Romeu Moura - La théorie sociale de Bourdieu adaptée à la tech (FR)

[00:00:13] Alright, we're off for another Flocon evening. I thank you all for your... well, your presence, your loyalty. I see there are 43 of you for now, so it's great. This evening, we're going to welcome Roméo... ...who will tell us about Bourdieu's social theory. Well, I won't tell you more, I'll let you discover all that. I would like to thank... so, I'm going to share, sorry, I'm going a bit fast, share my screen. So, there he is, Roméo, who will speak to you in a moment. Uh, a small word of thanks to our... I'll get there, sorry, to our, another sponsor, to our partners, and to our sponsor of the evening, Reactiv. So, a big thank you once again, because without them, it wouldn't be possible to hold such a great conference.
[00:01:07] I'm going... There we go. We'll be able to, uh, welcome Roméo if he wants to join us.
[00:01:20] So, as usual, the Q&A will be available.
[00:01:26] Hello.
[00:01:27] Hello Roméo. Yeah, we hear you.
[00:01:31] Okay.
[00:01:33] Uh, this evening, you're going to, well, Roméo will explain it to you, but it's going to be quite interactive. In the chat, I'm going to send you a link and Roméo is going to do it, we'll see. No, I'll send you the link, go on, go on, go on.
[00:01:44] All right.
[00:01:46] And a link to his Miro. He'll explain all that to you. We want this evening to be super interactive, so don't hesitate to raise your hand, ask questions, and really this evening, we'll pass the mic around. There you go, it's, it's... By the way,
[00:02:04] at any moment, if you want to be on the, on the mic with me, come on. For me, in my ideal scenario, there are 46, we're 46 connected, we're 46 talking at the same time, that would be amazing. But it depends on your desire to turn on the mic, your desire to turn on... camera. Uh, go all in the, in the Miro, all of you, in the Miro, so you can, uh, you can write, take notes at the same time as me, I'll take notes. You'll see, I'm going to share my screen. Uh, the idea here is that as I speak, I'll still try to take... some... ah, no, that was that. R, R.
[00:02:43] Well, listen, for my part, I'm here. I'm giving you the mics. Roméo, I'm letting you, I'm letting you do it.
[00:02:49] Perfect.
[00:02:51] And, uh, have a good evening and, uh, there you go, see you later! Don't forget that we can stay afterwards, we can discuss, we have tables, we have our sponsor, we have, there you go, we It's an evening, and, uh, there you go, we're having a good time. Come on, over to you.
[00:03:05] Ladies and gentlemen. We are here to talk about Bourdieu's social theory this evening. And, uh, and so, uh, I don't know how to ask the question, uh, normally in a real auditorium, I would ask to raise a hand, but I'd like to know who today, who here present, uh, already knows a bit about Bourdieu, about Bourdieu's social theory, uh, the subject I'm going to talk about a bit. Are there people who are already sensitive to the subject? I'm checking the chat. Are there people who are writing directly in the, in the, in the Miro? Uh, in any case, I don't know more responses than that. Well, that's life. So, today's menu, what I'd like to discuss with you. We're going to talk about, uh, okay. There's someone who saved this, okay, well, why not? Uh, and who saved the Miro. I don't know what the implication of that is or not. Can everyone still connect? I have no idea. We're going to say, I'm going to trust distance overall. So, uh, the whole idea today, on the menu, we're going to talk about symbolic violence. We're going to talk about, uh, praxis and, uh, habitus, of the corporal. We're going to talk about cultural capital, social capital, and we're going to talk about the implications of all of that in agility. Okay? So, Bourdieu. Bourdieu is, uh, he's a French sociologist. I'm not going to go into a lot of detail about Bourdieu's person himself, that's not what interests us today. Uh, I, my idea is that like any sociologist, he tried to describe a bit how society works, we could say. And he created this social theory. And in this social theory, there is an infinity of small traits, let's put it that way, there are traits. Uh, so, I'm going to describe today three of these traits. But there is a quantity, a monstrous quantity. Can I zoom out here? Yeah, I can zoom out here. Perfect. A monstrous quantity. And so, uh, the traits that particularly interest me today will be symbolic violence. This presentation will contain typos. This presentation will contain typos. Uh, and I'm also going to talk about cultural capital. I'm also going to talk about... praxis and habitus. Uh, praxis and habitus. And we're going to talk about agility in all of this.
[00:06:24] I'm going to start this presentation with a few disclaimers. Disclaimer number one: I am not a sociologist, I am a geek. Uh, I'm not a philosopher either, I'm a geek. So, uh, I, I look at all this with, uh, of course, from the perspective of a geek that I am. And you are, of course, open to disagree and express your disagreements, express whatever you want. That's my first disclaimer. Second disclaimer: This presentation does not contain solutions to problems. It's, it's sad. It will talk about problems. It will talk about how we see it, it will talk about how to identify it around you all the time. But it will not bring you solutions. I will explain why at the end. Spoiler alert. And, uh, however, I have another, another presentation that's the next part, in which I, I envision solutions. And that's not the goal today at all.
[00:07:37] And, uh, third disclaimer, this is a model. All models are wrong, some models are useful. I find this model particularly useful. Of course, it has its limits, this model. Is everyone okay with that so far?
[00:07:56] Uh, and so, there you go. My name is Roméo Mohra. And the reason I started doing these presentations. If you go on Twitter, you'll see my account. It's this tweet that I wrote at the beginning, and I made four presentations that are about this tweet. If we remake software from scratch without changing the culture that created it, we'll make crappy software again. What I want is to try to fight that with you.
[00:08:25] And there's not just that, because it's broader than that, but it's also that. So, we're going to start with symbolic violence.
[00:08:39] So, symbolic violence. The whole idea is that we have an idea of an icon, the icon of power, isn't it?
[00:08:52] The icon of power.
