Imagine adjusting the temperature of the air conditioning or skipping a song in your car, not by fiddling with a screen or voice command, but simply by swiping your hand across the fabric of your seatbelt.
It sounds futuristic, but this is the direction automotive design could be shifting towards — away from screens and buttons, and towards multi-touch textiles that sense your gestures and respond to them.
I am an interaction design professor and director of a research lab that develops smart textile technology. These textiles can transform how people interact with everyday objects and materials, including car interiors, by embedding touch-sensing stitches directly onto fabric elements.
These fabric-based interfaces can sense gestures like swipes, taps and presses, offering a safer and more intuitive alternative to touchscreen systems.
Touch screens and textiles
Advances in technology have led to the proliferation of screens for control and feedback in cars. In luxury cars, these screens are progressively becoming more advanced. Elon Musk’s Tesla, for example, has famously moved most vehicle controls onto a central touchscreen.
The interior of a Tesla Model 3. (Shutterstock)
While this makes for a sleek interior, it’s not necessarily safer or easier to use.
My colleagues and I conducted a user study that showed how interacting with touchscreens while driving can significantly increase distraction and lane deviations. You have to take your eyes off the road, locate the button (while the car is moving and vibrating) and confirm the change, diverting your attention from what really matters.
As a multidisciplinary team of researchers — from electrical engineering and computing to art and design — who study human-computer interaction, we explored 3D-embroidery technology and computational design of e-textile sensors.
Inspired by traditional crafts, smart materials can be used to incorporate interaction as part of the process itself. In this way, we are able to digitally design multi-touch embroidered sensors (stitched using conductive thread into automotive materials like leather) to support wireless gesture-based control.
Technologies like 3D printing and laser-cutting help manufacture and prototype new products. Similarly, we have developed new fabrication methods in smart textile design, from e-sewing and e-serging to WovenCircuits.
These novel techniques support the integration of electronic threads while machine sewing, serging and overlocking, or weaving with little to no need for post-fabrication assembly of sensors or other parts.
A video showing how the smart seatbelt works.
Touch control
Voice input is a popular method for controlling devices and machines, but in vehicles, it’s neither reliable nor safe. Voice recognition technology has come a long way, but is still considered by scholars as an “unfulfilled promise.” For voice input to perform well, the user needs to be a native English speaker, in quiet surroundings and have a clear voice.
While voice input may work well during the software development and testing of those systems, real-world scenarios are different. Think of a user with loud children in the back seat, people with different accents, or what happens when driving through a loud construction zone.
Rather than using voice, screens or other inputs, our lab researched whether a car’s interior could become the interface. We digitally embroidered e-textile sensors onto faux leather seat and steering wheel covers and seatbelt pads.
For proof-of-concept, we designed three prototypes that control media while driving, with touch-sensing stitches that could play or pause audio, skip to the next track and adjust the volume. Our design was wire-free, relying solely on conductive thread, connected via Bluetooth and fully customizable to any vehicle.
Future applications
Our research lab develops touch-responsive interactions with everyday objects as part of a larger push towards designing interactive interior spaces. This is also known as “interioraction” and near-future “decoraction”.
A video showing how digital weaving can help make smart home furniture like a rug that detects when people step on it or a seat cover that corrects posture.
From stained-glass animation that act as information displays to interactive garments that support people with physical disabilities, some of these designs go beyond aesthetics and functionality. They open up new ways to think about usability, accessibility, and the way we design future tech.
E-textiles have applications that range from delivering health care to transforming any kind of object into a smart one. Circuits can be sewn into pre-existing textiles or rugs can be woven to detect accidental falls and send signals. Seat covers can detect pressure to subtly correct posture.
In these ways, smart textile designers are making future technologies less intrusive and more accessible and fun to interact with.
Dr. Sara Nabil receives funding from the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI), Queen’s University Research Initiation Grant, and The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Chris Johnson, Professor of Wildlife and Conservation Ecology, University of Northern British Columbia
Focused conservation efforts are essential for the protection and recovery of many species at risk, such as the monarch butterfly.(Chris Johnson), CC BY
Clean water, climate stability, economic health and cultural heritage all depend on biodiversity. Yet this foundation is hardly mentioned as the government seeks to shore up Canada’s economic future amid a shifting global order.
The pressure to expedite approvals to dig, drill, cut and pipe has the potential to further weaken already fragile biodiversity protections. This is particularly the case for species at risk — those on the front lines of biodiversity loss that have never been adequately safeguarded under Canada’s existing policies.
Dedicated laws to protect individual species began to emerge in the 1970s, creating some of the best known and tested tools for preventing extinction. Yet in Canada, implementation has consistently fallen short: the federal Species at Risk Act has been the subject of sustained criticism over the past 20 years.
In their race toward deregulation, some Canadian governments are using critiques of existing single-species laws to argue that they’re defunct or of relatively little value. The British Columbia government appears to have walked away from long-standing commitments to develop a provincial statute focused on the needs of individual species. The Ontario government recently repealed and replaced one of the strongest species-at-risk acts in the country.
Endangered mountain caribou benefit from supplemental feeding, a single-species conservation effort. (Chris Johnson)
Individual species need protection
In our recent study, we argue that these legislative tools are essential for assessing and protecting individual species. While current single-species conservation is costly, inefficient and biased, weak implementation doesn’t mean there’s no need for legislation. Deregulation in the name of economic expedience is not reform; it’s erosion of essential protections for biodiversity.
Species such as the swift fox and the whooping crane have been pulled back from the edge of extinction through intensive, costly and invasive conservation actions. Species-at-risk legislation is intended to enable this kind of dedicated attention through measures like captive breeding, translocation, veterinary care or active management of people, predators and ecological competitors.
Despite those successes, Canada lacks a coherent approach to halting biodiversity loss. Even commitments for more protected and conserved areas, while important and overdue, have not been designed to prioritize the needs of at-risk species.
Species like the whooping crane have been pulled back from the edge of extinction through dedicated conservation efforts. (Unsplash/Josie Weiss)
What the evidence says
We used publicly available conservation data to count the number of species that were threatened because there were only a few individuals, or that were found across a very small area in the wild. These are species that need help now. We also quantified threats to at-risk species, identifying those threats that need to be addressed directly by tailored actions, not simply more protected land and water.
Of the 550 wildlife species in Canada that were assessed as threatened or endangered by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, more than 20 per cent were classified as at risk because they were a small population or had a very restricted distribution and were at risk of becoming extinct over a short time. For example, 97 endangered species had less than 250 mature individuals.
Data from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (ICUN) revealed that the most prominent threats facing at-risk species were from consumptive use including deliberate and unintentional harvesting, followed by pollution and the effects of climate change. These threats are not easily addressed by only focusing on increasing protected areas.
What’s at stake
Conservation success stories tell us that focused actions, such as captive breeding, are sometimes the only way to maintain small and range-restricted populations. Equally important are efforts to manage ecosystems on a large enough scale through protected areas, and by addressing pressures from human development and cumulative impacts that steadily erode habitats.
