All posts by dispar

More Notes on Myriade

Like all my recent posts, this post about my first coffee-tasting session at Myriade followed the RERO principle: not only was it a draft but I expect to come back to it. I could update the post itself but I think it’s useful to post a few more notes about Myriade’s first day, especially since I did go back to the café in the meantime.

via First Myriade Session « Disparate

So…

First factual point: all of Myriade’s espresso drinks are based on double-shots. It doesn’t surprise me given the fact that it’s pretty much the epitome of coffee’s so-called Third Wave and double-espresso is the very basis of West Coast-style Third Wave coffee. But I still assumed they would be pulling singles as well as doubles. A corrollary of this is that their extra shot makes for a triple.

Speaking of extras… Myriade’s menus are rather unique, IMHO. Not really because of specific items which aren’t found elsewhere or because of the price structure. The way the whole set of menus work together. It’s precisely the kind of thing a business-savvy person would notice and grok right away. I merely notice it. If I had had a camera (and the fine folks at Myriade had let me), I would have posted pictures of those menus (which happen to look pretty nice, and fit into the café’s overall design). There’s something there; I can’t put my finger on it; but it’s there.

I’m not sure what my friend Chris Capell’s official job title may be. He does seem to work there as a manager, but calling him the “manager” might have been stretching a bit. Not sure about that.

Though it should be obvious from the link I used for Scott Rao, I should have mentioned that Rao is the author of The Professional Barista’s Handbook. Fittingly, Scott’s book is available for sale at Myriade. I haven’t the book yet (I’m no barista, even though I played a barista judge before), but I’ve heard very good things about it. This specific book was discussed at length in episode 61 (27:30-31:34, MP3) of the CoffeeGeek Podcast (XML). Unfortunately, however, Mark Prince‘s review of that book has yet to appear online. Hopefully, that review will appear before the well-known CoffeeGeek editor comes to Montreal.

On my second trip to Myriade today, after writing that previous post, I got a chance to try a few different things. I did tweet about one:

Having Mei Shan oolong at Myriade. Getting seaweed, black currant, puffed rice, bit of grass. Perfect complement for the Taiwanese meal I just had. (Tweet)

The Taiwanese meal was the deep fried pork chops from Bao Dao Taiwan, at Faubourg Sainte-Catherine. That place happens to be one of my favourite food court places in town (along with that one Thai Express location at Carrefour Industrielle-Alliance). The seaweed I got in that tea really made for a great complement because that meal did have seaweed in it. This combination is one I want to repeat. Either I ask Myriade for the right to bring my Bao Dao meal to eat there or I get this Mei Shan to go, and bring it to Faubourg.

On that second trip to Myriade, I also had the occasion to take a couple of sips of the Miralvalle brewed through another method and what struck me that time was vanilla chocolate. Very different from the Eva Solo I’ve had of the Miralvalle, earlier. Given my passion for flavour diversity, this was a pleasant experience.

The last thing I’ve had at Myriade today was a mixture of honey, lemon, ginger, and water. It was described as a drink popular in New Zealand and it tasted pretty much like a high-quality version of what I know as a grog, without the rum. Knowing that Kiwis have a special relationship with alcohol, I’m assuming this same drink is frequently served with rum, over in Lambland.

As you can tell, I can’t stop talking about Myriade. One thing which is great for me is that I now have two good reasons to spend time on Concordia campus (the other one being that I teach at Concordia). I sincerely think that Myriade’s presence in the neighbourhood will help me do more at Concordia, in the coming months. In fact, I’ve written the previous blogpost from my office and I had a chance to chat with one of my office-mates who tends not to overlap that much with me. If, thanks to Myriade, I end up spending time on campus every day, I’m sure to have more opportunities to talk with more Concordia people. The neat thing about this is that I really like Concordia.

As a Montrealer and a coffee geek, I can just tell that Myriade’s future is bright. No, it’s not wishful thinking. Even if it is, Myriade will still work. 😉 One sign of this is that some key members of Montreal’s coffee scene were at Myriade today and everybody seemed really enthusiastic. As I keep saying, this is Montreal’s Coffee Renaissance. I sincerely think that “all the chips are on the table” and that the time is ripe for this rebirth in coffee enthusiasm. As World Barista Champion Stephen Morrissey has said (or so I heard), during the Canadian Barista Championship in Montreal, coffee is the ideal drink for culinary enthusiasts of all kinds (foodies, chowhounds, etc.) during these tough financial times. Just about any food enthusiast in a post-industrial society (i.e. OECD members) can easily “splurge” on a very fine coffee without making that big a hole in their budget and some people in GDP-poor contexts can eventually get quality coffee, especially if culinary coffee ends up improving the deal for coffee growers.

Call me an idealist all you want, I think this rosy picture I’m drawing makes quite a bit of sense! 😎

First Myriade Session

Today’s main coffee event is the anxiously awaited Grand Opening of Café Myriade (1432 Mackay, Montreal, right by Concordia University’s Sir George William campus). I just did my first of certainly a good many coffee-savouring sessions, there.

As a disclaimer of sorts, I think of Anthony Benda as one of the main actors in Montreal’s coffee renaissance. Anthony’s the co-owner of Café Myriade. He also happens to be an espresso blogger. Chris Capell, Myriade’s manager and “espresso producer,” has become a good friend of mine, thanks in part to the Eastern Regional competition of the Canadian Barista Championship, back in June. Despite being friendly with some of the core members in the Myriade team, I still think I can judge Myriade drinks fairly and justly. I do want the café to succeed and there’s a slight bias involved, but I think my perspective on that café and its drinks is relatively unbiased.

So, a few notes on this first session at Myriade.

On Anthony’s recommendation, I started with the allongé.

The allongé was a thing of beauty. Myriade managed to craft a drink in continuity with the ristretto-to-double-espresso flavour axis. (Twitter)

What I mean is that this allongé (or “lungo“) was nothing like a watered down espresso. It wasn’t typical of Montréal’s allongés either. But that’s really not an issue. Those who would order an allongé at Brûlerie Saint-Denis, Aux Deux Marie, or even Café Dépôt (where I’ve been surprised to have flavourful allongés in the past) will enjoy Myriade’s allongé. At least, if they keep an open mind.

To my taste, Myriade’s allongé is pretty much what you would get if you “extrapolated” (in the mathematical sense) the curve from ristretto to a regular espresso (single or double). The difference in flavours and aromas between ristretto and regular espresso is not strictly linear. Some flavours are muted as some others become stronger. It also depends on a number of factors from the blend and the grind to the way it was pulled. The same could be said about this allongé from Myriade, compared to a regular espresso.

I then tried the sipping chocolate.