[00:09:00] Basically, every society, it, it has, society in general, it has an idea categorized in its head of what represents the dominant. Hello Monica. Goodbye Monica. And, uh, and the, the dominant, uh, it is designed by an infinity of traits. So, uh, it's going to be a certain skin color. A certain physical height, a certain weight, uh, a certain gender, uh, uh, it's going to be a certain diction, a certain oratory, a certain way of speaking, a certain way of dressing. Uh, an infinity of traits like that which make up this icon that we have in our heads of the dominant. An infinity of traits like that which make up this icon that we have in our heads of the dominant. And what's interesting is that the more we have of this trait of the dominant, the more we approach it, the more people are conditioned to submit to the person. And, inversely, the less we have, the more we have opposite traits, the more we have the impression that it's normal that we have a problem with this person. So, you say, uh, you say how is that? So, am I violent just because I am someone who has more traits of domination? No, no. Symbolic violence is a violence that we inflict upon ourselves. That is the essential point of Bourdieu. Let's add that in writing. Symbolic violence is a violence that we inflict upon ourselves. It's not, I am dominant and I use symbolic violence against you. No, it's, I am closer to the icon of power, and so you inflict violence upon yourself to obey me, to submit to me. It's not, I am dominant and I use symbolic violence against you. No, it's, I am closer to the icon of power, and so you inflict violence upon yourself to obey me, to submit to me. So, we, we, we're in the, in the idea, we could say, uh, uh, but it's false, I'm not doing violence. So we're going to enter into a very precise definition. It's, uh, It's the very idea of submission, it's the very idea of emitting and considering that the opinion of someone who is closer to the icon of power than our own is a more just opinion. And that is seen by Bourdieu as violence, a societal violence. So, we're going to move away from the individual and go towards the systemic, towards the societal. And that's something important throughout this presentation. So I'm going to put it aside here. Individual versus societal.
[00:12:19] Okay, the autocomplete on my tablet is magnificent. Versus societal. Alright.
[00:12:35] And so, uh, it's a, it's something violent from a societal, systemic point of view, uh, at a level of frequency, at a level of repetition. For example, if we go, what's more violent? Uh, hitting the Mona Lisa with a hammer or touching a statue in the Louvre? From a strictly psychological point of view, hitting the Mona Lisa is more violent. From a strictly psychological point of view, hitting the Mona Lisa is more violent. From a sociological point of view, it's touching a statue that's more violent. Why? Because it's more frequent than the other. If I let, if I let everyone, if I lower the Louvre's guard and let everyone do as they please, there will be people who will try to bring hammers to the Mona Lisa. So far, we've had two in the history of the Mona Lisa. However, people who try to touch statues, it happens all the time. There aren't just a few million that do it. And so, we're going to worry much more, from a sociological point of view, about people who touch statues than people who try to hit the Mona Lisa with a hammer. That makes sense. And so, uh, when we talk about symbolic violence, we talk about violence like that, a statistical violence, a violence that people globally inflict upon themselves. It's not something psychological. Something where each individual would be codified internally like that.
[00:14:21] And there, we have in this idea of symbolic violence a violence that we inflict upon ourselves, that is to say that we condition ourselves. We look at this person who looks closer to the icon of power, and we tell ourselves, this person is probably more right than me. Uh, that's funny, that's quite interesting, that's well done, because it allows for blindness.
[00:14:51] You see, the person who suffers symbolic violence is also the person who inflicts symbolic violence. He is conditioned to do it to himself. And so the person who benefits from symbolic violence, And so the person who benefits from symbolic violence, well, that person can ignore symbolic violence. She can simply never see it. It is enough for that that, uh, as I don't inflict it on myself and I don't see others doing it, well, I progress in my life as if there were no symbolic violence. So, the person who benefits has the benefit, the big butter money has the benefit, she doesn't even have to bother trying, she doesn't need to know it exists. However, the person who suffers it, the person who suffers it, she suffers the violence, she suffers the act of trying, the fatigue of trying. She suffers the invisibility of violence. She suffers the fact that people won't believe her. And the very fact of talking about the violence she has suffered and inflicted will be badly perceived. She will be perceived as violent. It's magnificent, isn't it? The system can thus maintain itself completely, completely. So I'm going to write that. I'm going to write that. I'm going to say... The victim of symbolic violence. Well, she is condemned to receive, but also to exert, that it be invisible, that others doubt it. That others doubt it. It's magic.
[00:17:04] It's magic. And, but on the other hand, the person who benefits, she has all the ease of being able to ignore that it exists.
[00:17:20] So, it helps a lot to maintain the system in place. It's, it's, it's very good for the homeostasis of all that, you see, the system maintains itself. Because people suffer, and their suffering is invisible. And they continue to do it to themselves. And others don't feel it, don't do it, it's invisible. And that creates a hierarchy. An invisible hierarchy. A hierarchy that continues even, for example, if I am, uh, If I am a white, male, cis, straight, well-dressed, in good health, etc., with a Rolex and all that, etc. But suppose I am a guy who lost all my money. Well, I don't have financial capital, but I have symbolic violence. I have symbolic violence that is in my favor. It will be much easier for me to rebuild myself in society. That opens up many doors. Because people will find what I say more interesting, they will find what I say more correct, more fair. I have more chances of being right. Because they are in the process of condemning themselves to see themselves as inferior. And so, it creates a confirmation bias effect, like plenty of people are getting used to seeing themselves as inferior, so they see that others are doing it too, so it confirms it, they see that others are treating themselves like that too, so it confirms it. It's a repetition effect. And on top of that, it creates space. I, since, since I have all that, I have more places where I can practice all that.
[00:19:08] It's well done, isn't it? It's a very strong system. It's very good for homeostasis, very perfect.
[00:18:31] more of a just right, I have more chances of being right. because they are condemning themselves to seeing how to do it. And it creates a confirmation bias effect when a lot of people are getting used to seeing how to do it, so they see that others do it too, so that confirms it, they see that others treat me the same way, so that confirms it. a repetition effect. And what's more, it creates space. I have, since I'm throwing all that away, I have more places where I can practice all that.
[00:19:07] It's well done, eh? It's a very strong system. It's very good for a very perfect homeostasis.
[00:19:17] So, one might say, but Romeo, Romeo, you can tell him now, but Romeo, there are still exceptions. Yeah, we're not talking about statistics. We're talking about societal relationships. The idea is not that one trait is enough for you to be superior to everyone. That's not the idea, that's not the idea. The idea is that each trait shows the creation of small symbolic violences everywhere, reverberations that exist, and it accumulates. And so, statistically, people who have more traits that bring them closer to power, oddly enough, do better in society.
[00:19:56] Yeah.
[00:19:58] OK.
[00:20:02] We could talk about the inversion of symbolic violence, for example. When we have enough, we have many traits that bring us closer to the icon of power, many, many, many traits. Well, like me for example, one can afford to dress like a, uh, like Clovis. Uh, it's allowed there because precisely we have enough capital of this symbolic violence, enough, we are close enough to power that precisely losing a trait will not reduce symbolic violence, on the contrary, it increases it.
