Toti wrote:It is in fact a British conception, from which France, USA and slightly later Latin America fed. But the fuel that drove it was always the benefit of increased commerce opportunities, which were harmed by the threat of religion wars. From its very inception and until this day, the liberal ideas of human rights were the interested consequence of the more prosaic economic greed and not the gracious cause of a new philosophical renewal.
This is quite a historical shortcut. Even if John Locke is generaly accepted as the father of Liberalism, his ideas were inspired by other european philosophers like Descartes and inspired in turn new ones, Montesquieu and Voltaire for example. Pinpointing a single country at the root of this cultural revolution is a bit of a strech.
And this is forgeting a bit fast that our modern democracies and the separation of powers are direct descendant of these ideas. Now you can argue that our democracies are organized for the sole benefit of a ruling minority and that the population was better off under the rule of absolute monarchs...
Toti wrote:There are several humanists in recent history, some of them truely intellectuals, who gave their lives for the cause and nevertheless abhorred the ultimate consequences of the liberal contract. This is why I tend to separate both concepts.
This is throwing the baby with the bathwater. Even Adam Smith called for a regulation of the market, particularly in the industrial sector where cartels can form easily. Liberalism is more far reaching than the current economic liberalism trends, you can't reject it in block because of deficiencies in the market organisation and regulation.
Toti wrote:We coincide here, but you'll agree with the central idea: that Western Europe, Japan and USA's educational systems are among the best of the planet and yet this seems not to be an obstacle for the successful grow of low quality media content, because it is not built upon lack of intellect but on unspeakable visceral appetites like morbidity, racism, violence, exotism, etc.
Ok, the educational systems of those countries are among the bests, that doesn't mean they can't be improved. Do they teach how to be a good citizen? Do they teach how to watch TV, how to analyze it? In France pupils do dissertations and text commentaries, but no TV show commentaries.
Toti wrote:With "solely market-driven media" I meant, media whose decisions are exclusively in hands of particulars, without the approval of a superior instance.
In France, and probably in most european countries, media still have to bow to a regulatory body.
Toti wrote:The problem would persist. There's no point in partial interventions: if you end up with all but one channel under the hood of a quality assurance program, we know for sure who will get most of the share.
But I see France's situation is not that bad after all...
Ok, so you call for an all state organized media. This is close to Pierre Bourdieu
's stance on television.
I still think a better civic, moral and humanist education would be a better solution.
No, the most simplistic one, by far, is letting the most powerful tool conceived so far for education, human development and social justice be ruled by the same laws that govern the trade of candies.
But education is the most difficult challenge!