Myriade’s sipping chocolate is delicious as a dessert drink. Must work really well with pastry. (Tweet)

To be honest, it was on the sweet side, for me. Maybe my tastebuds weren’t ready for this but I’m used to bitter chocolate and this one was decidedly on the sweet side. In fact, I wouldn’t have called it bittersweet because the bitterness was really muted. My mention of this seemed to be surprising to Myriade’s other co-owner, Scott Rao. But I maintain that this was a sweet chocolate.

My favourite sipping chocolate in Montreal so far (and possibly my favourite chocolate drink ever) was from Juliette & Chocolat (1615 Saint-Denis). The last time I went to J&C was probably two years ago so they may have changed in the meantime. There are two types of chocolate drinks at J&C. IIRC, the “à l’ancienne” one is unsweetened and milkless. I distinctly remember having some very tasty sipping chocolate there and the taste I remember isn’t sweet, by any stretch of the imagination. Of course, I might be wrong. But I’m usually pretty accurate about these things. Myriade’s sipping chocolate wasn’t as sweet as mainstream hot chocolate, but it was definitely much sweeter than what I’ve had at Juliette & Chocolat.

I enjoyed Myriade’s sipping chocolate about as much as the one I’ve raved about, from Chocolats Privilège (7070 Henri-Julien). In Myriade’s case, it’s less about cost than about the diversity of experiences we can have at the same place.

Speaking of which, here’s my first tweet from Myriade, today:

Enjoying Myriade’s impressive array of high quality drinks: 1432 Mackay. (Tweet)

When I first heard about Anthony’s plans for a café, I was mostly thinking about espresso. Anthony Benda is a true espresso artist, and the fact that he was a finalist in the Canadian Barista Championship (for which I’ve been a judge) is a testament to Anthony’s passion for espresso.

But Myriade isn’t exclusively about espresso. In fact, it’s probably the place in town which has the widest variety of coffee options. IIRC, they do all the espresso drinks, from single shot to allongé, caffè latte to cappuccino. But they also do pour-over drip, French press, siphon, and Eva Solo Café Solo.

Speaking of the Eva Solo, it’s the one drink with which I’ve spent the longest time, today. It was the first time I had coffee brewed through this method. It’s similar to French press but still different. I’d have a hard time describing all the differences (having to do with the “bloom” as well as with the body and the size of solids floating in the cup) but I did enjoy this coffee very much.

My tweets about this cup. The coffee was made with single origin Cup of Excellence beans: Lot #24 from Miralvalle farm.

Miralvalle as Eva. Berries to lemon, bright and sweet, some cocoa, bit of raw almond, faint roasted hazelnut. (Tweet)

As it cools, this Eva Solo of Salvadorian Cup of Excellence Miralvalle tastes more like candied lemon zest. With some cocoa butter. (Tweet)

These descriptions are my own impressions, at this moment in time. I fully realize that they may not match other people’s experiences. I wasn’t carefully cupping this coffee nor was I trying to calibrate my descriptors with what would be expected. I was pulling a Gary V: I was simply saying what I got from the drink in front of me, with as few preset expectations as possible. It’s all part of my attitude toward hedonistic tasting (e.g. in my tasting notes about Cuvée Coffee Roasters’ Sumatra beans as Brikka).

Which wraps it up for my tweets about Myriade. Through Twitter’s search, I notice that James Golick also went to Myriade today. I don’t know Golick but I notice that he has also blogged his Myriade experience, along with Daniel Haran. Haven’t read their posts (actually, a single post forked on two blogs) but glancing at the text, it sounds like the three of us have a fair bit in common.

I should also say that Myriade has an impressive selection of high-quality teas and that I really enjoyed their Sencha when I’ve had the opportunity to try it (in a private tasting) a few days ago. I kept thinking about those very tasty baby clams that my then-wife had brought back from New Brunswick, a few years ago. The tea was still subtle and I’m assuming other people would not pick up this flavour nearly as strongly as I did (if at all). But I enjoyed those clams so much (and for such a long time) that my experience of that tea was enhanced through my prior sensory experiences.

Keeping with my RERO resolution, this is probably as long as I should make this post.

L'intellectuel s'assume

Le personnage de l’intellectuel(le) mérite bien son petit billet. D’autant que son identité est venue se loger à plusieurs reprises dans ma vie, ces derniers temps.

(Pour simplifier, et par référence à un contexte universaliste, j’utiliserai le terme «intellectuel» au masculin comme s’il était neutre.)

Oui, bien entendu, je suis moi-même un intellectuel et je m’assume en tant que tel. D’ailleurs, j’ai d’abord pensé intituler ce billet «Confessions d’un intellectuel solidaire» ou quelque-chose du genre. Mais la formule «Confessions d’un <nom><adjectif>» est déjà assez fréquente, sur ce blogue. Et je ne pense pas seulement de façon introspective à ce personnage.

D’ailleurs, c’est en lisant certains trucs au sujet de la fameuse Affaire Dreyfus que m’est venue l’idée d’écrire un billet sur la notion d’«intellectuel». Il s’avère que l’adoption du terme «intellectuel» pour désigner une certaine catégorie d’individu puisse dater de la France de la fin du XIXè siècle, y compris dans son usage anglais. Cette période historique m’a fortement influencé, surtout par la lecture de divers écrivains français de l’époque. Mais c’est moins par désir de reconstituer une réalité historique que je me mets à parler d’intellectuel que par intérêt pour la construction de personnages sociaux, quels qu’ils soient. Penser au fait que l’intellectuel est construit me permet de remettre en contexte social un ensemble de réalités qui m’apparaissent intéressantes. Surtout qu’elles peuvent facilement être liées à la «culture geek» qui m’intéresse tant, en plus de me toucher directement.

Évidemment, ce n’est pas la première fois que l’intellectuel comme personnage se retrouve sur ce blogue. Mais le contexte semblait particulièrement approprié, aujourd’hui.

Faut dire que je suis allé à un petit brunch avec des amis du primaire. Ça ne surprendra personne de savoir que ces amis me considéraient déjà comme un intellectuel à l’époque. Pas qu’ils aient utilisé le terme. Mais l’étiquette était là. Sauf que, contrairement à ce que j’ai ressenti il y a près de trente ans, cette étiquette n’était pas la base d’un rejet.

D’ailleurs, je pense souvent à la théorie de l’étiquetage. Elle était même présente dans un cours de sociologie que j’enseignais l’été dernier. Pour simplifier: les étiquettes qui nous sont collées ont des implications durables dans nos agissements sociaux. Ou, pour citer Howie Becker selon un dictionnaire suisse:

Le comportement déviant est ce que les gens étiquettent comme tel ; le déviant est celui à qui on a réussi à coller cette étiquette

(Évidemment, j’étends la notion d’étiquetage hors de la déviance au sens strict.)