These broader measures can deliver long-term benefits for biodiversity as a whole, but they cannot substitute for processes that assess the status of individual species and empower targeted recovery actions. Weakening or abandoning species-specific policies is not just a policy shift; it is the loss of a crucial set of conservation tools.
Critiques of single-species approaches must not come at the expense of their continued implementation, whether through species at risk legislation or sector-specific natural resource regulation.
Species-at-risk legislation facilitates focused recovery actions, such as maternity pens that reduce mortality for caribou calves. (Chris Johnson)
These conservation tools can mobilize public and political will by drawing on the emotional power of threatened species and generating essential information about ecosystem change. They can also provide mechanisms to begin the process of rebuilding populations.
Although species-focused efforts have played an essential role in conservation, a fundamental shift is needed to move beyond crisis-driven, reactive measures and toward proactive, preventative strategies.
Addressing biodiversity loss at its roots requires mitigating systemic drivers of decline and adopting policies that prioritize long-term ecosystem resilience. To forsake species protections is not to move forward. It is to close the door on recovery before the story is over.
Chris Johnson receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Mitacs, and the British Columbia Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation.
Justina C. Ray is President and Senior Scientist of the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) Canada. Funding sources to WCS Canada can be viewed through annual reports available at: https://www.wcscanada.org/About-Us/Annual-Reports.aspx.
Nous vivons à l’ère d’une recherche biomédicale frénétique. Chaque semaine, des revues prestigieuses annoncent la découverte de nouveaux biomarqueurs pour comprendre la genèse et l’évolution de certaines maladies.
Les publications se multiplient, illustrées par des schémas sophistiqués de réseaux moléculaires complexes et des pistes d’applications prometteuses. Et aux canaux de vulgarisation scientifique de nous annoncer à grands titres, presque à la chaîne, des « avancées majeures » qui, mises bout à bout, devraient avancer notre lutte contre telle ou telle pathologie. Des décennies pourtant peuvent s’écouler avant que ces avancées n’atteignent les patients qui en ont désespérément besoin.
Pourquoi donc ce décalage ? Tant d’efforts de recherche, financés à coups de ressources publiques, ont souvent cette destinée commune d’être confinés dans des tiroirs ou des bases de données numériques, parfois voués à l’oubli, ou sans être immédiatement traduits en pratique clinique.
Un modèle qui privilégie la quantité plutôt que l’utilité réelle
Le principal goulet d’étranglement est structurel. La recherche académique valorise davantage le nombre de publications plutôt que l’utilité concrète des travaux. Le prestige de la revue prime parfois sur l’impact réel des résultats et cette logique exerce une pression sur les chercheurs qui n’ont d’autre choix que de produire, publier pour exister.
Cette productivité académique (qui n’en est pas forcément une) est devenue une fin en soi au détriment de l’impact sur les patients, les politiques sanitaires ou les inégalités d’accès. Ainsi, même les recherches les plus innovantes sont rarement pensées pour être appliquées en clinique. Des résultats prometteurs restent bloqués à l’état préliminaire, faute du suivi nécessaire pour franchir les étapes de validation fonctionnelle, d’essais cliniques ou de développement thérapeutique.
Il faut cependant l’admettre : toute recherche n’a pas vocation à être immédiatement appliquée en pratique. La recherche académique, fondamentale par essence, vise avant tout à créer de la connaissance et peut légitimement s’en tenir à ce rôle, dans un cadre théorique et exploratoire. Ce qui interroge en revanche, c’est que même dans la recherche translationnelle ou appliquée, les incitatifs académiques continuent de privilégier la reconnaissance entre pairs ou l’ascension professionnelle plutôt que l’impact réel sur les patients et les pratiques thérapeutiques.
Un biomarqueur à potentiel diagnostic ou thérapeutique peut ainsi faire l’objet d’un article dans la revue Nature et accroître la notoriété de son découvreur, sans jamais bénéficier des fonds ni partenariats nécessaires pour valider son utilité clinique. Il s’agit là du fameux valley of death : cette zone grise dans laquelle s’échouent tant de découvertes faute de modèle de développement translatif adapté.
Cette productivité quantitative, résumée par le mantra publish or perish, pousse à publier rapidement, souvent à outrance, dans une logique déconnectée de rentabilité académique.
Intérêts et logique de rentabilité
Aux côtés de la recherche académique coexiste une recherche industrielle (biotechnologique et/ou pharmaceutique) qui obéit à un autre objectif de rentabilité : celle du retour sur investissement. L’enjeu n’est pas tant de produire des connaissances que de breveter, sécuriser, et mettre sur le marché.
Cette dynamique peut certes stimuler l’innovation, mais en limite aussi l’accessibilité en excluant de fait les publics vulnérables. Les priorités vont souvent aux pathologies à fort potentiel économique, dont l’épidémiologie est largement répandue dans les pays du Nord.
Ce biais contribue à la persistance de maladies dites orphelines ou négligées, parfois qualifiées de manière réductrice d’exotiques ou de tropicales, non pas parce qu’elles sont rares dans l’absolu, mais parce qu’elles n’intéressent que marginalement les circuits classiques de financement faute de représenter un marché solvable. Ce déséquilibre géographique et économique creuse ainsi un fossé abyssal entre les priorités de la recherche mondiale et les besoins réels des populations concernées.
La pandémie de Covid-19 a démontré qu’il est possible de produire un vaccin en moins d’un an quand il y a un marché planétaire en jeu. En revanche, le paludisme continue de tuer des centaines de milliers de personnes chaque année en Afrique Subsaharienne, un marché visiblement trop peu rentable pour mobiliser une recherche et développement à grande échelle.
La nécessité d’un changement de système
Pour une recherche plus utile et plus équitable, il faudra revoir nos critères d’évaluation et de reconnaissance scientifiques. Ces critères façonnent des carrières, attribuent une notoriété à certains, et en privent d’autres qui le mériteraient tout autant, sinon davantage.
Notre culture de productivité quantitative, qui valorise le prolifisme académique ou l’intérêt mercantile plutôt que la portée réelle, n’est ni neutre ni anodine. Elle alimente une course en avant qui vide la recherche contemporaine de son sens.
La Déclaration de San Francisco sur l’évaluation de la recherche (DORA), dès 2012, a remis en question cette approche en appelant à ne plus confondre qualité scientifique et facteur d’impact — indicateurs souvent surévalués et potentiellement nuisibles à l’intégrité scientifique.
L’évaluation des chercheurs devrait intégrer des critères au-delà du nombre des publications : originalité méthodologique, contribution à la science ouverte et capacité à faire progresser l’équité globale.
Déjà des milliers d’abonnés à l’infolettre de La Conversation. Et vous ? Abonnez-vous gratuitement à notre infolettre pour mieux comprendre les grands enjeux contemporains.
Plusieurs institutions ont dans leurs politiques internes adhéré à DORA, mais peu en ont réellement adopté les recommandations. Les financements continuent de bénéficier aux équipes qui publient vite, beaucoup, dans les revues les plus cotées. Le système, en l’état, favorise ceux qui maîtrisent le langage académique traditionnel et qui savent en reproduire les codes, encourageant la compétition plutôt que la collaboration, la précipitation plutôt que la lenteur réflexive.
