Published in Psychologies Magazine , May 2003 —
Paradoxically, religiosity is collapsing, but curiosity about the unseen is intensifying among the most educated French. Explanations —
Psychologies: Today, what do we mean by irrationality?
Frédéric Lenoir : What we don't understand! In fact, this word still often carries a pejorative connotation. It's a legacy of 19th-century rationalism, where anything that escaped reason was dismissed, where anything not explainable by science was considered false or illusory. But it is this scientistic vision that is entirely illusory! First, because many things that appear irrational to us today—thought transmission, clairvoyance, healing through magnetism, etc.—may find a logical explanation tomorrow. Second, and above all, because humankind and the world are simultaneously rational and irrational. Sexuality, desire, love, and artistic emotion remain largely indecipherable. Does this mean that these are illusory experiences or feelings? Descartes shamelessly admitted to having received his famous "method" in a dream, the very method that philosophically founded modern science! Even though it's still frowned upon, for the past thirty years or so, many philosophers and anthropologists have rehabilitated the imagination and mythical thought as essential components of humanity.
Would you go so far as to speak of a surge of the irrational in our European societies?
Absolutely! And in this, we cease to be the exception in a humanity that has always allowed its irrational side to express itself. In fact, for several centuries, this side was contained in Europe by two major institutions: positivist science, which fought against it, and religion, which tamed it. However, for the last thirty years or so, we have been witnessing a questioning of scientism—science is becoming much more modest and open to randomness—and a loss of grip on religious authority, which is releasing long-repressed irrational impulses. A kind of swing of the pendulum, then.
Why do you oppose religion and irrationality? Isn't faith irrational?
Yes, of course, insofar as it is not based on indisputable reasoning, but on subjective experience or religious revelation. But as the sociologist Max Weber so aptly demonstrated, the concept 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, within the matrix of the Christian religion, before ultimately opposing it. Yet today, most individuals no longer adhere to a coherent religious system for explaining the world. We are therefore witnessing a disintegration of religion, with a proliferation of "floating" beliefs—the devil, reincarnation, ghosts, angels, etc.—but also a resurgence of magical thinking, particularly among city dwellers and those with advanced degrees. We are re-enchanting the world.
In your opinion, what characterizes magical thinking? How does it manifest itself?
We feel ourselves embedded in a network of forces, both mysterious and meaningful, that can be manipulated to our advantage. A religious man struggling financially who finds a five-hundred-euro note in the street might think, "It's a gift from God, who is thinking of me and loves me." A rationalist would assert, "It's pure chance." As for the believer in magical thinking, they might say, "Hey, it's March 3rd at 3 o'clock, and 3 is my lucky number," or "This street is named after my wife," or even, "I'm glad I went to see a marabout." Magical thinking sees signs everywhere, isn't based on a coherent system of thought, and remains very practical.
What distinguishes it from spirituality?
A taste for divination, tarot readings, and the use of charms and mysterious potions can ultimately alienate the individual and lead to an abdication of their freedom and self-improvement. Spirituality stems from the certainty that we are free and encourages us to strive for self-knowledge and transformation. Spirituality and magical thinking can therefore clash when the latter becomes too pervasive.
Interview by Pascale Senk
Published in Psychologies Magazine in May 2003