[00:20:39] When I arrive, rather than being well-dressed in a suit, a bit like Clovis. Uh in front of clients, people say uh this guy who uh he can do that, it means he finds it really good. This is called an inversion of symbolic violence. It's impossible for someone who already has many traits that bring them close to power. Again, not possible for others.
[00:21:04] And that's where we get the concept of appropriation, right? For example, uh, wearing dreadlocks for a black person from a certain background, well, that will be punished in a certain way socially. Whereas if I were to put dreads on my hand, it would be fashion.
[00:21:25] You got it? The gap between people.
[00:21:29] We're going to talk about cultural and social capital. Yeah.
[00:21:37] I'm going to move from symbolic violence to cultural and social capital. Does that work for you? Again, it's, I'm, it's a plate of Bourdieu's spaghetti, I'm taking three spaghetti and zooming in, so symbolic violence is one strand of spaghetti from this plate of spaghetti, cultural capital is another, and the is another, there are other strands in this spaghetti, and these three already intertwine a lot. But let's talk about that.
[00:22:05] Let's talk about cultural capital. So it's in this magnificent book called Distinction by Bourdieu.
[00:22:17] He explains cultural capital in great detail. He also explains the notion of taste, and he comes with this phrase that I adore, that I adore, which tells us that taste is, above all, disgust.
[00:22:40] So, what's the whole idea?
[00:22:46] Cultural capital, in fact, is to say that culture, like money, is something you can capitalize on. The more you have, the easier it is to get more. The less you have, the harder it is to get. And once you capitalize, it opens doors for you.
[00:23:10] And it's not to say that culture is something bad. Just as it's not to say that white is something bad, or to say that being close to the icon of power, to say being a man, is something bad. That's not the point. It's a societal observation that we've created a mechanism that, oddly enough, is interesting to see.
[00:23:31] The more cultural capital you have, the easier it is to acquire cultural capital. And the more we create a notion of taste, the more we create distinction between ourselves and others. That is to say, we create taste to be able to look at the other and say that they don't have it.
[00:23:52] So, an interesting thing.
[00:23:55] It's the idea that when you see someone who seems to know more, to have more culture than you, you see a smallness within yourself and you commit violence against yourself. You see your opinion as less valid. And statistically, it happens.
[00:24:15] Even if we are discussing something that is your own expertise.
[00:24:21] That is to say, uh, you are all agilists here, right? It's a conference on agility. Well, someone who would arrive with a lot of very rich cultural notions, other, but who is not an expert in agility. But could give you the impression that, surely what this person says isn't really bullshit. And make you doubt your own expertise. I'm not saying it happens all the time.
[00:24:49] But it's an effect, it's the effect, it's a streetlamp, it repeats itself.
[00:24:54] More interesting than on oneself, that of others. When we see two people discussing, one of them seems to us to have more cultural capital. We perceive the other, the one who seems to have more cultural capital, as being better. As being the person who is more right.
[00:25:11] So even if she doesn't have it, even if she doesn't.
[00:25:19] And the problem is that cultural capital changes our form.
[00:25:27] It changes our perception of the world. The world is no longer the same when we gain culture.
[00:25:36] Our perspective changes, the more cultural capital we have. When you were a child, those children's movies looked like well-made things, and today you watch a children's movie and you say the villains are complete caricatures, aren't they? You've gained nuance. It happens to us all the time, it's the story of our entire life. The more culture you have, the more nuance you gain. So, the more your perception changes things. And so, you can no longer look at things with the same naivety as before. And when you can no longer do that, you recognize other people who are in the same situation as you.
[00:26:11] A small example. A small example.
[00:26:16] Uh, tell me in the chat, who here, this is happening safely. We won't judge you. Who here has ever looked at contemporary art and said, "This is bullshit?" One day in your life.
[00:26:31] No one.
[00:26:36] Okay, okay, okay. Perfect, perfect. Can you tell me, uh, if you've already said that in the past, is there anyone here for whom saying that is also true today in the present for me? When I go to the Pompidou, I go in front of the Pompidou, I tell myself all of this is bullshit.
[00:27:00] Maybe it's still true for some of you.
[00:27:05] It still happens.
[00:27:08] So I'm going to give a somewhat caricatural example because the goal is not at all to give a lecture on art or to have a discussion on art, and we can, afterwards if you wish, go into the details of my perception of art and so on. But here I'm going to give a very caricatural little example to be brief, if that suits you. Yeah.
[00:27:30] But there's this painting at the Pompidou that I adore. Pompidou, white triptych painting.
[00:27:45] It is, it is, it is magnificent, it is magnificent. It's called untitled, that's why I couldn't find it other than by describing it. Have you seen this painting before?
[00:27:57] It's a painting with three white canvases.
[00:28:06] Yeah.
[00:28:10] And uh and the thing is I love this painting. I love this painting. If I could steal one thing from Pompidou, it would be this triptych. And uh and of course it's normal, maybe several of you look at this thing and say it's bullshit. Yeah.
[00:28:37] Maybe. Yeah. So I'm going to give you a gift today, a gift today, a gift for your cultural capital. Yeah.
[00:28:48] Imagine you're walking past this painting, imagine you're walking past this painting and you see someone looking at it and who who looks at the painting and says it's bullshit. Not you, you walk past, you see a person looking at the painting and saying it's bullshit. How many times a day do you think that happens at the Pompidou? On average. Someone walks through, looks at this painting and says it's bullshit.
[00:29:15] All the time, right? Yeah.
[00:29:18] And there, friends, that's important.
[00:29:24] The person who looks at the painting and says it's bullshit is part of the work of art.
[00:29:32] That's the important distinction. Contemporary art tries to transcend the subject-object dichotomy. In other words, art is not just the painting. Art is the experience, and if art is not just the painting, the experience, the human being in front of the painting saying "it's bullshit," is part of the work of art. That's what the gentleman who made the painting is exposing.
[00:30:06] And so, and so, in doing so, the person who, the, the, the person who puts this here, I'm going to copy this here. Can I copy this in some way?
[00:30:21] And there, when I find this on the internet, it's people making fun of it. It's people making fun of it. Copy the image, can I put it in the mirror? Can I put that thing in the mirror somewhere? No. Yes, yes, ok, it will copy-paste. Can someone reduce the size of it because it's going to be huge, someone can reduce it after it's copied. And so, uh, yeah, there you go. Can someone greatly reduce its size now? Just do that please. And so, uh, so, it's we, with the subject-object dichotomy. So, the work of art is not just the painting, it's the people before who say bullshit, and it's not just the people before who say bullshit, it's now you who look at the people who say bullshit. Yeah.