À l’inverse, ceux qui prennent le temps de co-construire des projets, de rendre leurs résultats utiles et accessibles, ou qui travaillent à l’implémentation clinique d’une découverte — souvent dans des contextes à faibles ressources — sont rarement récompensés. Pire, ils sont parfois perçus comme moins productifs, alors même que leur impact est souvent bien plus transformateur.
Et si on repensait la finalité de la recherche ?
Il est primordial de changer de paradigme afin de réconcilier la recherche avec sa mission première : le progrès commun. Une recherche qui n’est ni appliquée, ni partagée, ni équitablement construite n’a qu’un effet marginal. À l’inverse, une recherche collaborative, pensée avec et pour les communautés, peut véritablement changer des vies.
La recherche biomédicale ne doit plus être un luxe désincarné, produit par quelques-uns pour quelques autres. Elle doit être moins élitiste et s’ouvrir aux personnes historiquement exclues : patients issus de milieux précaires ou souffrant de pathologies rares, chercheurs sans affiliation institutionnelle forte ou formés dans des pays à ressources limitées, tous ceux qui peinent à faire entendre leurs voix ou à publier leurs idées dans les circuits dominants.
Les patients ne peuvent plus attendre que les découvertes scientifiques franchissent lentement les murs des laboratoires, puis ceux des brevets, avant d’atteindre les hôpitaux, souvent trop tard. Il ne suffit plus de produire des connaissances : il faut en garantir l’accessibilité, l’applicabilité, l’équité.
Un autre modèle est possible : celui où excellence scientifique rime avec responsabilité sociétale, où l’impact se mesure non plus en nombre de citations, mais de vies améliorées.
L’excellence scientifique n’a de sens que si elle améliore concrètement la vie de ses destinataires — non plus considérés comme objets d’étude ou tremplins d’évolution professionnelle — mais comme partenaires de recherche à part entière.
Pierre D. Sarr ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.
The firing of Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook isn’t just about Lisa Cook − it’s about presidential power. DNY59/Getty Images
President Donald Trump’s penchant to act first, ask later was on full display recently when he became the first president in American history to fire a member of the Federal Reserve Board.
Trump’s axing of federal employees is nothing new – thousands have been terminated, including the heads of agencies that, like the Federal Reserve, are designed to be insulated from presidential control.
But in removing Lisa Cook, Trump has entered into a morass of legal questions and challenged long-standing beliefs about the power of the president to control the U.S. economy.
Trump’s action, if upheld by courts, would upend the Fed’s century-long practice of formulating the nation’s monetary policy free from political pressure. It also could affect the budget of every American household, with the cost of goods and services influenced by political ideology more than financial expertise.
As a scholar of the American courts, I believe that, depending upon how courts resolve the case, it could also mark a significant shift in the ability of the judicial branch to check executive power.
Before he fired Lisa Cook, President Trump had spent months publicly attacking Federal Reserve Board Chairman Jerome Powell, right. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images
Cook then filed suit in federal court on Aug. 28, asking U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb to issue an emergency order blocking her removal. The litigation is ongoing.
Among the multitude of cases about Trump’s ability to fire employees of federal agencies, this one is different – because the agency is different.
Created by Congress in 1913 after a series of banking panics, the Federal Reserve is charged with managing the nation’s economy. It acts as the national bank, monitors the health of other financial institutions, and, most critically, develops monetary policy, which includes setting interest rates, the primary tool with which it manages inflation and ensures long-term economic growth and stability.
But a president actually firing a board member is something else entirely.
Supreme Court warning
The Fed is just one of dozens of what are termed “independent agencies.” These are part of the executive branch but designed by Congress to operate insulated from the president’s preferences and pressure. Over time, precisely because it is so powerful, the Fed’s ability to act free from the president has become particularly sacrosanct.
The primary mechanisms through which Congress ensures agency independence are “removal provisions,” statutory directives that define when and why the president can fire agency leadership. The Federal Reserve Act, the law that creates the Fed and sets out its structure and mission, provides that members of the board, called “Governors,” serve 14-year terms, “unless sooner removed for cause by the President.”
“For cause” may sound familiar because its appearance in a different law also recently triggered litigation. That happened when Trump removed the heads of two other independent agencies, Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Supreme Court decided in April that the restriction on the president’s ability to fire those two independent agency heads violated Article 2 of the Constitution.
In that same opinion, however, the court took pains to specify that its ruling did not apply to the Federal Reserve Board. Calling the Fed a “uniquely structured, quasi-private agency” with a “distinct historical tradition,” the majority signaled to Trump that booting members off the Federal Reserve Board was a no-go.
When he fired Cook, Trump flouted this directive. A legal battle was inevitable.
Lisa Cook, second from right, at a Federal Reserve board meeting in Washington, D.C., on June 25, 2025. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images
Notably, the parties are not arguing about the constitutionality of the removal provision itself, as they were in the Wilcox case. Instead, the dispute centers primarily around the meaning of “for cause” – that is, what reasons can legally justify firing a board governor. Unlike other statutes, which use additional terms such as “inefficiency, neglect or malfeasance of duty while in office,” the Federal Reserve Act provides no further guidance.
Trump argues that the – alleged – mortgage fraud is sufficient “cause” to remove Cook, particularly from an agency charged with managing the nation’s finances. Cook claims that mere allegations about private conduct before she was appointed to the board cannot justify her termination, particularly when those allegations appear to be a pretext for a political disagreement.
But lurking in the background of this seemingly picayune fight over a single word in a 111-year-old statute are fundamental questions about separation of powers, checks and balances, and which branch of government determines the law.
‘Say what the law is’
Trump’s fuller argument is actually quite bold.
As he is doing in other lawsuits, the president is asserting that he – and he alone – gets to determine the meaning of “cause.” The term, his lawyers write, is “capacious” and its meaning is entirely vested by Congress in the president. No court can second-guess his judgment.
The claim is striking and seems to fly in the face of the country’s system of checks and balances. In addition, if the branch of government charged with carrying out the law – the executive branch – also gets to define it, separation of powers also appears to be left by the wayside.
Cook counters that judicial review of termination decisions is critical.
If courts abandon their responsibility here, she argues, they will obliterate the independence of the Federal Reserve and subject the national economy to the short-term whims of a president rather than the long-term vision of economic experts.
And given the clear and continued acquiescence of Congress to this president’s broad assertions of power, they would also remove what, at least until the next presidential election, may be the last remaining check on executive power.
The case will likely reach the Supreme Court this fall, and the outcome is hard to predict. Trump has benefited from a string of victories there issued by a conservative majority that believes strongly in executive power and judicial deference to the president.
At the same time, it will be difficult to ignore the sentiments about the independence of the Fed that those same conservative justices expressed in the Wilcox case and the potential economic consequences a ruling for Trump might generate.
The court’s ultimate decision may actually depend upon what role it wants to play in the country’s fraying democratic system. The legendary Chief Justice John Marshall famously wrote in 1803 that it is “emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary department to say what the law is,” a sentiment inscribed on the marble wall of the Supreme Court building in D.C.
