with the political message or because you just “don’t get it”… I sometimes feel a little censorship would not be such a bad thing!

Wesley: Understanding the joke rather depends on where you come from, what you know, how open-minded you are… If you try to stop people from mocking each other, it is like limiting their freedom of expression; after all, everyone has the right to say what he or she thinks on whatever issue! Sometimes, laughter is the only means of expression left, when action or ordinary words seem inefficient in changing a situation. Humor is a powerful political tool, which authorities sometimes try to censor…

Alice: You’re right; humor can hurt, especially as humor is by definition funny, therefore not supposed to be taken seriously, therefore not really dangerous! “It was only a joke!” is what cartoonists or humorists sometimes say to avoid prosecution.

Bénédicte: I think racist, anti-Semitic, or sexist jokes and cartoons are not funny. Suffering, humiliation, death, loneliness, etc., is no laughing matter either! Black humor just shows lack of respect for victims. Black humor is prevalent in societies that are losing the essential notion of respect for the individual…

Lucile: Yes, but everyone knows when something is meant to be funny, even if they do not find it amusing. There are obviously different degrees and types of humor, and everyone has their own sense of humor. Humor can provoke, create tension, express opposition and even loathing, but it can do the opposite too: for example, people who use jokes and laughter to defuse tension tend to have better marriages, according to psychologist John Gottman. Laughter is a good way of keeping the joie-de-vivre we had as children!

Bénédicte: Yes, laughter can be life-affirming! Illness is easier to stand if a patient finds a reason to laugh. It often takes the drama out of a situation too.

Alice: Sure, but it can be destructive too! The use of humor can sometimes be inappropriate and offensive: mocking people's physical appearance, religious beliefs, or ethnic origin can make a situation worse. Take the example of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons of Muhammad; what was the intention of the cartoonists, to shock Muslims? If that was the case, the cartoons could be seen as an incitement to racial or ethnic hatred, which the Law forbids!

Wesley: No, not at all! The idea was to provoke fundamentalists who want to stop anyone from expressing an opinion that they do not approve of! Charli Hebdo was defending freedom of speech! What someone finds funny depends on their social background, their socio-professional category, on how tolerant they are, on their ethnic origin, their tastes, their personal experience, and so on. Some people think black humor is fun; it is a way to laugh at things we take too seriously. It is in a way, paradoxically, a means of coping with tragic events or issues that are too horrible to really understand...

Lucile: Can you laugh at anything? No, not if the intention of the person who is making the joke is to stigmatize, to demean, to exclude… Desproges said we can laugh at everything but we have to be careful with whom we laugh, as they might not get the joke!

Monday, February 4, 2013

THBT The Auvergne Should Become An Independent Nation!

Anne-Sophie is INSTIGATOR (she is FOR the motion)
Hello everyone and welcome to today’s debate! We hope you have had a good meal, a typical tasty meal from the Auvergne?! The issue we will be discussing today is: can the Auvergne become independent from France, in other words, is it possible for us, the Auvergnats, to become a separate nation-state?! Also, how independent can regions like the Auvergne be within the European Union? Antoine and I are separatists; we agree with people who think that the Auvergne should become a proud independent nation. We want self-government, and that, for obvious and very numerous reasons! We want you to vote for the motion. Pierre and Floriane over there are againstthe motion; they want the Auvergne to continue to be some sad appendix to a thing called “France”! We all come from Clermont-Ferrand, in the Auvergne, so we are all aware that something has to be done about this region…

Antoine is also FOR the motion
I think we need to define first of all what a “nation” is... To me, there are three main elements to being a nation: a common history, common interests to defend, and the willingness to actually be a nation. As regards willingness to form a nation, you, the public, already know the answer: we are proud to be Auvergnat!

Anne-Sophie
Plus, the people of the Auvergne have a glorious history: Vercingétorix, good food, and excellence in rugby are just three examples of our rich cultural heritage!

Pierre is CONTENDER (he is AGAINST the motion)
Sure, the Auvergne has its own history, but so do all the other regions of France! It’s not because they have their own heritage that they should become independent! This silly idea of independence would bring an end to the Republican unity of the nation, which would be terrible!

Anne-Sophie
There are also economic and social aspects to the issue…

Antoine
Put simply, we want to work, in a sustainable way, and we want our region to develop, to become a great place to live in. And this is a crucial point in our debate: because, obviously, the French government has failed in its task of meeting our needs here in the Auvergne. We are isolated, with few motorways and no high-speed train lines, there is a higher unemployment rate than in most regions, and the greatest number of jobs is in the industrial sector, which is declining. The only solution to this deplorable situation is independence! With real decision-making power, an Auvergne government would be much more efficient, and economic activity would at last take off!