[00:31:16] And if we accept that, if we accept that, this painting has already caused more reaction in you than the average painting or opening. I'm not saying every painting opens, but many paintings open. There are some that have left you indifferent in your life. And that one, no. Yeah. It's close to that, it's close to that.
[00:31:41] If I tell you that, you now have a different definition of art. And if you now have a different definition of art, you have changed your cultural capital. And maybe you're looking at what I just told you about the painting and you're saying, "Okay Romeo, I see it differently, but it's still bullshit to me." But now it's a different kind of bullshit. And not only is that true, but now you will start to notice anyone who hasn't yet seen this dichotomy break, and you'll be able to help them or feel superior to that person or something else. That makes sense. It's that you feel it there, it's something that always happens to you.
[00:32:23] It's that it's going to happen to you all the time. It's changing cultural capital, changing your view of the world and changing the group you're in. Because by changing your view of the world, you now have other people who share this understanding with you, and it becomes evident that this person has already progressed in it, not with you quickly enough. And it's just less expensive cognitively, it's just cognitive economy. It's easier to talk to someone who already has a level of cultural capital closer to yours than not. If each time I have to explain everything to the person, well, it's tedious.
[00:33:04] And so, and so, we tend to want to give power to people who have equal or superior cultural capital or other. And so the world is a blessing.
[00:33:18] The world is a blessing, the system is a benefactor. We fall back, we fall back into homeostasis, the system defends itself.
[00:33:29] We create access, we create power with cultural capital. And with this cultural capital, we increase inequalities. Does that make sense to you?
[00:33:44] What I said there about inequality. It's important.
[00:33:49] Yes, no, maybe. OK. OK.
[00:33:54] And that's what's beautiful.
[00:33:57] It's that everything, with cultural capital, everything has a price. It's like the financial lawyer, everything has a price.
[00:34:04] It's just that cultural capital isn't spent. We make sure you have enough. That's all.
[00:34:14] For example, you all live in a city that has several museums, perhaps. Most of you live in a city with many museums, which is common in France. Right? Have you ever been to a museum where you felt that the art inside didn't speak to you at all? Everything is too distant from your knowledge and you don't have the necessary knowledge to understand and approach it. So normally museums try to prevent that from happening, they try to have support to show, to decipher, to show small messages and so on to help. But when there are many museums in a city, in general, they consider there to be a minimum entry level for people to come. You have to be that high in cultural capital to be able to enter. Right? And sometimes, we don't have enough.
[00:35:05] And the more we have, the more we look at art differently, it changes one's perspective.
[00:35:16] And basically, the museum is saying you need to have at least so much cultural capital to enter. And for some, it's easier, for others, no. Who here has ever been to a bookstore, it's a mythical place. I've heard of these places. For those who have never heard of a bookstore, it's like a coworking space, but free.
[00:35:36] There are also books. Ah, not a bookstore, a library. Ah, in English, false friends, false friends, false friends. Library, ah bookstore. Library in English, bibliothèque in French. Thank you very much for the correction. A library is like a coworking space, but free, and there are also books inside.
[00:36:00] And uh and it's a wonderful place, I recommend it to you. Uh and one thing about a library is that you all know it's free, right? And you might say, yeah, but then Romeo, people who are poor who want to have cultural capital, they can at least go to the library.
[00:36:24] And first, they need to know it's free. There are people who learn very, very late in life that they just have the right and access. Then, once they have the right and access, they need to be able to navigate. What should I read to gain knowledge? If I try to read, what should I read, in what order, how? All of this consists of skills acquired through cultural capital that seem obvious to us. It seems easy to us. It seems easy to us to say I could ask the librarian at worst.
[00:36:55] But that's something you learn. It's the cultural capital you already have.
[00:37:01] There's a minimum entry price. And it's not equally accessible to everyone. That's what I'm telling you.
[00:37:09] And so at the same time, we have this idea that having more cultural capital is easy when you already have a lot of cultural capital. Cultural capital changes how we see things. Changes how we see people. Changes how we perceive people based on their cultural capital and changes how we judge people. And changes what possibilities we give to people and what we give to ourselves. Yeah.
[00:37:33] That makes sense.
[00:37:37] And uh and so with all that, I'm going to take notes.
[00:37:47] I'm going to take notes.
[00:37:49] I lost my pen. It's magnificent. Oh no, it's there.
[00:37:54] Taste above all disgust. So there you go. I'm going to note cultural capital changes our chances.
[00:38:13] Changes our perceptions.
[00:38:22] And our perception of the other.
[00:38:30] And when we see and feel smallness within us. When we see someone, a cultural capital that seems much higher, higher than others, well, immediately we feel smaller.
[00:38:47] You see, I started this talk, I started this talk with a on Twitter with a thread. There was a magnificent lady, named Sarah, who had talked about power dynamics in agility.
[00:39:04] And I read her, her, her, and I said, but she's talking about Bourdieu, but she doesn't realize it, but she's talking about Bourdieu. So I made a second one next to it to translate everything she said in relation to Bourdieu's social theory. And it's funny how people were insulting her a lot.
[00:39:23] And people were praising me a lot and sometimes the same person was insulting her a lot and praising me a lot. It's that, speaking of it, because I already have greater symbolic violence. I am a man and she was not.
[00:39:39] And also because I have the cover of cultural capital to talk about the same thing.
[00:39:44] And that grants me power and admiration, recognition. It's well done, it's well done. It's a well-made system.
[00:39:54] And so, social capital. Social capital, you somewhat replace everything I just said about cultural with social, and roughly speaking, it works. The more relationships you have, the easier it is to have relationships.
[00:40:09] Moreover, the more relationships you have, the easier it is to acquire cultural capital. Look and vice-versa. And besides, the more we have, the closer we are to
[00:40:30] We're going to mutate. We're going to mutate. Is that it? Is anyone listening to me? People are listening to me now.
[00:40:35] I don't know why you were muted but it's okay now, it works.
[00:40:39] OK, perfect. Moreover, the more relationships you have, the easier it is to have cultural capital, and vice-versa. Moreover, the more we have, the more we are close to...
[00:40:30] I've been muted. I've been muted. Is that it? Can someone hear me? Can someone hear me now?
[00:40:35] I don't know why you were muted, but it's working now.
[00:40:39] Okay. Perfect.