This case provides the opportunity to see whether the maxim still holds true.
Claire B. Wofford does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Le premier ministre François Bayrou n’a pas obtenu la confiance des députés (194 voix pour, 364 voix contre) et va remettre sa démission au président de la République Emmanuel Macron. Ce dernier devra choisir un nouveau chef de gouvernement ou avoir recours à une nouvelle dissolution de l’Assemblée nationale. Comment interpréter la chute du gouvernement Bayrou ? Quels scénarios pour une sortie de crise ? Entretien avec le politiste Frédéric Sawicki.
The Conversation : François Bayrou vient de démissionner. Quel bilan tirez-vous de son action et de sa méthode ?
Frédéric Sawicki : Comment comprendre un tel fiasco ? Comment comprendre ce suicide politique qu’est ce vote de confiance choisi par le premier ministre alors qu’il ne dispose pas de majorité ?
En refusant de s’engager depuis sa nomination dans une négociation ayant pu déboucher sur une espèce de contrat de gouvernement, notamment avec le Parti socialiste, François Bayrou s’est privé de toute possibilité de survie politique. C’est là un paradoxe pour ce démocrate-chrétien qui, tout au long de sa carrière politique, n’a cessé d’appeler au dépassement du clivage droite-gauche (rappelons qu’il avait à ce titre refusé de rejoindre l’UMP en 2002 et appelé à voter François Hollande en 2012) et à la recherche de compromis.
Sa gouvernance a en outre été marquée par une succession d’échecs et de maladresses qui n’ont pu que creuser la distance avec la gauche, à commencer par la désastreuse gestion des révélations concernant Bétharram, épisode au cours duquel François Bayrou a peiné à clarifier son rôle mais surtout guère montré de compassion pour les victimes, apparaissant comme un homme d’un autre temps. Auparavant, en janvier, il y a eu l’impasse totale faite sur les enjeux climatiques et environnementaux dans sa déclaration de politique générale suivie par l’utilisation de l’expression « submersion migratoire », deux lourds signaux envoyés à la droite et à l’extrême droite. Si celles-ci pouvaient applaudir des deux mains à l’unisson de la FNSEA l’adoption de la loi Duplomb, le PS et la CFDT ne pouvaient que constater de l’autre côté s’être fait rouler dans la farine après l’échec du « conclave » sur les retraites en juin dernier.
Enfin, après avoir ainsi humilié la gauche, le premier ministre a porté le coup de grâce en annonçant un plan d’économies de 44 milliards supporté pour l’essentiel par les salariés et les retraités, avec cette mesure ubuesque concernant la suppression deux jours fériés qui lui a définitivement aliéné le Rassemblement national.
Au-delà de la personne de François Bayrou, quelles sont les causes structurelles de cet échec ?
F. S. : Il faut relativiser la responsabilité individuelle de François Bayrou, malgré ses bévues.
La première raison de cet échec réside dans le choix du président de la République de ne pas tenir compte du nouveau rapport de forces au sein de l’Assemblée nationale élue en juillet 2024. Celui-ci, rappelons le, aurait dû conduire à la nomination d’un premier ministre du Nouveau front populaire (NFP) quitte à ce que ce gouvernement échoue et que le président nomme alors un autre premier ministre. Au lieu de cela, Emmanuel Macron a choisi de s’appuyer sur le groupe LR et ses 48 députés, jusqu’ici dans l’opposition, en nommant Michel Barnier. En décembre il n’a même plus fait semblant de prendre acte de sa défaite en nommant François Bayrou qui, avec le groupe MoDem (36 députés), fait partie de sa majorité depuis 2017.
Pour réussir, Bayrou ou Barnier étaient condamnés à élargir leurs soutiens au-delà de leurs partis et du bloc central. Si la France était dans une démocratie parlementaire « classique », on en serait sûrement passé par une grande négociation entre les partis prêts à participer au gouvernement. Cette négociation aurait sans doute pris plusieurs semaines mais elle aurait permis une certaine stabilité autour de quelques mesures de compromis. En nommant un premier ministre à sa guise, en interférant dans la composition du gouvernement et en leur laissant le soin de bricoler une stratégie de balancier (un coup à gauche, deux ou trois coups à droite et à l’extrême droite) Emmanuel Macron a condamné celui-ci à l’échec.
On a beaucoup critiqué l’absence de culture du compromis des partis politiques. Est-ce également une raison de cet échec ?
F. S. : En effet, mais c’est moins la culture que nos institutions qui ne poussent pas les acteurs à se montrer responsables. L’élection présidentielle est toujours pensée comme le moment décisif permettant d’engager une nouvelle orientation pour cinq ans. Du coup, accepter de passer des compromis, revenait à risquer de se « griller » pour l’élection présidentielle suivante. C’est ce qui explique par exemple l’attitude de LR en 2022 qui refuse de rejoindre la majorité alors même que le programme d’Emmanuel Macron est largement convergent avec le sien.
L’hyper-présidentialisation empêche le compromis. La liberté laissée au président de nommer le premier ministre sans tenir pleinement compte du résultat du vote et son intrusion dans la politique du gouvernement même désavoué par les urnes illustrent la perversion de nos institutions. Elles garantissent l’irresponsabilité totale d’Emmanuel Macron. Même si des voix commencent à se faire entendre pour appeler à sa démission ou sa destitution, rien ne l’y oblige. Le revers de la médaille de cette irresponsabilité est qu’elle crée des partis tout aussi irresponsables : ces derniers renvoient la balle au président – à lui de se débrouiller pour trouver des réponses et rendez-vous à la prochaine élection présidentielle !
Enfin, le mode d’élection des députés au scrutin majoritaire à deux tours n’incite pas non plus les partis à trouver des compromis. D’un côté la gauche modérée doit s’associer à la gauche radicale pour avoir des députés, de l’autre la droite est concurrencée de plus en plus par l’extrême droite dans de nombreuses circonscriptions.
Quelles solutions permettraient de sortir de cette impasse ?
F. S. : Je plaide pour un scrutin proportionnel qui permettrait de rendre les partis politiques et les parlementaires plus responsables. Notre régime excessivement présidentialisé et le scrutin majoritaire à deux tours non seulement ne permettent pas une bonne représentation de la diversité des idées politiques et des intérêts sociaux mais ils ne permettent plus aujourd’hui de déboucher sur des majorités claires. Il existe des divisions sociologiques, politiques et idéologiques qui fracturent le pays bien au-delà de l’ancien clivage droite-gauche. La bipolarisation n’est pas près de se reproduire, c’est d’ailleurs un constat qui vaut pour de très nombreux pays aujourd’hui.
Aujourd’hui, ces divisions ne sont pas correctement reflétées au sein de l’Assemblée car les Français sont souvent contraints de voter pour éliminer tel ou tel parti. Le scrutin proportionnel incite au contraire à voter pour le programme dont on est le plus proche. Elle empêche qu’un seul parti ne gouverne et amène plus facilement les responsables politiques à négocier des orientations programmatiques.
