A twofold threat hangs over freedom of communication. In rich countries globalization is leading to standardization of thought via national and international bodies. In the cultural as well as the scientific field, especially the human sciences, diversity is needed for reasons of both survival and democracy. Efficiency and productivity imperatives are sacrificing human diversity for economically cost-effective goals. For instance, in the communication field the merging of publishing functions in all media is an obstacle to the free circulation of ideas (...) because it is channelled into the marketing and sales area. In the countries of the southern hemisphere the absence of media makes communication inaccessible for the majority of citizens. So the lack of ideas comes on top of other shortages of basic needs, health care, food, housing … The globalization of trade increases the illusion of a communication which is now accessible to all. But exclusion is increasing because people cannot access knowledge and culture. In fact, in the North as well as the South, the opportunity for everyone to communicate their thinking - their research, their cultural or artistic creations, to communicate a personal experience - is dwindling at the same time as technical progress appears in fact to offer us all the means to express ourselves and have a chance of being heard. The corollary of the creeping globalization of exchanges is that a growing proportion of our contemporaries are put in the position of silent receivers. Indeed the more powerful the media employed, the more those they address become voiceless and passive. Paradoxically, the explosion in communication technology is creating a greater gulf between the well-off and the underprivileged, confining the first in ‘single line of thought’ and excluding the second from any participation in the dialogue. There is no freedom of thought in a world where only one channel exists, even though it communicates that thought in infinitely varied ways. The consumerist consensus never expresses democratic aspirations, but the self-satisfied stupidity of their apathy. (shrink)

The question of the origin of ‘natural’ human language has fascinated the scientific world for a very long time and seems to be generating a renewed level of interest. This paper will show that all elements converge to indicate a long and slow process of separation by which the hominids very progressively became distinguished from the other higher primates and more generally from other animal species. Biological and neurological developments created favourable structures for the future emergence of human languages. These (...) developments were further potentialized by the appearance of new forms of co-operation within human communities. Such anthropological, socio-cultural and ‘political’ elements were determinant in allowing the transition to the specifically human functions of language. If these elements are not taken into consideration, researchers are reduced to imaging the appearance of a mutation from which solely Homo sapiens would have benefited and from whichHomo neanderthalensis would have been excluded, as must equally be excluded any intermingling between the various varieties of hominids. (shrink)

La science ne se construit pas dans la solitude. La recherche s'inscrit dans les pratiques sociales d'un milieu et d'une époque. Mais, la croissance rapide de nos sociétés a créé une scission entre nos concitoyens et les "spécialistes", perçus comme perdus dans leurs savoirs et pratiquant des rites complexes et incompréhensibles. Le "peuple" et les "élites" ont cessé de se comprendre et une méfiance réciproque est née entre ces deux catégories qui fonctionnent pourtant selon les mêmes règles.