Dans ce contexte, le comportement d’intellectuel est celui qui est étiquetté comme tel. L’intellectuel est celui à qui on a réussi à coller cette étiquette.

Version personnelle (que j’ai même eu l’occasion d’exposer à un ami du primaire): je me comporte en fonction de l’étiquette d’intellectuel qui a été posée sur moi, dès le jeune âge. Pas que cette étiquette est abusive: elle colle parce qu’elle trouve une surface qui s’y prête. Mais le personnage de l’intellectuel n’est pas naturel, universel, atemporel ou dénué d’ambiguïté.

Parlant d’ambiguïté, faudrait penser à le définir, cet intellectuel.

Selon Wikipedia:

Un intellectuel est une personne qui, du fait de sa position sociale, dispose d’une forme d’autorité et s’engage dans la sphère publique pour défendre des valeurs.

Pas mal. C’est un peu la base de mon premier billet sur les intellectuels. L’engagement public prend diverses formes et on comprend le lien avec l’Affaire Dreyfus.

Mais les usages communs du terme (et d’«intellectualisme» et “intellectualism“) semblent aller dans diverses autres directions. D’abord, la notion d’une intelligence «supérieure» (que les cognitivistes relativisent si bien mais qui semble consensuelle, socialement). Cette perception de l’intelligence est liée à une forme d’élitisme, l’intellectuel fait partie d’une élite particulière et exclue parfois ceux qui n’en font pas partie. Puis il y a la notion de «rationalité», l’intellectuel conçu comme étant «loin de ses émotions». Ou la maladresse et le manque d’aptitudes manuelles, le terme «intellectuel» alors utilisé pour exprimer un certain mépris. Pour aller plus loin, on peut même dire que le fait de souscrire à un certain dualisme «corps/esprit» est souvent teinté d’«intellectualisme».

Ces dénotations et connotations me semblent toutes appropriées pour décrire un type précis d’intellectuel: le «geek» (j’aime bien «geekette» pour le féminin; il y a relativement peu de femmes geeks). Le personnage du geek est une part important du stéréotype contemporain lié à l’intellectuel. Contrairement au «nerd» des années 1980, le geek a désormais une place de choix au sein de la culture populaire. Et la réhabilitation du geek constitue un mouvement contraire à une vague d’anti-intellectualisme très patente aux États-Unis et dans d’autres sociétés post-industrielles.

Penser au geek en tant qu’intellectuel permet de situer le personnage dans son contexte social. D’un point de vue professionnel, le geek typique est souvent ingénieur, informatien ou scientifique. Le contexte scolaire a souvent accordé beaucoup d’importance aux notes qu’il obtenait. Il est peut-être très apte à entreprendre diverses activités manuelles, il peut même «travailler de ses mains autant que de sa tête», mais son intellect demeure valorisé. C’est «un cerveau», un “brainiac”. Pas que son «niveau d’intelligence» est nécessairement plus élevé que la moyenne, mais le type particulier d’intelligence qui le caractérise correspond largement à l’idée qu’on se fait généralement du «quotient intellectuel»: capacité d’abstraction, sens logique, rapidité à résoudre des équations ou à se remémorer une information, minutie…

Pour revenir à la construction sociale du personnage de l’intellectuel. Malgré certaines transformations au cours du dernier siècle, l’intellectuel conserve un statut social particulier. Dans un modèle d’économie politique (à la fois dans sa version capitaliste que socialiste), l’intellectuel fait partie d’une espèce de classe sociale avec ses caractéristiques particulières. C’est un type de «col blanc» qui ne fait pas un travail très routinier. C’est aussi l’individu qui bénéficie du privilège lié à l’éducation post-secondaire dans les sociétés post-industrielles. C’est celui qui a le loisir de lire et de parfaire son apprentissage. C’est le public-cible de «La Culture», au sens raffiné du terme. C’est peut-être même un snob, un personnage hautain, l’opposé du «vrai monde».

Et c’est là que le mode introspectif me fait réagir: je suis peut-être un intellectuel, mais je suis pas snob. Si je suis «anti-» quoi que ce soit, c’est anti-snob. Et je ne considère pas l’intellectuel comme plus intelligent qu’un autre. Je considère surtout l’intellectuel comme une création des sociétés post-industrielles, basées sur la division pointue du travail social. Même que, ce snobisme, c’est ce qui me dérange le plus du fait d’être intellectuel. C’est probablement pour ça que, même si je m’assume comme intellectuel, je tente souvent d’effacer cette étiquette. «Je suis un intellectuel mais je suis aussi un bon gars.»

Dans mon cas, le fait d’être considéré comme un intellectuel a beaucoup de lien avec mon éloquence perçue. On m’a toujours considéré comme éloquent. Enfant, déjà, je «parlais bien». Du moins, c’est ce qu’on a dit de moi (pas plus tard qu’aujourd’hui). Bon, d’accord, comme l’art oratoire a toujours été valorisé dans ma famille, j’ai probablement été porté à m’amuser avec le verbe. Aussi, je lisais déjà beaucoup, enfant. Et j’écrivais: à l’âge de dix ans, je tapais à la dactylo un petit texte au sujet de la perfection (qui semble logiquement impossible puisqu’elle est une absence de défaut). Et j’avais l’occasion de m’exprimer. Auprès d’adultes, surtout.

D’ailleurs, c’est probablement un point très important. Tout jeune, j’avais des rapports assez étroits avec plusieurs adultes (des amis de mes parents, surtout). J’étais souvent le seul enfant parmi de nombreux adultes. Plusieurs d’entre eux étaient profs (comme mon père). On m’écoutait avec intérêt. Dans une certaine mesure, j’étais presque pavané comme un animal de cirque qui pouvait discourir sur tout et sur rien. Mon père a souvent parlé de tout ça comme d’un problème fondamental. Peut-être par extension, mon étiquette d’intellectuel était perçue comme un problème. Fondamental.

Je considère aujourd’hui que je me suis bien développé. Je suis ce que j’ai toujours voulu être et je peux parfois faire ce que j’ai toujours voulu faire. Je devrais pas avoir honte.

D’être un intellectuel.

Taste and Judgement (Draft)

This post isn’t ready to be written. So this is just a placeholder. But, given my RERO mantra, I guess I should still publish it as a “placeholder” of sorts.

I recently served as judge in the Canadian Barista Championship (CBC), here in Montreal. That championship is the national competition pitting against one another baristas (espresso artists) from regional competitions. Rules and regulations (PDF) for this championship closely follow those set by the World Barista Championship (WBC).

Participating in this event, I got to think about taste, evaluation, (inter)subjectivity, coffee, Montreal’s culinary scene, and food culture generally.