Mais une réforme du scrutin législatif sera-t-elle suffisante ? L’un des enjeux n’est-il pas également de réduire le pouvoir du président de la République ?
F. S. : Effectivement, il existe sans doute d’autres chantiers à entreprendre. Certains considèrent qu’il faut revenir à un mandat unique de sept ans pour le président, d’autres qu’il faudrait lui retirer le pouvoir de nomination du premier ministre en rendant obligatoire le vote de confiance de l’Assemblée nationale, comme c’était le cas pour la troisième et la IVe République. D’autres souhaitent développer les référendums d’initiative partagée ou les référendums d’initiative citoyenne. Tout cela devra être discuté lors de la prochaine élection présidentielle, mais dans l’immédiat, pour remettre la Ve République sur des rails plus démocratiques et sortir de l’impasse actuelle, la proportionnelle me semble être la première réforme à envisager. Le politiste Bastien François propose un référendum sur la proportionnelle puis une dissolution qui permettrait d’élire une nouvelle assemblée. On peut aussi envisager cette réforme comme un élément de négociation pour construire un futur gouvernement entre le centre et la gauche.
Quelles solutions s’offrent à Emmanuel Macron aujourd’hui ?
F. S. : Emmanuel Macron peut désormais dissoudre l’assemblée mais ce choix serait risqué : il ferait perdre des voix à son camp. Par ailleurs, dans un contexte social inflammable – avec le mouvement Bloquons tout – une dissolution peut amplifier le vote de rejet du président.
Seconde hypothèse : Emmanuel Macron poursuit dans la même logique en espérant qu’un premier ministre de son camp fasse passer le budget au 49.3. quitte à dissoudre ensuite. Mais le Rassemblement national ne semble plus prêt à jouer le jeu de la neutralité et les socialistes ne devraient pas être plus cléments. Ce choix reviendrait donc à reculer pour mieux sauter et l’on arriverait très probablement à une nouvelle censure dans quelques semaines et à priver la France de budget.
Troisième hypothèse : Emmanuel Macron donne sa chance à Olivier Faure ou à un premier ministre de gauche. Il peut ainsi penser réussir à lever l’hypothèque socialiste comme on disait sous la Troisième. Il me semble qu’il s’agirait de la seule décision rationnelle pour éviter une dissolution. Les socialistes pourraient faire passer quelques réformes de gauche comme la taxe Zucman, des mesures prenant en compte la pénibilité en matière de retraite, voire des mesures en faveur de l’hôpital et l’éducation, qui sont largement soutenues par les Français. Ce serait sans doute difficile à avaler pour Macron mais ce dernier peut toujours espérer que le Conseil constitutionnel censure la taxe Zucman ou que LFI torpille le PS. Il peut aussi essayer de diviser les socialistes en proposant un ancien du PS comme Bernard Cazeneuve, mais les socialistes semblent aujourd’hui plus unis qu’en décembre dernier et risquent de refuser cette manœuvre.
Si dissolution il y a, le Rassemblement national est-il de plus en plus proche du pouvoir ?
F. S. : On peut penser que les principales victimes d’une dissolution seront les députés du camp présidentiel. La gauche, pour l’instant, semble se maintenir dans les sondages. Le RN également, autour d’un tiers des votes. La question, c’est que vont faire les partis ? Est-ce que LR va définitivement basculer vers une alliance avec le RN ? La gauche partira-t-elle unie (comme en 2022 et en 2024) à ces élections ou divisée ? Est-ce qu’une partie des électeurs, déçus du macronisme, vont se tourner vers les socialistes, finalement jugés plus responsables et raisonnables ? Il est difficile de prédire les rapports de forces actuels, tels que les mesurent les sondages, dans un contexte d’élection majoritaire à deux tours et avec autant d’incertitudes.
Propos recueillis par David Bornstein.
Frédéric Sawicki ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Isabelle Dostaler, Vice-rectrice aux études et à la recherche, Université de l’Ontario français
The recent labour dispute between Air Canada and its flight attendants pulled back the curtain on one of the airline industry’s longest-standing injustices: flight attendants are paid only when planes are in motion, a practice that has persisted for more than 60 years across the global aviation industry.
On Aug. 14, Air Canada began cancelling flights ahead of a potential strike to allow an “orderly shutdown.” The strike started on Aug. 16, but less than 12 hours into it, the federal government attempted to force binding arbitration between the airline and its union.
The union defied the government order to return to work — an order that was never ratified by the court — until a tentative agreement was reached in the early hours of Aug. 19.
Much was at stake during the conflict, and both unions and carriers around the world likely followed it closely. Passenger traffic had returned to pre-pandemic levels, but profit margins were still thin. Stable fuel prices provided some financial relief, but economic and geopolitical uncertainties made carriers cautious about increasing labour costs.
The union, of course, had a very different perspective. For them, the dispute was an attempt to break new grounds and see compensation for ground duties become the new norm across the industry.
Why has such unfairness endured?
The persistence of unpaid ground time in the aviation industry can be explained through institutional isomorphism theory, a concept introduced by sociologists Paul DiMaggio and Walter Powell in 1983.
While organizational theorists had traditionally focused on the variety of organizational structures and strategies, DiMaggio and Powell argued that, over time, organizations in the same field tend to look and behave alike.
Institutional isomorphism helps explain why managers in the aviation industry often conform to established practices, even when change might make business sense. While we tend to think business performance is the primary goal pursued by managers, a key driver of their behaviour is actually legitimacy.
For example, while offering higher salaries to attract employees to an industry still suffering from a labour shortage might be a rational business decision, the reluctance to act differently from companies in the same sector can outweigh that logic.
The forces sustaining unpaid ground time
DiMaggio and Powell defined three types of institutional isomorphism: coercive, mimetic and normative. First, coercive isomorphism refers to the pressures organizations face from formal and informal constraints in an industry. Such constraints are particularly acute in air transportation, which is highly regulated in order to guarantee safety to passengers.
The concept of airtime also endured due to mimetic isomorphism, which occurs when organizations imitate the practices of others. In the case of aviation, reproducing historical practices like pay structures has allowed airlines to cope with the uncertainty of a business that has become highly cyclical ever since deregulation started in the United States in 1978.
The last, and one of the most interesting processes pushing organizations to look alike, is normative isomorphism. This refers to the influence of educational institutions and professional networks on organizational behavior.
It stems from the professionalization of work, according DiMaggio and Powell. Nurses, doctors, engineers, accountants, pilots and flight attendants all identify with their professions at least as much as they identify with the company they work for, if not more.
Air transport was a prestigious domain in its early days, which might have contributed to the belief that “real work” meant work in the air. In this sense, flight attendants themselves may have unintentionally helped reinforce this norm.
Could the Air Canada dispute spark a shift?
The Air Canada dispute may mark a turning point for labour standards in the airline industry.
In the post-pandemic period, when delays have been frequent due to labour shortages among mechanics, air traffic controllers and pilots, the unfairness of not paying flight attendants for work performed on the ground has become more visible.
A union victory on this front has the potential to create a snowball effect, with unpaid ground time becoming an illegitimate practice in the industry.
