Published in Psychologies Magazine , May 2003 —
Paradox: Religiosity is collapsing, but curiosity about the invisible is growing among the most educated French. Explanations —
Psychologies: Today, what do we mean by irrational?
Frédéric Lenoir : What we don't understand! In fact, this word still often has a pejorative connotation. It's a legacy of 19th-century rationalism, where everything that escaped reason was discredited, where anything that couldn't be explained by science was considered false or illusory. However, it's this scientistic vision that is totally illusory! First, because many things that appear irrational to us today—thought transmission, clairvoyance, healing by magnetism, etc.—may find a logical explanation tomorrow. Second, and above all, because man and the world are both rational and irrational. Sexuality, desire, love, artistic emotion remain largely indecipherable. Are these, however, illusory experiences or feelings? Descartes shamelessly admitted to having received in a dream his famous "method" which philosophically founded modern science! Even if it is still poorly perceived, many philosophers and anthropologists, over the last thirty years, have rehabilitated the imagination, mythical thought, as so many constitutive elements of man.
Would you go so far as to speak of a surge of the irrational in our European societies?
Certainly! And, in this, we cease to be the exception of a humanity that has always allowed its irrational side to express itself. In fact, for several centuries, this has been contained in Europe by two great institutions: positivist science, which fought it, and religion, which domesticated it. However, for the past thirty years we have witnessed a questioning of scientism – science is becoming much more modest and opening up to randomness – and a loss of control of the religious magisterium, which is releasing long-repressed irrational impulses. A sort of pendulum swing, then.
Why do you oppose religion and irrationality? Isn't faith irrational?
Yes, of course, to the extent that it is not based on indisputable reasoning, but on subjective experience or religious revelation. But as the sociologist Max Weber so aptly showed, the conception of a creator God ordering the world and giving it meaning already constitutes a powerful rationalization that opposes the magical vision of an enigmatic and enchanted world. This is why modern science was born in the West, in the matrix of the Christian religion before opposing it. However, today, most individuals no longer adhere to a coherent religious system for explaining the world. We are therefore witnessing a dislocation of religion, with a flowering of "floating" beliefs - the devil, reincarnation, ghosts, angels, etc. - but also a return of magical thinking, particularly among city dwellers and people with extensive education. We are re-enchanting the world.
In your opinion, what characterizes magical thinking? How does it manifest itself?
We feel part of a network of forces that are both mysterious and significant and can be manipulated to our advantage. A religious man who has serious money problems and finds a five-hundred-euro bill in the street will think, "It's a gift from God who thinks of me and loves me." A rationalist will say, "It's pure chance." As for the follower of magical thinking, he will say, "Hey, it's March 3 at 3 a.m. and 3 is my favorite number," or "This street is named after my wife," or "I did well to go see a marabout." Magical thinking sees signs everywhere, is not based on a coherent system of thought, and remains very practical.
What differentiates it from spirituality?
A taste for divination, tarot readings, the use of charms and mysterious potions can end up alienating the individual and leading them to abdicate their freedom and work on themselves. Spirituality starts from the certainty that we are free and encourages us to make an effort to know and transform ourselves. Spirituality and magical thinking can therefore oppose each other when the latter is too invasive.
Interview by Pascale Senk
Published in Psychologies Magazine in May 2003