[00:40:44] The more relationships you have, the easier it is to have all that. So the more you have symbolic violence, the easier it is to have relationships. The more you're close to the field of power, the easier it is to have relationships, and the easier it is to have relationships, the more social capital I have. The more social capital, the easier it is to have cultural capital. The easier it is, it's a loop, it's a loop. And you tell me, Romeo, what about the money in all of this? Ah yes, money can replace it quite easily. It's true that you can buy culture, more or less, up to a certain level. And the problem with bling. You see? We can't buy taste.
[00:41:24] Taste is above all distaste. Knowing how to appreciate a work of art, takes time, takes acquired knowledge. We can buy access to knowledge, but it takes time, it takes integrity to change our perception and see things differently. To gain a nuance of perception, isn't it?
[00:41:43] That takes time. It's the effect of the nouveau riche. Social capital is not always free, that's true. Ah, it's the effect of the nouveau riche.
[00:41:54] In the same way, we can, up to a certain level, buy symbolic violence. I can buy a nice suit. But have you ever seen people who don't feel good in a suit, wearing a suit? Have you ever seen someone like that? It's visible.
[00:42:12] It's
[00:42:15] We feel it, we see it.
[00:42:20] And, and, and it's funny, then, uh, it's the bling effect. It's the rapper effect who just earned his first money from a video, isn't it?
[00:42:34] You can buy big brand things, but you don't buy how to be elegant with them. That takes time. It takes learning.
[00:42:44] It's exactly the same thing. And so, cultural capital, social capital, symbolic violence, is the capital we have, different from our financial capital.
[00:42:56] You can be very high in all of that and not necessarily very rich, and that opens up a lot of things for us in society. A lot of things. And vice-versa. Vice-versa. Now I'm going to get to the most difficult of the three.
[00:43:10] L'exis. So. To understand.
[00:43:17] To understand the exis and the habitus. Right? I'm going to say, uh, just like that, roughly speaking, you could see, we could see the habitus as a kind of aura, except that's not it at all. Yeah, it's just like that, it's not at all an aura, but we could see it as such.
[00:43:44] Does that make sense? It's like you're asked not to think of an elephant, that's it. Okay. Uh, the habitus, uh, I'm going to say very roughly, it's going to be, uh, all the non-verbal, the way he communicates. Roughly speaking. You always have a habitus.
[00:44:06] All that you communicate, without communicating, implicitly, non-verbally, unconsciously.
[00:44:16] And uh, and Lexis is a precise habitus. Roughly speaking, Lexis is the habitus that tells the world, 'I belong.'
[00:44:28] Right? And that's pretty funny. That's pretty funny.
[00:44:34] Uh, because
[00:44:40] Habitus of 'I belong'. I am in my place. That's funny because
[00:44:54] Uh, in, people tend, we are in a society that is very organized around, uh, around self-confidence. This notion, we can fool self-confidence, right?
[00:45:15] And so, someone who always gives the impression of 'I belong, I am in the right place, I am the person who should be in charge', well, that opens a lot of doors for that person. And it opens a lot of doors that the person doesn't even realize are there.
[00:45:30] Uh,
[00:45:35] There are people who, for example, have a small symbolic violence, but a big Lexis.
[00:45:42] For example, I don't know, me,
[00:45:50] There you go, okay. Obama is a guy, you just feel that he's comfortable in his own skin, you know, when you watch him talk. Does that make sense?
[00:46:01] There are other people who try very hard to create a character that has very little exis. It's built, but it has very little exis. I even have a president who did that.
[00:46:11] Called Hollande.
[00:46:20] Right? Does that speak to you?
[00:46:25] Uh,
[00:46:29] And I don't know Houellebecq. I know the books but not the, I've never seen the gentleman visually. And so, uh, uh,
[00:46:40] The, the thing is,
[00:46:44] Someone who has more exis, someone who transpires all the time 'I belong, I am in the right place'. Well, that reassures people, for all sorts of reasons. People, the society judges by whether you deserve to be there or not. It's a continuous judgment. You see, when I,
[00:47:05] I, with a friend of mine a few years ago, I, uh, my, my friend a few years ago, I entered a shopping center and it was after a few attacks or something like that, and,
[00:47:17] and, and she said, 'No, but' 'there's the security guard who keeps looking at our bag.' She told me that. And at that moment, I realized the existence of the security guard.
[00:47:30] I had never noticed that the guy was there. I went through every day, I'm sure he was there every day.
[00:47:37] But he had the impression that I belonged. And I had the impression that I belonged. So it all works.
[00:47:45] He's not going to waste his time investigating every person who passes visually, he's trying to see who stands out. And standing out is already doubting yourself. That makes you stand out. And that's the difference, among other things, you see.
[00:48:00] That's an important difference.
[00:48:03] The exis is the co-
[00:48:09] It's temerity and courage. You see the difference between temerity and courage?
[00:48:23] The difference between temerity and courage is that when you have courage,
[00:48:29] you have fear and you brave it, you overcome it.
[00:48:35] And who shows me the consideration? Well, Uh, When you have courage, you have fear, you overcome it. When you have temerity, you don't realize that the danger is there. A baby is dangerous for itself because a baby is reckless, it doesn't have an awareness of danger, and so it messes up. Uh,
[00:48:58] you ignore the very existence of fear. That's true.
[00:49:04] And Lexis is that.
[00:50:57] We'll try to get Romeo back. I'm going to try to call him, but we don't see him and we don't hear him.
[00:51:11] Romeo, we can't hear you anymore, so I don't know if you can try to reconnect or...
[00:51:31] Hey, we can't hear you anymore.
[00:51:35] Maybe your microphone, your headset, or something like that, no?
[00:51:45] Yeah, I think Sébastien's suggestion is the best: disconnect and reconnect.
[00:51:53] Who has elevator music to play for us while we wait?
[00:51:59] I can hand over if you want.
[00:52:20] So, are you back? In the meantime, I'll put back all your notes. Yeah, you're back? Yes, it's good.
[00:52:30] Oh, I'm sorry about that, folks.
[00:52:33] No problem, so.
[00:52:36] We're listening now. Go, let's go. We'll resume.
[00:52:46] Can you hear me? Still? Okay, perfect. Uh, okay, where were we then? I don't know if I spoke into the void or not, how long I spoke into the void. I spoke about Lexis.
[00:53:01] So, I was saying that Lexis is this notion of 'I belong'. And there is Lexis and there is self-confidence, it's courage and temerity. You heard that? I spoke about temerity, I explained temerity, it's the absence of fear. Yes. Uh, I spoke about the fact that... Perfect. So, uh, I was talking about the fact that...