Whether the high-profile Air Canada labour dispute will cause a paradigm shift that causes ground pay to become the new norm in the airline industry remains to be seen. What does seem likely, however, is that after standing by the flight attendants despite the inconvenience and disruptions caused by the strike, the travelling public may view such a profound institutional change in a positive light.
Isabelle Dostaler does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
A food truck in southern Italy recently became the centre of a deadly health scare. A food-borne outbreak linked to preserved vegetables killed two people and sent more than a dozen to hospital.
At the same time, the UK’s Food Standards Agency warned shoppers to avoid jars of broccoli from a specific batch code, fearing they too could contain the same hidden danger, Clostridium botulinum, the bacterium that produces the toxin responsible for botulism – one of the deadliest food-borne illnesses known.
The canning process removes air from food and seals it tightly, creating an oxygen-free (anaerobic) environment. This is normally what keeps food safe for long storage – but it also creates the perfect conditions for C botulinum. Unlike many bacteria, it doesn’t need oxygen to grow.
Its spores, which are commonly found in soil, can survive cooking and processing. In low-acid foods such as broccoli, green beans, corn, beets and peas, if the canning process isn’t hot enough or long enough, those spores can “wake up”, multiply and release their toxin. Because the toxin is invisible, tasteless and odourless, contaminated food can look and smell perfectly normal while being deadly.
Botulism is rare but extremely serious and even a tiny amount can be deadly – just two nanograms per kilogram of body weight can be fatal.
The spores themselves are usually harmless if swallowed. But in an anaerobic environment they can germinate and release toxin. That’s why homemade preserved foods are a common cause of outbreaks.
Why botulism is so dangerous
Botulism is caused by a neurotoxin that attacks the nerves, leading to muscle weakness, breathing difficulties, paralysis, and, in severe cases, death. Symptoms usually appear within 18 to 36 hours of eating contaminated food, but can range from six hours to ten days.
Early signs include difficulty swallowing or speaking, drooping eyelids, blurred or double vision, facial weakness, vomiting and progressive muscle paralysis, which can cause respiratory failure.
Diagnosis is tricky, as symptoms can mimic other conditions, including stroke, Guillain-Barré syndrome (a rare autoimmune disorder where the body’s immune system attacks the nerves), and myasthenia gravis (a chronic condition that causes muscle weakness due to problems with communication between nerves and muscles). Doctors usually confirm botulism through clinical assessment and laboratory testing of serum, stool or food samples.
The main treatments for botulism are supportive care and antitoxin. Supportive care means treating the complications of the illness — for example, patients may need a ventilator if they develop breathing difficulties, or help managing infections. Antitoxin is a medication that binds to and neutralises the toxin circulating in the body. If given early, it can stop the toxin from causing further harm, though it cannot reverse damage already done. Survivors often face long recoveries with lingering fatigue and breathing problems.
There are simple but vital ways to reduce the risk of foodborne botulism. First, never eat food from cans or jars that are dented, bulging, leaking, or discoloured. If you can your own low-acid foods, make sure you boil them for ten minutes before eating to kill spores. And make sure use proper pressure canners and always follow tested canning instructions.
When in doubt, throw it out.
A deadly toxin with a double life
Despite its dangers, botulinum toxin also has important medical uses. When injected in minute, controlled doses, botulinum toxin can reduce muscle spasticity (a condition where muscles tighten or stiffen abnormally), treat chronic migraines, and manage conditions such as strabismus (crossed eyes) and cervical dystonia (a painful condition where the neck muscles contract involuntarily). The US Food and Drug Administration first approved it for medical use in 1989, and it has since been authorised for a wide range of treatments.
Botulinum toxin works by blocking nerve signals that trigger muscle contraction, smoothing wrinkles and fine lines, and has become a global cosmetic phenomenon. But the same toxin that has medical and aesthetic benefits can also cause catastrophic harm if misused. Unlicensed or poorly regulated injections are risky – and in August 2025, botulinum toxin was linked to a deadly outbreak in the UK.
Food-borne botulism is rare but deadly. Prevention depends on safe food handling, proper canning and avoiding suspicious-looking jars and cans. And while botulinum toxin has life-saving medical uses and cosmetic appeal, outside of controlled and licensed conditions it remains one of the most lethal substances on earth.
Manal Mohammed does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has bowed to weeks of pressure from within his party and announced his resignation, less than a year after taking office.
His departure plunges Japan back into political uncertainty, reviving fears of a return to the revolving-door prime ministers who dominated the 1990s and late 2000s, before Shinzo Abe restored stability in 2012.
Whoever succeeds him must not only steady the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), but also restore public trust in a political system battered by scandals, factional infighting and rising voter scepticism about one-party dominance.
Why is Ishiba leaving?
Ishiba took office only last September, after Fumio Kishida stepped down amid a string of scandals.
He inherited a deeply troubled party. Kishida was forced out in 2024 after revelations of extensive ties between the LDP and the Unification Church. The church had long been controversial in Japan, but became even more so after Abe’s assassination in 2022 by a man who held a grudge against it. The church’s ties to the LDP were revealed shortly thereafter.
A slush-fund scandal further eroded public trust in the party. Ishiba promised reform and stricter accountability — but that stance angered many senior figures, especially those implicated in the scandals he sought to confront.
The LDP lost its lower-house majority soon after his election, followed by further setbacks, including a defeat in the July upper-house poll. Calls for Ishiba to quit grew louder, with party heavyweights warning of a split in the conservative base if he clung to power. Over the weekend, he finally surrendered.
Ishiba justified the timing by pointing to the risk of a political vacuum during ongoing trade talks with the United States. With an agreement on tariff reductions concluded last week, he yielded to critics without resorting to the traditional prime ministerial weapon of dissolving parliament to silence his rivals.
The decision may appear puzzling. Recent polls showed Ishiba’s popularity edging upward, suggesting ordinary voters were warming to him.
But his downfall underlines how much sway the LDP’s old guard still holds behind the scenes, prioritising internal discipline over electoral momentum.
Koizumi vs Takaichi
The leadership race is already underway, with a vote expected in early October. Two names stand out.
On one side is Shinjiro Koizumi, 44, son of former prime minister Junichiro Koizumi. Representing the party’s more liberal wing, he has previously expressed support for same-sex marriage and allowing married couples to use separate surnames – positions that set him apart in the LDP.
As agriculture minister in Ishiba’s government, he won recognition for tackling rising rice prices and pushing reform in a sector long tied to LDP patronage politics.
Charismatic and popular with voters, Koizumi has cultivated ties with the opposition Japan Restoration Party. This support could prove crucial in the LDP forging a new coalition or shoring up its minority government with its coalition partner, Komeito, which would still need opposition backing to pass legislation.
If chosen, he would become Japan’s youngest-ever prime minister.
On the other side stands Sanae Takaichi, a staunch conservative who finished runner-up in last year’s leadership race.
A self-styled heir to Abe’s legacy, she opposes same-sex marriage and dual surnames, favours constitutional revision to clarify to the role of the country’s Self-Defense Forces, and regularly stresses the need to strengthen Japan’s military posture.