Some videos from the event are available, through the event organizer’s uStream channel.

The event was blogged by Anthony Benda. Despite being busy preparing for his café’s grand opening, Anthony managed to give an excellent performance during the championship, especially on the first day. I wasn’t on the panel of judge for his performance but I have reason to believe that Anthony’s performance was really quite good.

I also got to think about my own involvement in such events.

Being a judge at barista championships is still somewhat new to me. I judged during the Eastern regional championship, back in June, and this was my first national championship. I still think that the “barista judge” label fits and I did mention it on occasion, with lots of disclaimers. Most judges at that event were coffee professionals of one type or the other (from equipment distributors to barista champions). My impression is that, despite my limited experience and my somewhat indirect connections to the coffee industry, I was accepted as a peer by other judges.

More importantly, I sincerely think that the judging at this competition was exceedingly fair. My strong perception is that we achieved a high degree of consistency in our judging, both at an individual level and through the group. A large part of what I perceive to be a resounding success comes from the work of WBC’s Brent Fortune, who trained and calibrated the judging team.

One thing I kept thinking about was how different barista judging is from judging homebrewed beer. I haven’t acted as a homebrew judge myself but many of my friends have and I proctored an exam for the Beer Judge Certification Program (BJCP). Put simply, homebrew competitions are stricter than barista championships. And I mean this to imply that BJCP competitions are in some ways less reasonable than barista championships, though the WBC could learn a thing or two from the BJCP.

Barista championships are based on fairness and impartiality. Though it’s mentioned on occasion, “objectivity” isn’t the core principle in judging. Not emphasizing “objectivity” allows for a sensible approach to tasting since, after all, tasting is as subjective as any other form of sensory perception. In other words, acknowledging the subjective nature of tasting brings realism to WBC-style competitions.

The reason I emphasize the “subjectivity” issue is that homebrewing competitions seem to exist in a radically different world, a world in which “objectivity” is an absolute goal. Though the BJCP style guidelines may allow for some room for variation in judging beer aroma, appearance, flavour, and mouthfeel, the main approach is object-based and a direct connection between a judge’s experience and precise measurements of the beer’s characteristics is assumed. Several homebrew judges do use the term “objective” fairly frequently and “subjectivity” is a “bad word” in many of the homebrew circles which give a lot of weight to those homebrew competitions.

One thing I find fascinating about this distinction between WBC and BJCP competitions is that, to some extent, the coffee professionals are less, well, “anal” than the homebrewers. The level of technical expertise may be as high in both domains. The drinks themselves are comparable on many levels, including in terms of chemical complexity. But the approaches taken to evaluate those drinks are radically different.

I also got to think about the connections (actual and potential) between Montreal’s strong beer scene and its renascent coffee scene. It certainly was fun to have beers at Benelux with a number of participants in the Canadian Barista Championship, including coffee writer Felipe Gonzalez. Myriade’s grand opening, on Monday, will likely serve as an opportunity for me to discuss Montreal’s coffee scene in more depth.

Of course, any of this could be the start of a long monologue on my part. But it’s probably better if I leave this post as it is, to serve as a placeholder for further discussion of taste, evaluation, subjectivity, coffee scenes

Confessions of a Blogwriter

A couple of days ago, a friend (and fellow blogger) asked me about the motivation behind my recent intello-bullying post. This friend assumed that a major event had triggered this type of rant. Got me thinking about the way I prepare blogposts. And I want to follow up on that bullying post. So I thought I’d combine the two. Especially since metablogging isn’t by itself that much fun. But it’s not working.

So I’ll just write about blog writing.

 

See, the way I write may be more idiosyncratic than I assume it is. In general, I tend to write very quickly, after having let something simmer for a while. On this, here, my main blog, I tend to post when I have something which smells like it’s ready for some kind of public consumption. Sometimes, I do blog quickly, right after having noticed some “story” which is “unfolding.” But my tendency is to leave things on the back burner. I did write quite a few drafts, several of which aren’t published yet. But my habit, these days, is to keep these drafts as headnotes, instead of cluttering my WordPress.com dashboard.

Though this all sounds like a contradiction to my RERO mantra, I hear it as a corrolary of RERO. Or, at least, a method which allows me to make my RERO goal more realistic.

In my head, it all makes sense. Feel free to ask if it sounds really unclear.

In general, I like to use posts to connect a few things together. One reason is that connecting issues is “the way I roll,” in my life in general. Another is that it tends to enable me to take a step back from a given issue. Plus, it’s more efficient for me to put different things in a single post than writing different posts, one after the other. What’s more, microblogging (on Identi.ca and Twitter, especially) has taken over the “immediate blogging” and “compulsive writing” functions I would occasionally assign to my blog. Facebook allows me to do all sorts of other things that people do on blogs, like sharing cool videos and commenting on news items.

Which makes my blogging activities more “compartmentalized” and more limited.

 

So… How do I write blogposts?

Well, I typically start from a vague idea, floating in my head. Most of the time, I leave that vague idea there, in my head. If I think I can write a full blogpost right away, from that idea, meaning that I seem to have enough time to do so, I may blog right away. But, again, microblogging has taken that space in my life, over the past several months. So most of my blogposts are written after some of the main ideas had been “sitting in my brain” for a while. These vague ideas are sometimes related to specific things I’ve heard or read. Even when it’s the case, those vague ideas take part in a broader context which include ongoing reflections or discussions, in my life. Some ideas come back at different points in my life, like the social butterfly effect about which I first thought in 2005 and am now toying with, on a fairly regular basis. Other ideas are more situated in a time period. The latter is especially clear with reflections which happen while I teach.

So I get all sorts of vague ideas in my head. I keep them on several backburners. I let them influence one another. I may mention one or two of those ideas in conversations I have offline or online.

Occasionally, I may take a few notes about those vague ideas. I tend to take a lot of notes. About anything. From just about anywhere. And stashed in about any corner of my digital life. On my Gmail account, as draft blogposts, as Notes on my iPod touch, etc. I’ve put aside a number of note-taking methods, over the years. Some I might take up again, others which have been completely replaced. For instance, my iPod touch has completely replaced the PalmOS PDAs I had been using for about ten years. But it’s possible that I might resume my use of Evernote, OneNote, or Windows Live Writer. I still wish I had a good outliner. Little known fact about me: I’m an outliner freak. Evernote doesn’t do outlining and OneNote doesn’t really cut it either. For course material, I’ve resorted to outline mode in PowerPoint (or, more recently, OpenOffice Impress).

Still, on most occasions related to blogging, I keep headnotes. In a way, it enables me to sort out the most important issues about which I want to blog. If something really sticks in my head, “there might be something, there.” IOW, I use forgetting (and absent-mindedness) as a time-management strategy. Not sure Merlin Mann would aprove of my method, but I’m quite happy with it.