Floriane is also AGAINST the motion
I agree we need greater efficiency in local government, but I don’t think the situation is as critical as you say it is...

Antoine
Yes it is! There is only one major company in the Auvergne, Michelin, and it is located in Clermont-Ferrand, the region’s center.Apart from Clermont-Ferrand, which part of the Auvergne is really economically viable?

Floriane
Rubbish! What about Louis Vuitton, Volvic, the Banque de France, Limagrain, Cantal cheese and lentils from Le Puy?!

Anne-Sophie
But what Antoine means is that the entire region could become even more economically dynamic with independence, though Clermont-Ferrand is obviously the most dynamic place because 44% of the region’s inhabitants live there, that’s 430,000 inhabitants. There is great potential for tourism, especially “green tourism”, and winter sports in Super Besse and Lioran. The Auvergne receives help from the European Union to develop its agricultural, gastronomic, cultural, scientific, and tourist assets. In other words, who needs France?!

Pierre
More dependence on the EU rather than on France? What’s the difference?! That’s no solution to our development problems either! No, becoming independent would only make the Auvergne’s isolation even worse. I think a good compromise would be to copy what has already been done in other European countries like Spain or Germany. Both these countries have more self-government in their regions than we do here in France. Across the Rhine, it’s a federal system that seems to work really well... What do you think?

Anne-Sophie
From my point of view, to adopt a federal system like the Germans would already be a big step towards the emancipation of all of the regions of France. However, I still believe independence for the Auvergne should be our ultimate goal.

Antoine
In fact, the real question, if you think about it, is what do we want for Europe: federalism or souverainism?

Floriane
Federalism adapted to Europe would be a sort of “united regions of Europe”, in which regions would have more importance than States.

Pierre
States would still have quite extensive powers, but each region in a more federalist European system would have a real government that would define its own policies on health, education, transport, etc., and receive funds, if needs be, directly from the European Union to develop its infrastructure and economy.

Floriane
The idea of souverainism is more a “Europe of Nations” in which each State has more power to decide what happens within its territory than the EU does. Brussels would have less say in a souverainist Europe than in a federalist one.

Antoine
I think more federalism could be a solution to the EU crisis. The fact is, in Europe, today, most of our decision-making and administrative systems are inefficient. Giving more power to the regions would make politicians and the people more involved in regional concerns, and policies therefore more efficient and appropriate. Indeed, the economic health of an entire nation depends on local initiative. What I mean is that entrepreneurship has to be promoted everywhere in the country, not only in the regions that are already developed. With federalism, every region could propose appropriate solutions and policies to local problems. More regional development and regional decision-making would boost the economy of the EU as a whole. Of course, this would need competent politicians at the regional level of course…

Pierre
The attractiveness of a region like the Auvergne depends on planning, such as the creation of real transport hubs. In order to promote entrepreneurship, as you say, important subsidies are required from the French Government, subsidies that Europe alone couldn't afford. Without these French Government subsidies, the Auvergne will never become attractive to investors...

Anne-Sophie
That's not true. European subsidies are all we need! There’s the ERDF, European Regional Development Fund, to promote regional competitiveness and employment, and the ESF, European Social Fund, to improve employment prospects and reinforce economic and social cohesion. The Auvergne region is already more or less financially independent thanks to these funds from Europe. From 2007 to 2013, the region got more than €206 million of ERDF, to reinforce regional firms’ competitiveness, as well as the region’s attractiveness. These European funds improved our employment figures, and contributed to paying for initiatives like the reorganization of several train stations. From 2007 to 2013, the Region received more than €38 million of ESF money  too, for the creation of jobs. We think that with these European subsidies, we could become independent, or at least France could adopt a more federal system...

Pierre
I think a good compromise between federalism and souverainism would be for us in France to copy the Germany model…

Antoine
I admire the German federal system too because it encourages grass roots (that is “à la base”) initiatives to economic problems. It is not “top down” decision-making like in France, where it is still essentially Paris that decides what happens everywhere! Like I said, more power to the regions would encourage a more competitive regional economy. And we all know that economic competitiveness is what France as a whole lacks! To my mind, federalism would be a real solution to the EU crisis, since it would boost economic activity without increasing the deficits of the European governments.

Floriane
Well, from what we have heard from both sides, it would appear that what most of us think is that if the Auvergne is to become wealthier, not to say happier, we need a more federal system in France and in the EU; we need more self-government by the regions just like in several other European countries. In fact, greater decentralization of power in every EU member country would make communication between Brussels and every European citizen much easier, creating a stronger European Union from the bottom to the top, without the interference of State governments!