She has likened herself to former UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher, calling for bold fiscal spending and monetary easing to drive growth.
If elected, she would become Japan’s first female prime minister, though her hardline positions could strain ties with coalition partner Komeito.
A TBS poll this week puts Koizumi and Takaichi neck-and-neck, each at 19.3%, while a Nikkei survey from August 31 gives Takaichi a slim lead at 23%, just one point ahead of Koizumi.
Other contenders may emerge, including Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi. Much will depend on the LDP’s choice of election format: whether rank-and-file members get a say, or only lawmakers in parliament.
Either way, candidates need the support of 20 members of the Diet (Japan’s parliament) to enter the race.
High stakes for Japan’s ruling party
The stakes could not be higher. With Ishiba’s departure, hopes of reforming the LDP have faded.
If the new leader fails to regain public confidence, the party risks falling victim to its own long dominance. To maintain power, it has been locked into defending the status quo, while new right-wing populist challengers, such as Sanseito, gain ground with anti-foreigner rhetoric.
With the next elections not due until 2028, Japan is entering another uncertain political chapter. Whether the LDP emerges strengthened or weakened will depend not just on who replaces Ishiba, but on whether the party can convince a sceptical public it is still capable of renewal.
Sebastian Maslow does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – France – By Stéphane Sirot, Professeur d’histoire politique et sociale du XXème siècle, CY Cergy Paris Université
The “bloquons tout” (“block everything”) movement has called for a nationwide shutdown on September 10 to protest the French government’s policies, and Jean-Luc Mélénchon, the leader of the hard-left France Unbowed party, is calling for a “general strike”. This concept played a major role in the revolutionary rhetoric of the early 20th century before falling into oblivion. What role have strikes played in French trade union and political history? What meaning do they have today?
While strikes do not occur more often in France than elsewhere in Western Europe, their place in the history of the French labor movement is nonetheless unique. For trade unions, strikes were once a preferred means of improving everyday life, and also at the heart of their revolutionary utopia. In other words, they were aimed at the overcoming of capitalism.
Over time, strikes have become firmly established as a central feature of social relations in France, but their utopian function has faltered. At the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, like other expressions of class struggle, it has even been significantly devalued.
The disruption of the prevailing order by the workers
In addition to its role as a tool for defending living conditions and fighting for new rights, strikes are a primitive form of agglomeration of the working class, whose rise in power precedes and then accompanies the development of trade unionism.
When the right to form unions was granted in 1884, labor disputes, which had been decriminalized in 1864, were already well on their way to becoming a central feature of industrial relations. In other words, action preceded organization. Often, throughout the 19th century, action even laid the foundation for organization: unions were formed in the wake of social unrest, with some disappearing quickly once a strike was over, and others continuing to exist.
When la Confédération Générale du Travail (General Trade Confederation), known as the CGT, was founded in central France in 1895, it quickly adopted a set of values based on “worker autonomy” and “direct action”. Through its own struggles, independent of partisan structures and institutions, the working class was supposed to prepare for the “dual task”, defined by the trade union movement, of the prosaic struggle for immediate demands and the utopian prospect of overthrowing capitalism. This approach gives strikes a central role and tends to endow them with all kinds of virtues.
Strikes are seen as an education in solidarity, through the material mutual aid they often generate or through their interprofessional reach. They are also an education in class struggle, an “episode of social warfare”, as one of the pre-1914 leaders of the CGT wrote. This is why, whatever happens, “its results can only be favorable to the working class from a moral point of view, [because] there is an increase in proletarian militancy”. And if a strike is victorious, it is a form of collective recovery from capitalism, because it produces “a reduction in the privileges of the exploiting class”.
Finally, revolutionary trade unionists believe that a general strike provides workers with the weapon that will enable them to achieve the Holy Grail: the definitive demise of capitalism. This is the argument put forward in Comment nous ferons la Révolution (How We Will Bring About the Revolution) the only work in the activist field that describes in detail the process of appropriation of the means of production by the workers themselves, under the aegis of their unions, which then set about organizing a bright future.
A politically charged general strike in France never occurred and, thus, never led to radical social change. But such a utopia was not necessarily intended to be prophetic. Its function was also, and perhaps above all, to protect the labor movement from the siren calls of co-management of and support for the existing system, a project conceived in the last decades of the 19th century by the republican elites. In addition, maintaining a revolutionary course seems conducive to fuelling a “great fear” in the dominant order, which, to reassure itself, feels compelled to make concessions.
From the paradise of class struggle to the purgatory of ‘social dialogue’
While the first world war dealt the final blow to revolutionary trade unionism, two main approaches to strikes prevailed during the years of a split in the CGT (1922-1935). For the confederation of Léon Jouhaux, a socialist who was awarded a Nobel peace prize in 1951, the suspension of production was essentially a last resort to be used only if negotiations failed. For the CGTU, which was close to the French Communist Party (PCF), it could be a weapon that went beyond the mere satisfaction of economic demands. According to communist trade unionists, “as it develops, the strike inevitably becomes a political struggle pitting workers against the trinity of employers, government and reformists, demonstrating the need for a ruthless struggle that goes beyond the corporate framework”.
However, in trade union discourse and imagination, striking is no longer seen as a practice capable of promoting the principle of “worker autonomy” or bringing about the birth of a new society. It has lost its utopian dimension.
Nevertheless, a strike remains a major weapon. Until the second world war, trade unionism and the working class were not yet fully integrated into Western societies; the process was certainly under way, but not yet complete. Although gradually becoming more commonplace, collective bargaining struggled to find its place. Workers’ organizations therefore had to rely on a culture of struggle, which was almost the only means of improving daily life and temporarily disrupting the capitalist system of exploitation.
Subsequently, and until the 1960s and 1970s, strikes remained a very common feature of union practices, albeit for reasons that differed significantly from those of previous periods. Within the framework of the “Fordist compromise” (the exchange of productivity gains for purchasing power) and the institutionalization of trade unionism, strikes became primarily a means of managing systemic disruptions and promoting a slightly less inequitable distribution of wealth, in a logic of conflictual regulation of social relations. The act of stopping work became ritualized, as illustrated by the exponential increase in the number of days of action.
Furthermore, within the framework of the welfare states built up during the post-war economic boom, France and the Western world undergo a phase of progressive reforms which, on the surface, do not appear to be the result of a systematic and constant power struggle. It is reasonable to assume that, in the long term, this situation is partly responsible for the decline in the legitimacy of strike action. As soon as an improvement in living conditions appears possible through political action or through compromises agreed with the unions in the context of a “social dialogue” that is set to prosper, a shift is likely to occur that will relegate strikes to the status of a nuisance or an accident to be avoided.
It was then that employee organizations and their practices were confronted with, among other things, the effects of the economic climate (slowing growth, deindustrialization, job insecurity, individualization of wages, counterreforms dismantling the welfare state, etc.), the rise of liberalism – one of whose aims is to paralyze union action – and post-1968 changes in society (rise of individualism, decline of grand political utopias, etc.).