At some point in the process, I decide which “code” I’ll use in writing: language, main register, tone, and style. This decision is sometimes conscious, especially when I decide to write something in French. But code selection is also where I take decisions without even noticing. Sometimes, the object imposes the code. Or maybe I’m just in a mood to use a specific tone, as has happened on a few occasions when I felt a bit ranty or snarky. And I do eventually notice the implications of my choice of code. But it’s funny to realize how “unconscious” this process can be.

Once I’m ready to blog, I usually start from some kind of webpage, especially if there’s another blogpost available. Sometimes, it might be one of my own blogposts (typically, because the ideas behind my new post take part in an ongoing reflection of mine). Or it can be some content that I find after having thought of something I want to blog. In other words, I often go and look for a page which will serve as the starting point in my actual writing session. Though it may sound as if I’m blogging another blog entry, I’m frequently using another blogpost as a “pretext,” in multiple senses of that word. One reason I do this is that I like pings and trackbacks. I’m not that concerned about these. Some trackbacks don’t seem to work and I’m not even trying to rectify the situation. I just like to use trackbacks whenever I can. Though I do wish that some of those trackbacks may help get the attention of someone, it’s mostly about striking a conversation or even about sustaining a relationship. I’ve made a few friends through trackbacks and there’s nothing a social butterfly like me enjoys more, from blogging, than making new friends.

So, when I have a relevant webpage in front of me, I usually click on a bookmarklet which allows me to start a new blogpost with the full link (URL plus title) and, sometimes, a quote from that webpage.

(Bookmarklets are gravely underrated, IMHO. Probably because they’re too simple. But they’re, really, very convenient. Sometimes, I use them repeatedly to collect full links from multiple pages to which I want to link a post I’m writing. I know there are other methods but this one makes sense in my workflow.)

Once I have a blank page with a convenient link, I just start typing. More often than not, I’ve already prepared some complete sentences that I wanted to use in that post. In some cases, I even have a fairly detailed outline of what I want to write. In those cases when I do have a structure in mind, I usually end up cutting a lot off. Much of that extra content might simply become part of other activities of mine. I do the same thing when I prepare lesson plans for a course I teach, so it’s a rather well-ingrained habit.

As I type, I refer back to  some of my headnotes. This is actually when forgetting connects with RERO. If I have a difficult time retrieving some of the points I wanted to blog, I assume that they weren’t that essential or that I’ll have other occasions to use them in the future. So it allows me to restrain my blogging session a bit. This may sound a bit counterintuitive, but not keeping a clear plan often helps me to not devolve too much time to writing.

While I write, I often look for other links to include (including to acronyms I use), I check some things online, and I look for the right word. I never agonize on any of this but it can take a significant amount of time. Still, I write pretty painlessly and rather quickly. I’d say my average is probably around a thousand to 1500 words or more an hour, including lookups and link additions. I never really checked, but it sounds about right for most unproblematic writing. Maybe it’s not so quick when compared to others, but anecdotal evidence seems to show that a number of people I know who write a fair deal (without being practicing journalists) take more time to write.

As is surely very obvious, I allow myself to go on many tangents, as I type. In my blogging activities, most of these tangents are kept in the final version of my blogpost. In other types of writing, especially formal writing or any type of writing with high stakes (say, a very diplomatic message written as a way to help solve a tricky issue), I can leave very significant sections out of the finished piece of writing. In fact, I’ve written fairly long messages to replace them with a single sentence. IOW, I do censor myself outside of blogging. But I mainly do so after having written.

Though my mind doesn’t really work in linear ways, my blog writing does tend to be fairly linear. I may go back and forth between paragraphs but, as I write, I tend to go pretty sequentially from one thought to the next. OTOH, I never worry about sequence as I write anything. I think about the text as a whole, about the detail of what I’m writing, but I pay relatively little attention to how it flows from one paragraph to the next. What’s funny is that this might be the part of my writing which has changed the msot, with experience. I used to be more concerned with finding the most appropriate way to connect paragraphs or sentences within a paragraph. After having been told that, at least when writing in English, I should use less connecting words, I learnt to not worry as much. I’m sure I still use way too many connecting words than is deemed appropriate by native speakers (I also use too many parentheses, too many quotes, too many adverbs, too many words…). But I’m “choosing my fights.”

Once I’m done with a draft of the main text, I go through the whole thing again. Sometimes, I edit very little. With shorter texts, especially texts with very low stakes, I don’t even copyedit. With blogposts on this blog, my second pass through the text is usually the time I use for listing categories and tags (yes, those things I make way too extended a use of). That second pass is also the one during which I switch the order of some paragraphs, look a bit more at the structure, etc. In more formal writing, this would also be the time at which I settle on some headers. When I use an outliner, the process is mostly one of replacing a keyword by some kind of title.

I sometimes do a third pass, especially if I’ve added significant amounts of text during the second pass or if the text is a bit tricky in its potential consequences. In more formal writing, the second pass is merely about structure, the third pass is more about proofreading/copy-editing, and I may go through the text a few more times afterwards. In some cases (outside of blogging), I do occasionally start over. Sometimes, starting over is even a kind of cathartic experience. But my writing habits have stabilized enough at this point that my subsequent passes through a text tend not to change that text so much.

In blogging, I even “push  the envelope” in terms of posting something even when it’s not to my liking. I often get an alea jacta es moment and I occasionally tell myself «les jeux sont faits, rien ne va plus».

In the case of this specific blogpost, I’ve pretty much decided not to edit at all. I’ll add tags and categories and I’ll press publish.

RERO!!!!

Bilingual Ottawa bilingue

Too bad I don’t have a camera. This sign, seen in front of a building at 240 Catherine St. in Ottawa, would have been a good target for the Flickr treatment. (Emphasis mine: it should be «citoyenneté», not “citozennete.”)

Dommage que j’aie pas d’appareil photo parce que cette affiche, vue au 240 rue Catherine à Ottawa, aurait mérité le traitement Flickr. (Italiques ajoutées.)