[00:53:30] Uh, society is still very organized around self-confidence, meaning that someone who doesn't doubt themselves, even if they make a huge mistake, it reassures us, and we tend to follow them. Whereas someone who perhaps has great expertise and is about to make the right decision, but who doubts themselves a lot, that doesn't reassure us. So we tend to doubt it. We prioritize and we prioritize assurance. We tell ourselves that competence equals assurance. We also tell ourselves that, uh, and I call it the luxury of calm, we also tell ourselves that calm equals competence.
[00:54:09] And so, self-calm is part of the power icon for me, it's symbolic violence. We see, for example, when we see someone very agitated, very caught up in talking about something, we tell ourselves that this person is less right than someone next to them who is calmer talking about the same thing. And in itself, that's a problem.
[00:54:27] And, uh, and so, uh, we, the person who has the exis, well, we don't doubt them. It reassures us. We give them power.
[00:54:44] And so, uh, with all that together, it's crazy. We have a dance between
[00:54:53] and not talking about money, just capital. So no, no, no, I didn't say that Trump had a crazy exis, on the contrary, he doesn't. But he believes he belongs. He doesn't have the luxury of calm. He doesn't have all the traits. Trump is not skinny either. Ah, he reassures a lot, he has exis. He doesn't doubt himself.
[00:55:14] He doesn't say that...
[00:55:18] That's it. Uh, Trump, he has the, he has even his financial capital. All of that is true. So we're going to talk about the caste.
[00:55:32] Let's talk about financial capital. Let's talk about financial capital.
[00:55:38] Who here says, uh, quick question:
[00:55:44] Who among you is in the richest 1% in the world?
[00:55:56] Almost everyone, right?
[00:55:59] So,
[00:56:02] Uh, who here doesn't believe they are in the richest 1% in the world?
[00:56:10] A lot of people say 10% certainly, things like that. Yeah.
[00:56:16] Let's go, folks. We're going to fix that then. There's a study, come on, it's getting old, this study is about, uh, it's from 2012 or something like that, so it's been 8 years already. The only serious study on inequality in the world that tries to do a global thing that holds up, it's done by the World Bank. The World Bank estimates that to be in the richest 1% in the world, financially speaking, rich with his friends, but with money, you know.
[00:56:46] You don't even need capital. You can be an employee and be in the richest 1% in the world. It's sad.
[00:56:54] And we can even finish all our months negative and be in the richest 1% in the world. And I'm calling for the sound. And according to the World Bank, to be in the richest 1% in the world, all you need is to have an annual gross salary of 34,000 dollars. That means there are 7 billion people in the world, 6 billion 900 and some million, or less than that. And so, 6 billion, if you already have 34,000 dollars of gross annual salary, you are in the richest 1% in the world.
[00:57:33] Ah yes, it's true, it's 28,000 euros, sorry, excuse me, uh. And, uh,
[00:57:41] And so, the question is, 28,000 euros gross annual. Who here is in the richest 1% in the world?
[00:57:55] There. Many, most of you, isn't that right? Yeah. And so,
[00:58:06] Why, for this time, No, it's not a lot. Quick question, it's funny, you see. Uh, Quick question, it's funny because it just means the world is very poor, actually. In reality, it just means the world is very poor.
[00:58:23] And so, the question I ask people when I, when I put that. Now, there you go, it's from 2012, maybe since then the figures are a bit different, etcetera, etcetera. It's the World Bank that announced it, you can find the, you can find the reference of the study quite easily by Googling.
[00:58:39] Uh, what I find quite interesting about that is I'm going to tell you a quick question.
[00:58:47] Have you ever met people at work who have given up? Who just say, 'Well, I put minimal effort, 9 to 5, I don't put any effort.'
[00:58:59] Yes, yes, excuse me. Arnaud said, 'But financial wealth is more capital than income, no?' Yes, Arnaud. And as I said at the beginning, you can have zero capital and be in the richest 1% in the world. the figures are a bit different, etc. etc. It's the World Bank that announced it. You could find the... you could find the reference to the study quite easily by Googling. Uh what I find quite interesting about this, I'll tell you... Quick question.
[00:58:48] Have you ever encountered people at work who just gave up? Who just say, "Well, I put in minimal effort, 9 to 5. I don't put in any effort."
[00:58:59] Yes, yes. Excuse me, Arnaud said financial wealth is more capital than income, right? Yes, Arnaud.
[00:59:05] And as I said at the beginning, you can have zero capital and be among the richest in the world.
[00:59:17] Jarek says, Jarek made a counter-proposal with another link. I uh I uh I'm not going to do that, maybe there are other things, there are other I'm not going to take that into account etcetera etcetera. Since 2012, there have been other things.
[00:59:32] Well, if you're super rich and you burn all your money all the time, you remain super rich.
[00:59:40] Yes, even if we end up in the negative all the time, all the time, but we spend everything.
[00:59:46] It's quite simple. How many families can you feed in Bangladesh just with the little money that you completely throw out the window. For this question, you'll see that simply, uh, with 50 euros per month, you feed a family of 50 in Bangladesh, uh, and that, uh...
[01:00:07] your purchasing power is much greater.
[01:00:14] And uh and then...
[01:00:18] The cost of living, the cost of living. Yes, yes, yes, the cost of living. But we have...
[01:00:24] we have more money.
[01:00:27] I said it's, it's again, I'm not going into the details of the study. But uh yes, we chose to live in places that are more, more expensive in the world. And besides, we have these salaries because we live there too, etcetera. The Bay Area, etcetera, etcetera, Silicon Valley, etcetera, etcetera. I'm I'm not saying this with any innocence of all that. But if we put everyone in competition, well, you have, you have more money coming in than the rest of humanity.
[01:00:54] And uh, and, uh it's simple. Let's put it that way. There are several countries where the average woman spends a third of her life just carrying water.
[01:01:11] Jarek, we say Jarek, we link to the USA for everyone, not for everyone. It's true, I'm talking about global wealth, not the wealth of the richest country in the world. Uh, there are countries where we spend a third of our time just transfusing water. And you, you shit in the water. In the toilet.
[01:01:32] I'm going to give you, give everyone the mic. Uh and uh and so, uh, that's what I'm trying to say, uh. How many people do you meet, how many people around you...
[01:01:49] who are in the 1% richest in the world and who have given up? You've worked with people who have given up, who no longer make an effort.