To this list of endogenous causes, it must be added those created by trade unionism itself. These include its distancing from the political arena and its role in this area; its inability to generate hope; and the contradictions raised by its nature as an institutional counterweight, torn between an obligation to oppose and a deep-rooted inclusion in society.
Delegitimization of strike action
In this context, the trade union movement at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries seems to have significantly retreated to a strategy of survival. This appears to consist of saving its legitimacy, if necessary by distancing itself from the mobilization of workers and, ultimately, by abandoning the idea of breaking with the capitalist order.
For the past 30 or 40 years, one after another and to varying degrees, the major labor confederations have also embarked on a path that has fuelled doubt. There has even been rhetorical delegitimization of strike action. In 1985, Edmond Maire, then leader of the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (la Confédération française démocratique du travail or CFDT), said: “[…] the old myth that says union action is only about strikes is a thing of the past. Trade unions must abandon it.”
However, trade unionism based on “social dialogue” without leverage has never been as successful as that based on confrontation. In France, the major historical phases of significant social gains have resulted from trade union and popular mobilization. The Popular Front in the 1930s, liberation (la Libération) from German occupation in the 1940s, and May-June 1968 are striking examples.
Conversely, since the 1980s, characterized by the development of decentralized collective bargaining processes, the restriction of social rights has been steadily progressing. Except in November-December 1995, when a determined social movement, in this case a bloquant (blocking) and renewable one, managed to spread while sparking debates that were able to establish a link between professional demands and the societal choices they brought to light.
Throughout its history, trade unionism has rallied support and established itself as a social force feared by the ruling order, which, today as in the past, rarely concedes anything without feeling threatened. This has been achieved both through the utopian political project that it promoted, and through strike action, which it made a major paradigm.
A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!
Stéphane Sirot ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.
Qui capte vraiment l’attention des Français quand il s’agit d’information ? En combinant télévision, presse, radio, réseaux sociaux ou agrégateurs, une nouvelle mesure permet d’évaluer avec finesse la place réelle des médias dans notre quotidien. À la clé&, une carte inédite du paysage médiatique, marqué par une forte concentration autour de quelques grands groupes – et une place centrale, souvent oubliée, du service public.
Pour répondre à ces questions, nous avons déployé une nouvelle mesure de consommation des médias : la part d’attention, (initialement introduite par l’économiste Andrea Prat). Contrairement aux mesures traditionnelles d’audience, cet indicateur permet de tenir compte de la multiplicité des sources et des plateformes par lesquelles l’actualité est consommée (TV, radio, presse, médias sociaux, etc.), tout en considérant que certains vont partager leur attention entre plusieurs sources alors que d’autres n’en consultent qu’une seule. Par exemple, une chaîne de télévision qui est la seule source d’information d’une population concentre 100 % de l’attention de cette population. Elle a davantage de pouvoir attentionnel qu’une chaîne qui est consommée en même temps que d’autres sources (une station de radio, un titre de presse et un média social, par exemple). Dans ce cas, si chaque source est consommée à la même fréquence, la part d’attention de la chaîne de télévision sera de 25 %, tout comme celle de la station de radio, celle du titre de presse et celle du média social.
Télé, radio, réseaux sociaux : qui capte vraiment l’attention des Français ?
À partir des données d’une enquête, menée en 2022, obtenues auprès d’un échantillon représentatif de 6 000 Français, les résultats indiquent de faibles écarts entre les sources médiatiques, même si l’attention des Français se concentre principalement sur les chaînes de télévision et les médias sociaux.
TF1 arrive en tête en cumulant 5,9 % de l’attention des Français, suivi par Facebook (4,8 %), France 2 (4,5 %), M6 (4,4 %) et BFMTV (4,1 %). Le premier agrégateur de contenus, Google actualités, arrive en onzième position (2,3 %), la première station de radio (RTL) en vingt-deuxième (1,33 %) et le premier titre de presse (20 minutes) en vingt-troisième (1,31 %).
Un marché des médias dominé par quelques groupes
En revanche, le regroupement des sources par groupe médiatique (par exemple, Facebook, Instagram et WhatsApp appartiennent à Meta) révèle une importante concentration. Les quatre premiers groupes concentrent 47 % de l’attention des Français. Si l’on prend les huit premiers groupes, on arrive à 70 % de l’attention des Français captée.
En moyenne, le groupe public composé principalement de France Télévisions et Radio France est, de loin, celui qui concentre le plus l’attention des consommateurs de médias (19,8 %), suivi par le Groupe Meta (10,1 %) et le Groupe TF1 (9,9 %).
La place centrale de médias publics
Le service public d’information, contrairement à une idée reçue, n’est donc pas réservé à une élite, mais occupe une place centrale dans le menu de consommation médiatique des Français.
Ce résultat peut s’expliquer par la confiance accordée aux médias du service public dans la production d’information (voir l’enquête du Parlement européen) et légitime l’octroi d’un budget suffisant pour y répondre. Cela met également en lumière l’importance de son indépendance vis-à-vis de l’État.
La place croissante des médias sociaux
Notons que le Groupe Meta dispose du pouvoir attentionnel le plus fort auprès des 18-34 ans, avec une part d’attention de l’ordre de 14 %, devant les groupes de médias du service public (11 %) et Alphabet-Google News (8 %).
Même si Meta ne produit pas directement d’information, il met en avant et ordonne les différentes informations auprès de ses usagers. Sans être soumis aux mêmes règles que les médias traditionnels, les médias sociaux disposent donc d’un rôle clé sur la vie démocratique.
Pourquoi cette mesure doit peser dans les décisions sur les fusions médiatiques ?
L’analyse par groupe s’avère particulièrement importante dans un contexte où les groupes de médias contrôlent une part de plus en plus importante de titres de presse, de chaînes de télévision, de stations de radios ou de plateformes d’informations au travers d’opérations de fusions ou d’acquisitions (par exemple, l’OPA de Vivendi sur Lagardère).
De récentsrapports sur le secteur des médias recommandent, d’ailleurs, le recours à la part d’attention comme un nouvel outil d’évaluation des opérations de concentration sur le marché des médias d’information par les autorités de la concurrence (Autorité de la concurrence, Commission européenne, Autorité de régulation de la communication audiovisuelle et numérique [ARCOM]). Cet outil est particulièrement adapté pour juger si la nouvelle entité formée à l’issue de la fusion de deux groupes ou de l’acquisition de nouvelles sources par un groupe n’aurait pas un trop grand pouvoir attentionel et si le marché des médias serait trop concentré autour de quelques acteurs dans un contexte où les médias sont au cœur du processus démocratique. La littérature académique reconnaît, en effet, qu’ils peuvent influencer les positions idéologiques des citoyens, les votes et la démocratie et peuvent être idéologiquement biaisés.
Marianne Lumeau a reçu des financements de l’ANR (Projet de recherche Pluralisme de l’Information en Ligne – PIL).
Stéphanie Peltier et Sylvain Dejean ne travaillent pas, ne conseillent pas, ne possèdent pas de parts, ne reçoivent pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’ont déclaré aucune autre affiliation que leur poste universitaire.