LINC/CLIC
Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Citozennete et Immigration Canada
Infocentre du Nouvel Arrivant
Newcomer Information Centre
YMCA – YWCA

Intello-Bullying

A topic which I’ll revisit, to be sure. But while I’m at it…
I tend to react rather strongly to a behaviour which I consider the intellectual equivalent of schoolyard bullying.
Notice that I don’t claim to be above this kind of behaviour. I’m not. In fact, one reason for my blogging this is that I have given some thought to my typical anti-bullying reaction. Not that I feel bad about it. But I do wonder if it might not be a good idea to adopt a variety of mechanisms to respond to bullying, in conjunction with my more “gut response” knee-jerk reactions and habits.
Notice also that i’m not describing individual bullies. I’m not complaining about persons. I’m thinking about behaviour. Granted, certain behaviours are typically associated with certain people and bullying is no exception. But instead of blaming, I’d like to assess, at least as a step in a given direction. What can I do? I’m an ethnographer.
Like schoolyardb bullying, intello-bullying is based on a perceived strength used to exploit and/or harm those who perceived as weaker. Like physical strength, the perception of “intellectual strength” on which intello-bullying is based needs not have any objective validity. We’re in subjectivity territory, here. And subjects perceive in patterned but often obscure ways. Those who think of themselves as “strong” in intellectual as well as physical senses, are sometimes the people who are insecure as to their overall strengths and weaknesses.
Unlike schoolyard bullying, intello-bullying can be, and often is, originated by otherwise reasonably mature people. In fact, some of the most agressive intello-bullying comes from well-respected “career intellectuals” who “should know better.” Come to think of it, this type of bullying is probably the one I personally find the most problematic. But, again, I’m not talking about bullies. I’m not describing people. I’m talking about behaviour. And implications if behaviour.
My personal reactions may come from remnants of my impostor syndrome. Or maybe they come from a non-exclusive sense of self-worth that I found lying around in my life, as I was getting my happiness back. As much I try, I can’t help but feel that intello-bullying is a sign of intellectual self-absorption, which eventually link to weakness. Sorry, folks, but it seems to me that if you feel the need, even temporarily, to impose your intellectual strength on those you perceive as intellectually weak, I’ll assume you may “have issues to solve.” in fact, I react the same way when I perceive my own behaviour as tantamount to bullying. It’s the behaviour I have issues with. Not the person.
And this is the basis of my knee-jerks: when I witness bullying, I turn into a bully’s bully. Yeah, pretty dangerous. And quite unexpected for a lifelong pacifist like yours truly. But, at least I can talk and think about it. Unapologetically.
You know, this isn’t something I started doing yesterday. In fact, it may be part of a long-standing mission of mine. Half-implicit at first. Currently “assumed,” assessed, acknowledged. Accepted.
Before you blame me for the appearance of an “avenger complex” in this description, please give some more thought to bullying in general. My hunch is that many of you will admit that you value the existence of anti-bullies in schoolyards or in other contexts. You may prefer it if cases of bullying are solved through other means (sanction by school officials or by parents, creation of safe zones…). But I’d be somewhat surprised if your thoughts about anti-bullying prevention left no room for non-violent but strength-based control by peers. If it is the case, I’d be very interested in your comments on the issue. After all, I may be victim of some idiosyncratic notion of justice which you find inappropriate. I’m always willing to relativize.
Bear in mind that I’m not talking about retaliation. Though it may sound like it, this is no “eye for an eye” rule. Nor is it “present the left cheek.” it’s more like crowd control. Or this form of “non-abusive” technique used by occupational therapists and others while helping patients/clients who are “disorganizing.” Basically, I’m talking about responding to (intello-)bullying with calm but some strength being asserted. In the case of “fighting with words,” in my case, it may sound smug and even a bit dismissive. But it’s a localized smugness which I have a hard time finding unhealthy.
In a sense, I hope I’m talking about “taking the high road.” With a bit of self-centredness which has altruistic goals. “”I’ll act as if I were stronger than you, because you used your perceived strength to dominate somebody else. I don’t have anything against you but I feel you should be put in your place. Don’t make me go to the next step through which I can make you weep.”
At this point, I’m thinking martial arts. I don’t practise any martial art but, as an outsider, I get the impression this thinking goes well with some martial arts. Maybe judo, which allegedly relies on using your opponent’s strength. Or Tae Kwon Do, which always sounded “assertive yet peaceful” when described by practitioners.
The corrolary of all this is my attitude toward those who perceive themselves as weak. I have this strong tendency to want them to feel stronger. Both out of this idiosyncratic atttude toward justice and because of my compulsive empathy. So, when someone says something like “I’m not that smart” or “I don’t have anything to contribute,” I switch to the “nurturing mode” that I may occasionally use in class or with children. I mean not to patronize, though it probably sounds paternalistic to outside observers. It’s just a reaction I have. I don’t even think its consequences are that negative in most contexts.
Academic contexts are full of cases of intello-bullying. Classrooms, conferences, outings… Put a group of academics in a room and unless there’s a strong sense of community (Turner would say “communitas”), intello-bullying is likely to occur. At the very least, you may witness posturing, which I consider a mild form of bullying. It can be as subtle as a tricky question ask to someone who is unlikely to provide a face-saving answer and it can be as aggressive as questioning someone’s inteligence directly or claiming to have gone much beyond what somebody else has said.
In my mind, the most extreme context for this type of bullying is the classroom and it involves a teacher bullying a learner. Bullying between isn’t much better but, as a teacher, I’m even more troubled by the imposong authority structure based on status.

I put “cyber-bullying” as a tag because, in my mind, cyber-bullying (like trolling, flamebaiting and other agressive behaviours online) is a form of intello-bullying. It’s using a perceived “intellectual strength” to dominate. It’s very close to schoolyard bullying but because it may not rely on a display of physical strength, I tend to associate it with mind-based behaviour.
As I think about these issues, I keep thinking of snarky comments. Contrary to physical attacks, snarks necessitate a certain state of mind to be effective. They need to tap on some insecurity, some self-perceived weakness in the victim. But they can be quite dangerous in the right context.
As I write this, I think about my own snarky comments. Typically, they either come after some escalation or they will be as indefinite as possible. But they can be extremely insulting if they’re internalized by some people.
Two come from a fairly known tease/snark. Namely

If you’re so smart, why ain’t you rich?

(With several variants.)

I can provide several satisfactory answers to what is ostensibly a question. But, as much as I try, I can’t relate to the sentiment behind this rhetorical utterance, regardless of immediate context (but regardful of the broader social context). This may have to do with the fact that “getting rich” really isn’t my goal in life. Not only do I agree with the statement that “money can’t buy happiness” and do I care more about happiness than more easily measurable forms of success, but my high empathy levels do include a concept of egalitarianism and solidarity which makes this emphasis on wealth sound counter-productive.

Probably because of my personal reactions to that snark, I have created at least two counter-snarks. My latest one, and the one which may best represent my perspective, is the following:

If you’re so smart, why ain’t you happy?