[01:02:03] No more effort. Who are no longer there. Ah yes, no more effort, why? Uh... Who don't make an effort. I'm going to stop this shitty judgment. Uh, have you already seen people who, if we are in competition to try to say this idea of working more to earn more? This idea, this idea.
[01:02:24] Have you ever seen people who have not tried to know more, have not tried to produce more, to perform more, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. They just try to do the minimum service to stay in their job.
[01:02:37] And you've already seen, and how many of those people do you know who are in the top 1% richest in the world?
[01:02:48] Okay. It's damn. It's damn. Uh to join this group. There's an echo, I don't know why. That's my way to join this group.
[01:03:03] And uh uh I'm not saying this judgmental, it's just that the person didn't play the game of productivity, didn't play the game of, you know, of competition, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. It's not, you know.
[01:03:18] If you join this group tomorrow, if you decide to stop coming to conferences, if you decide to stop developing yourselves, if you decide to stop, well, developing in other ways, things that are not your job, we have a right. And uh and to be completely alimentary, completely uh, completely outside of things that are normally supposed to be valued in your profession. Just the minimum to keep a roof over your head. Would it leave the top 1% richest globally?
[01:03:50] No, okay, impossible, well. You wouldn't quit. I'm just saying, welcome to the caste system.
[01:04:05] Welcome to the caste system. You are in a societal stratum. There is mobility within this stratum, there is a little mobility from one stratum to another. Like any caste system.
[01:04:17] But you live in a caste system.
[01:04:23] And uh, and that's the thing. Bourdieu, what he tried to show us is that we give ourselves the illusion of a society that has no caste, while we are in a caste system. It's magical.
[01:04:38] We have a caste system that's lying.
[01:04:45] A caste system that is lying. That hides. That's it.
[01:04:59] And uh...
[01:05:04] And what he's trying to show is that inequality is guaranteed by a set of enormous things that are invisible. Symbolic violence is invisible. The differences in cultural capital are invisible. All that, we manage to create a caste system that is maintained by rules that can be invisible, and worse, that make it so that you can be at the top of the caste system. In the illusion that the caste system does not exist.
[01:05:33] Does it make sense to you?
[01:05:37] And uh and then, uh, it's very funny all that, it's well done. It's well done, uh. It's well done.
[01:05:47] And uh, and that's what Bourdieu tries to show us. And what can we do then? And what is the relationship between all that and agility? That's my point for tonight. And I'm trying to go fast, I think I'm running a bit over time and at the same time I have technical problems. Let's put it that way.
[01:06:09] Agility was created by 17 white, cisgender, heterosexual men. A year and a half ago. At least in its manifest form.
[01:06:20] What is the probability that the guys who created that were aware of everything I just told you today?
[01:06:34] Very well. Very well. Okay. It's not. It's not. It's not zero, that's it. There's a bit of awareness of that, not much.
[01:06:48] In truth, uh, agility was made with a gigantic humanism. And I'm not trying to trash agility, I think it's a brilliant idea.
[01:06:57] It's I'm trying to touch a limit in the idea of improving it, with love. It's not that agility is crap. It's showing a naivety.
[01:07:09] Agility, for me, is created in a system that with models that are naive regarding all that. What I just described today.
[01:07:19] It leaves from a principle of equality that is not completely unattainable. And I'm going to give you a little article that I really like. I really like it.
[01:07:33] Uh, pass the mic, pass the people the mic. Since the beginning, you can pass anyone the mic with everyone. Uh, since the beginning, we have, uh, the Dictatorship of Structureless, something like that. The Tyranny of Structurelessness. The Tyranny of Structurelessness.
[01:08:05] By Jo Freeman. I recommend reading this magnificent text by Jo Freeman, who explained to us...
[01:08:17] I'm showing your cultural capital by doing so. Who explains to us why in a system supposed to be egalitarian, we always create invisible hierarchies. And that, as a result, a system that is sociocratic, a holocratic system, etcetera, etcetera, will have invisible structures. So we can make them, we can have, we have no choice but not to create in the current society, in the way we build with all that, with everything Bourdieu shows.
[01:08:46] We have the choice to make our structures visible, but we have not yet discovered a way to do that is not hierarchical. And on the other hand, we often fall into the delusion of the illusion that we are equals. And so, ladies and not ladies... If there is only one thing you remember from this presentation, only one. It's the following.
[01:09:16] Meritocracy is the divine right of the king of our era.
[01:09:28] Kill all illusion of merit.
[01:09:33] And write that down. I think that's important.
[01:09:38] Meritocracy is the divine right mandate of kings of our era.
[01:10:02] Kill all illusions of merit.
[01:10:09] There is no merit, there is no meritocracy. Any system that claims to be meritocratic is a system of oppression. You, you have all these invisible hierarchies, and you convince yourself, you are in the, you convince yourself that the fact that you are there is justified. A system that claims to be meritocratic is only a system that tries to justify, a posteriori, the invisible hierarchies that compose it. It's a way to defend homeostasis. Nothing else.
[01:10:39] Meritocracy is a danger. Meritocracy is an attempt to establish the status quo as desirable. Meritocracy is an attempt to give you a clear conscience if you have succeeded, if you are at the top, it's because you deserve it.
[01:11:06] And so, if we accept that in agility, what does that give?
[01:11:15] Well, a pair programming session when two people are pair programming but one of these two people has a lot more cultural capital, a lot more social capital, a lot more, a lot more symbolic violence than the other. Well, it's a submission session.
[01:11:35] Right?
[01:11:38] It's you're pair programming with your boss, roughly. Invisible hierarchies.
[01:11:45] We, the daily, the daily. In a daily, we are supposed to talk about our difficulties. But talking about our difficulties with our boss in the room, it's a bit more difficult.
[01:11:58] Ah, Roméo says:
[01:12:01] The alternative, there's a lead, Roméo has a tentative solution. Remember what I said at the beginning, that I would not have a solution in this talk. But I'm going to explain to you now why I don't have a solution in this talk. I'm going to explain to you now, right?
[01:12:15] There's a reason for that, a very good reason. Why I refuse in this talk to give a solution right away.
[01:12:24] Remember, I am a white, cisgender, heterosexual man with a lot of social capital, a lot of cultural capital. And so, if I try to find a solution to all that, it will come with all the naivety, all the naivety of someone who is at the top of this hierarchy. And, and this person, and with all the naivety of the people who created agility, with all the same flaws, in fact.
