Bibliographic reference : Pierre-Henri Tavoillot, Do we still want to live together?, Paris, Odile Jacob, 2024, 406 p.
Pierre-Henri Tavoillot, “secularism” delegate for the Île-de-France region and member of the University Ethics Observatory, delivers in Do we still want to live together? ? a deep and incisive analysis of the dynamics of cohesion and fracture that characterize our contemporary societies. At a time when identity withdrawal and ideological tensions seem to compromise the very foundations of democracy, this work offers a reflection of rare relevance on how to restore authentic living together. Structured in three parts, it combines a critique of the forces of disunity with proposals for rebuilding the social bond around universal practices.
The author begins by questioning the foundations of living together, questioning the historical and philosophical reasons that led human societies to organize themselves collectively. He identifies timeless principles – loyalty to the past, the quest for freedom, harmony with nature – that have shaped civilizations, but which today seem weakened by modern individualism. The latter, although liberating, threatens traditional frameworks of unity, such as the family or fraternity (pp. 23-34). Tavoillot describes a crisis of civility and authority, where collective benchmarks are fading in favor of a “society of individuals” (pp. 37-42). This evolution, analyzed with precision, reflects a paradox at the heart of modern democracies: how can we preserve the social base that allows the exercise of individual freedoms, while respecting them? The author thus lays the foundations for a reflection which goes beyond the usual observations to touch on the very essence of common life.
The second part constitutes the critical heart of the work. Tavoillot explores the forces of disunity that fragment our societies, focusing particularly on Wokism, described as an ideology of discord. This movement, which he perceives as a radicalization of the fight against discrimination, is presented as a totalitarian mode of reasoning, interpreting all reality from the angle of domination (pp. 142-144). The West appears as the "Great Dominator", guilty of all evils - colonization, patriarchy, capitalism - and condemned to perpetual repentance (p. 142). For Tavoillot, this Manichean vision fuels a climate of polarization and symbolic violence, notably through the cancel culture, which destroys instead of reconciling (p. 143). This criticism, although severe, is supported by solid arguments and avoids the trap of caricature. By unmasking the inconsistencies of wokeism – notably its silence on non-Western oppressions, such as those exercised in China or in certain theocracies (p. 144) – the author invites us to go beyond the logic of victimization.
This critical reflection is enriched by a case study: the Olivier Pétré-Grenouilleau affair. The latter, a renowned historian, had sparked controversy by distinguishing the slave trade from genocides, on the basis of different intentions: exploitation on the one hand, extermination on the other (p. 216). For Tavoillot, this controversy illustrates the tensions between history and memory, exacerbated by memorial laws that seek to dictate an official narrative. He denounces the instrumentalization of history for political ends, arguing for a scientific and universal approach to historical phenomena. Slavery, he recalls, was a widespread practice well before and well beyond Europe (p. 217). This perspective, far from minimizing Western responsibilities, on the contrary underlines the importance of a dispassionate discourse to avoid the pitfalls of selective guilt.
After this rigorous diagnosis, Tavoillot devotes the third part of his work to avenues of reconstruction. He identifies universal practices that he calls "seven pillars of conviviality": shared meals, couple relationships, intergenerational transmission, religious practices, among others (pp. 255-277). These pillars, deeply rooted in human experience, are considered as levers for restoring an authentic social bond. Thus, the meal, a space for sharing par excellence, is valued as an antidote to hyper-individualism and food separatism (pp. 264-271). Similarly, couples and children are no longer seen only as individual choices, but as commitments that bring solidarity. As for religion, often accused of dividing, it is reintegrated into a perspective of peaceful coexistence thanks to secularism (pp. 353-369). The latter is presented not as a cold neutrality, but as a framework for articulating diversity and unity. While these proposals may seem idealistic or abstract, they are nonetheless stimulating in their ambition to reconnect with democratic civility. The book does not simply paint a dark picture of contemporary fractures. It shines in its ability to combine critical analysis and constructive reflection. Tavoillot succeeds in asking the right questions: what still unites us? What tools are at our disposal to overcome divisions? This approach makes Do We Still Want to Live Together? an essential work, at the crossroads of philosophy, sociology and history.
The success of this essay is attested by the echo it has encountered in the media and among the public. Recent articles published in Le Monde highlight the relevance of this work in a context where the question of living together is more than ever at the center of concerns. These critics particularly praise Tavoillot's pedagogical clarity and the depth of his analyses. Beyond the diagnosis, the work opens up avenues for reinventing a society where individual freedoms would not be synonymous with fragmentation, but would instead find their meaning in renewed solidarity.
So, Do we still want to live together? presents itself as a major contribution to the debate on the future of our societies. Through a dense, critical and stimulating reflection, Pierre-Henri Tavoillot invites us to reconcile the individual and the community, to rediscover the virtues of civility and to rebuild a living together which, far from being a utopia, remains a democratic necessity.