With direct reference to the original “wealth and intelligence” snark, I wish to bring attention to what I perceive to be a more appropriate goal in life (because it’s my own goal): pursuit of happiness. What I like about this “rhetorical question” is that it’s fairly ambiguous yet has some of the same effects as the “don’t think about pink elephants” illocutionary act. As a rhetorical question, it needs not be face-threatening. Because the “why aren’t you happy?” question can stand on its own, the intelligence premise “dangles.” And, more importantly, it represents one of my responses to what I perceive as a tendency (or attitude and “phase”) associating happiness with lack of intelligence. The whole “ignorance is bliss” and «imbécile heureux» perspective. Voltaire’s Candide and (failed) attempts to discredit Rousseau. Uses of “touchy-feely” and “warm and fuzzy” as insults. In short, the very attitude which makes most effectively tricks out intellectuals in the “pursuit of happiness.”

I posted my own snarky comment on micro-blogs and other social networks. A friend replied rather negatively. Though I can understand my friend’s issues with my snark, I also care rather deeply about delinking intelligence and depression.

A previous snark of mine was much more insulting. In fact, I would never ever use it with any individual, because I abhor insulting others. Especially about their intelligence. But it does sound to me like an efficient way to unpack the original snark. Pretty obvious and rather “nasty”:

If you’re so rich, why ain’t you smart?

Again, I wouldn’t utter this to anyone. I did post it through social media. But, like the abovementioned snark on happiness, it wasn’t aimed at any specific person. Though I find it overly insulting, I do like its “counterstrike” power in witticism wars.

As announced through the “placeholder” tag and in the prefacing statement (or disclaimer), this post is but a draft. I’ll revisit this whole issue on several occasions and it’s probably better that I leave this post alone. Most of it was written while riding the bus from Ottawa to Montreal (through the WordPress editor available on the App Store). Though I’ve added a few things which weren’t in this post when I arrived in Montreal (e.g., a link to NAPPI training), I should probably leave this as a “bus ride post.”

I won’t even proofread this post.

RERO!

Inaccessible American Anthropology

Alex Golub describes in positive terms the recent announcement, by the main anthropological association in the United States (AAA), that some older articles from a newsletter (AN) and an academic journal (AA) will not require a paid subscription to be downloaded directly.

via Savage Minds: Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog » AAA ‘goes OA’: The emphasis should be on ‘first step’.

via AAA ‘goes OA’: The emphasis should be on ‘first step’.

Some other links:

It’s probably just a knee-jerk reaction on my part but I just don’t see this as a step in the right direction. Sorry.

I can’t help but think that it’s a way to avoid discussions about actual Open Access (OA), not a way to address concerns of the broadest community over the problems related to access to scholarly material. In a discipline which is supposed to care about widespread access, shouldn’t such concerns be taken into careful consideration?

It may sound like a personal preference but I tend to give more credit to pilot projects and other time-limited offers from publishers. As an easy example, the current program advertised by Sage for the month of October.
Some fellow OA enthusiasts and activists have railed against the “trial period” attempts from major publishers (including previous “free access” months by Sage). Their reactions sounded similar to what I’m trying to say about the AAA “OA” plan. But I see those “limited-time free access offers” as more beneficial in an OA logic than the AAA’s “too little, too late” campaign.
One reason I find those publisher offers useful is that these periods during which access to scholarship is made easier usually cover the publisher’s whole database, which makes the benefit of OA much more obvious than having selected issues of selected publications offered at no cost on an association’s semi-obscure website. Someone who’s working on a specific topic could use these trial periods to simply accumulate a lot of material to read later (using Zotero or other tools to keep track of this massive amount of literature). It’s the academic equivalent of binging and it sounds a bit absurd, but it can work (I’ve done this myself, a few years ago; really enjoyed it).
Then, because these major publishers cover several disciplines, those periods during which one can “browse and download at will” really benefit from anthropology’s position at the junction of several disciplines.
There’s an added benefit which is directly in favour of OA: once the trial period is over, individual readers get to notice how sad the current situation of proprietary access really is.

When so much important material suddenly becomes out of reach, people tend to react. And that reaction has some  “marketing” dimensions which are completely absent from the AAA’s scheme. And I’m talking about marketing which would be potentially beneficial to thinking about broad access outside of the tiny box of whether or not university libraries need to pay subscription fees.

To use an awkward analogy… If subscriptions to academic journals were following the same business model as cable or satellite TV providers, these “free access” periods would help convince individual readers of academic journals to subscribe to some kind of monthly plan. A few people who already have site licenses might even elect to subscribe to an individual plan if there’s an added value (say, relevant articles are “pushed” directly to the user when they become available, a step in convenience above the “alerts” some publishers send). But such a plan would be much more valuable to the large number of people who currently don’t have the privilege of having a full and active account in a large university’s library system. This group includes professional academics outside of the academic mainstream as well as non-academics who can greatly benefit from access to academic literature. My hunch is that the number of these non-academics who would like to engage in academic reading is currently growing, partly because of the growing number of university degrees awarded around the world. But even if that number remains stable, this market is currently untapped.
(These kinds of library privileges are really nothing to sneeze at. I’ve heard people use them as one of the most important things to come with a university position. At the same degree of importance if not more than office space. And I find little reason for these privileges to be the prerogative of professional academics at large institutions.)

Of course, I’d much rather have full OA than a “cable TV plan for academia.” But, in a skewed way, the “cable TV” model is closer to true OA spirit than the AAA’s scheme.
Full OA remains a dream but I personally think that this dream can come true during my lifetime (I’m still young). In some contexts, full OA could take the form of publicly-funded access. Something similar to this neat invention that people in the United States call “the public library.” In other contexts, the better-known OA plans (including author-paid) may sound more convincing to people (less “socializing” than the public library concept). And I’m sure some people could devise other schemes which would alleviate access problems to academic texts while maintaining financial viability for at least some of the institutions involved (institutions which, it should be noted, provide very little if any money for such essential academic activities as scholarship and teaching).

So, I perceive those time-limited “free access” offers as an opportunity to get people thinking about OA. And I can’t help but think that the AAA’s press release is more about ending than about opening the discussion on access.
As others have pointed out, these same articles (and a lot more AAA content) are already available on JSTOR.  Now, JSTOR doesn’t have a “send PDF to a friend” button. Nor does it have a specific statement making it clear sending those article files to other people can be perfectly legitimate. (They do talk about U.S. fair use in their Terms and Conditions text but legalese is a bit hard to read for non-native speakers of the legal language). Still, if you think about access in broad terms, JSTOR in general is “accessible” enough that, given a JSTOR-subscribing institution nearby (and African universities have had sponsored licenses), someone could say that the level of access afforded these articles is already pretty decent.
The added benefit of the AAA’s scheme over the current availability on JSTOR (and elsewhere) will need to be assessed carefully. Given the age of these texts, the plan will probably have very limited impact on how frequently these articles are cited (an important OA benefit). Because AnthroSource is AAA-specific, the plan will likely have very limited impact on the visibility of the discipline (another OA benefit). Because of the way AnthroSource is set up, the plan will likely have limited impact in terms of convenience (a minor OA benefit which shouldn’t be forgotten). Unless Google Scholar changes the way it links to those articles, the AAA’s “OA” articles might not be that much easier to find than the other articles. Because only a very limited portion of AAA publications will be covered by the plan, it will probably be confusing to the casual user (“Is it American Ethnologist which is available free of charge? What years, again?”).