[01:12:57] I am really in a bad position. But on the other hand, on the other hand, on the other hand, on the other hand.
[01:13:02] Yes. Uh yes, to tell you the truth, with masculine domination, yes, Stéphane, yes. We're not going to talk about it. However, and this is funny. It's that, however, if we do the opposite, if I say no, it's up to the people who suffer from this to find a solution, right? That's also a bad start. Because, because... As I said at the beginning, as I said at the beginning, the person who suffers is condemned to receive, to exercise, to be visible, that others doubt, and now, moreover, to fend for themselves to find the solution.
[01:13:47] It's cool, huh? Nice. Nice. Nice. Uh, and so, and so, and so, and so, what can we do?
[01:13:59] Well, in fact, the continuation of this talk that I have been preparing for two years now, this continuation, is a workshop in which I don't try to put solutions, I try to co-create with people who want to co-create. And uh, I try to give my energy, my time, my, my thing, with people who want to give, with all our diversity, mandatory, necessary, so that the quorum is met.
[01:14:27] And we try to do it together. That's also naive, but it will be a different naivety. Under construction. And uh my starting point for that is a book that I really like. I really, really like it.
[01:14:42] It's another Brazilian sociologist this time.
[01:14:53] It's called the pedagogy of the oppressed. By Paul Freire. And who and who gives a bit of the method to use so that people who have power, people who want power, can come together without there being a power dynamic between them to build something together.
[01:15:18] And uh, and that's the next step. That's what I would really like to invite you to do at some point.
[01:15:25] Those workshops. Oh, that doesn't prevent you from doing things yourselves in your corner, I'm not mandatory in the evening. My only goal with this talk, my only goal with this talk, is already to create understanding on this subject and it is already to give you weapons to be able to, to be able to point the thing.
[01:15:47] To say, 'Okay, I'm experiencing this,' to put a name to the thing. And to be able to say to the person, 'This person is doing this to me.' And to be able to discuss it with people. Among other things because I am someone very much in the existing cultural capital, in our symbolic violence. And so, you can easily take the video and give it to someone as a gift. Rather than trying to drag yourself around explaining everything. It's beautiful, isn't it?
[01:16:14] And and use the video to have a discussion afterwards. So that's the only thing I can do for you to help in the short term. But to really create something different, you have to co-create. I couldn't create it alone.
[01:16:27] And I cannot demand that people who are in a hurry create it.
[01:16:33] That's all I wanted to say today. Do you have any questions, interactions, things to ask?
[01:16:37] Does anyone want to take the mic, all that? That's it.
[01:16:53] So, I'll hand it over to those who have questions, who want to react, don't hesitate. So, there's Yaz who has his hand up, if you want, you can activate your mic, your camera.
[01:17:04] Farouk, for your question, it's what it's for, just to answer Farouk in the chat. He says, 'But how can you co-create without imposing your know-how?' It's not, there are no perfect solutions, but on the other hand, the book I posted there gives a lot of ideas on how to do it.
[01:17:17] And Yaz, now, sorry, it was cut off.
[01:17:21] Yes? Can you hear me?
[01:17:23] Yes. Yes, we hear you now. Go on.
[01:17:24] Yeah, uh, so it resonates so much with this Christmas period we're about to experience, right, on this side with the kids, so we don't stop having this education for how long? And there you put, well, you put the question on the table and so, well, do you have an opinion on that? How is it that, well...
[01:17:43] with the kids, what's the driver finally? So I like the link, the education of the oppressed already gives a first, a first opinion, but...
[01:17:54] For me, there are three things, but first of all, I'm not a parent yet. Not yet. But yes, I'm not a parent yet, Yaz, so I can't give you a very enlightened opinion on that.
[01:18:06] From my naive point of view, there are three things that I find important to start building something else with children. One is non-violent communication.
[01:18:17] Really, Marshall Rosenberg's book, I find it important. Another is the pedagogy of the oppressed by Paulo Freire.
[01:18:24] And another is this book.
[01:18:29] I highly recommend it. And I don't have much better in the short term with children. I can't say that, but it's the best I have for now.
[01:18:44] And Pierre has a question.
[01:18:47] Pierre, you can activate your mic.
[01:18:59] Ah no, Pierre had no questions. Or he had a question but couldn't activate his mic, one of the two. No mic.
[01:19:07] Do you see it in the Q&A? Do you want me to read it to you?
[01:19:12] No, I don't have anything in the Q&A.
[01:19:15] I have nothing in the Q&A. So why find a solution isn't it counterproductive for society and the sole expression of an individualism that can solve the injustice of this order? And a provocation in parentheses at the beginning.
[01:19:32] Now, why find a solution? Uh, that's an interesting question. I...
[01:19:39] There are two questions in that question for me. There's the question of why necessarily want to solve everything in life? And a second, why change the status quo?
[01:19:51] They are, they are two very different, but I read both in the question. For the first, I would have said... For me, the, for the second, for why change the status quo, because the status quo is full of suffering. And so, I tell myself, uh... Might as well try. Is that a reason like any other? Really. To be honest with you, the question that comes to me often, often, often, often is, "Romeo, shouldn't I just give up on this?" When I hear your talk, and I have two talks where I talk about the subject, it's the one by Bourdieu, it's the one by Foucault. Foucault is part one, Bourdieu is part two. You're watching part two. Uh, they can be seen one without the other, don't worry. But you can find the first one on the internet.
[01:20:34] It's called, the first one is called, "Big corporations are little panoptics and agile coaches are Jesuits." Yeah. Search that on the internet, you'll find videos of me talking. And uh, and uh, people who watch both talks often end up asking me, "Romeo, shouldn't we just give up?"
[01:20:52] And it's a question I find legitimate. There's another talk that I've been preparing for a long time that I've never done, which talks about this very question of why not give up. Why bother trying to change things? And I'm going to give a spoiler of that, without going into too much detail. That's the answer.
[01:21:15] Yeah, I'm doing that, I'm doing all the Bordeaux. Next?
[01:21:25] No other questions for now.
[01:21:29] Well, if you want to continue the discussion, well, there you go, the room is yours. You can continue, uh...
[01:21:39] That's it, I don't like my camera but it's not a big deal, I'll turn it on anyway, there you go.
[01:21:44] I invite you to, uh, discuss, there are the sponsors and those who stay and then, uh...
[01:21:51] Come on, go ahead. If someone wants to talk to me, ping me.
[01:21:56] Okay, well, see you right away in the room. Have a good evening everyone.

Transcript (Translated)