Basically, the “OA” plan might only be noticeable to professional academic anthropologists, most of whom already have full AnthroSource access. As we say in French, «un coup d’épée dans l’eau».

So, sorry, but I have no idea why this scheme would be a step in the direction of improved access to anthropological scholarship. My mind can be changed, with thoughtful arguments. It’s just that don’t “get” it at this point.

Johannes Fabian on Blogs

via Johannes Fabian conference at Concordia « another anthro blog.

Congrats to Concordia anthroblogger (and anthroblogger researcher) Owen Wiltshire for getting Johannes Fabian to comment on his blog entry. Sounds like Fabian has a lot in common with those of us who push blogging, informal writing, and Open Access.

Not sure Fabian perceives public ethnography in the same light as academic ethnography, but he’s clearly interested in opening up dialogue beyond the strict limits of academic departments.

Éloge du nombrilisme

Bon, «éloge» c’est un peu fort. Pas vraiment question ici de faire l’apologie de l’égocentrisme, de l’égoïsme ou de l’insensibilité. Mais plusieurs circonstances m’ont mené à penser aux avantages d’une certaine «charité bien ordonnée» qui accorde une certaine place à la compartimentalisation entre soi et l’Autre.

Trame sonore (écouter ici), Actualités chantées par Diane Dufresne.

On n’est pas v’nus au monde pour se r’garder l’nombril mais quand i’ tombe des bombes, faut ben s’mettre à l’abril.

Oui, je sais, la chanson est très ironique. Loin de moi l’idée de m’ensevelir la tête sous le sable. Mais l’idée de base n’est pas si absurde qu’elle n’y paraît, même pour ceux parmi nous dotés (ou victimes) d’une «conscience sociale» et d’une empathie très fortes.

Il est de bon ton, dans certains milieux, de se préoccuper du monde. De s’attrister du sort de son prochain. Surtout si ce prochain est bien loin de nous. Dans le milieu académique, et plus particulièrement en science sociale, cette attention portée aux problèmes vécus par les autres est parfois poussée à sa limite logique. Plusieurs d’entre nous en conçoivent une vision très négative de l’humanité. Pour un humaniste, ce négativisme ambiant peut sembler inadéquat. «C’est bien beau de porter le poids du monde mais toujours faudrait-il percevoir du monde sa beauté.» Sans oublier que ce n’est généralement pas en se morfondant sur les problèmes de la planète qu’on réussit à les résoudre.

Une partie de la question est liée à la communication et aux médias. De façon sans doute plus efficace qu’à aucun autre moment de l’histoire humaine, nous pouvons désormais recevoir les «mauvaises nouvelles» des quatre coins de la planète. Pas que les médias de masse soient la cause ultime de ce que j’ai tendance à percevoir comme un marasme. Mais un même phénomène social à large échelle englobe à la fois le négativisme primaire de certains milieux et cette tendance qu’ont les journalistes de diffuser l’information la plus déprimante qui soit (liée, selon certains, aux nécessités publicitaires). Sans parler d’un lien causal, on peut décrire une certaine cohérence logique: marasme et journalisme «vont très bien ensemble».

Sans vouloir être trop provocateur, peut-être est-ce ici que se situe la «banalité du mal» décrite par Arendt?

Selon moi, l’attitude positive d’Isabelle Bourgeois et de Planet Positive, tout comme l’orientation vers les solutions chez les Reporters d’espoir sont plus à même de canaliser les changements sociaux en fonction des valeurs et idéaux des gens impliqués que l’optique journalistico-misérabiliste qui veut que «tout va mal jusqu’à preuve du contraire».

Comme c’est souvent le cas, il y a à la fois une part sociale et une part individuelle à prendre en compte dans le rapport qu’on pourrait dire «morbide» entre certains bien-pensants et le «sort du monde». Du point de vue individuel, on se rapproche de la psychologie de la névrose, du moins dans son acception usuelle non-diagnostique. Du point de vue social, on pourrait penser à un certain paternalisme: parmi ceux qui s’inquiètent tant du sort du monde se trouvent sans doute plusieurs «donneurs de leçon» qui croient avoir mieux compris que tous les autres. C’est un point de vue critique que j’ai de la difficulté à ne pas entretenir. Mais il s’agit plus d’une réaction personnelle que d’une analyse solide.

Revenons à nos moutons. Et au nombril, centre d’un certain univers.

Le nombrilisme a-t-il une place? De par mon orientation altrocentrique, j’ai tendance à croire que non. Jusqu’à tout récemment, ma vision personnelle du monde n’accordait que peu de valeur à l’égocentrisme, au retour sur soi. Je tolérais l’égoïsme des autres mais j’étais si intransigeant envers mon propre comportement que je n’osais presque pas «penser à moi». Depuis quelques temps, suite à une démarche très personnelle, j’ai appris à être moins sévère à mon égard et à accepter l’indulgence centrée sur soi-même. Il y a un aspect thérapeutique au fait d’accepter de se faire du bien à soi-même.

Ayant déjà énoncé un thème lié à une chanson, voici quelques paroles d’une autre chanson, tirée d’une comédie musicale des années 1920 et interprétée par plusieurs musiciens de Jazz:

I want to be happy
But I won’t be happy
Till I make you happy too.

J’aime bien cette pièce, en tant que standard de Jazz. Mais en tant que perspective sur le bonheur, ces paroles semblent représenter une vision assez problématique: «je ne serai heureux que si je peux te rendre heureux(se)». Un bonheur aussi conditionnel peut-il mener à une réelle sérénité?

Bon, l’extrême inverse n’est probablement pas plus sensé. Une attitude sereine demande une certaine empathie, voire de la sympathie (du moins, pour ceux parmi nous qui ne sont pas ermites). Mais il doit bien y avoir un équilibre à trouver ou, tout simplement, une attitude qui tient compte tout à la fois du bonheur des autres et de son propre bonheur.

Beaucoup d’autres choses à dire sur le sujet. Entre autres, sur l’orientation-bonheur énoncée comme cure à la crise financière ou sur la compartimentalisation nombriliste dans certains contextes culturels (y compris au Québec). Ce sera pour plus tard. Mon propre petit moi individuel égoïste me fait signe.

😀