The meeting was to take place in the café of the Grand Mosque of Paris, but it is closed for renovations. We then try to enter that of the Galerie de l’Évolution, which turns out to be complicated to access. Frédérique, 51, and Sita, 68, one very verbose, the other more reserved, finally retreat to a brasserie. A green tea – “organic, do you have it?” » – for the first, a verbena for the second. And on the menu: their disagreements. Of the nine questions they were asked, they answered five differently.
For example on the four-day work week. Sita is rather against it. “If we look at the statistics in different countries, we see that the French don’t work much, and that we have a competitiveness problem, explains this retiree, who worked in events and lived in Switzerland, Argentina and Russia. So if we decrease further, we risk making the situation worse. »
Frédérique, consultant in supporting change on ecological transition topics and very committed to these issues, is in favor of reducing working hours. “For me, what is most important is not economic considerations, the major question that should arise is the reality of environmental disruption. So for me, working less, producing less, goes in the right direction. » “Yes, but in the meantime, the economy is a reality”Sita continues. “This economy sends us into the background,” replies Frédérique.
We look at each other, we listen to each other
As transcribed on paper, the exchange may seem frontal. In the reality of the exchange, it is not. It’s even rather gentle. Each of us, stirring our hot drink, looks into each other’s eyes, listens to each other, smiles at each other, takes the time to think about what has just been said before responding, as if already convinced, one and the other. other, of the value of the opposing point of view. Both seem determined to enjoy the moment for what it is: “There are not many occasions in daily life where we talk about our disagreements other than to convince ourselves”summarized Frédérique at the very beginning of the discussion.
This does not prevent the exchange of arguments. Frédérique, who lives in Pantin (Seine-Saint-Denis), is absolutely convinced of the need to reduce car speeds to reduce pollution. Sita, who values the nuance of the debate, thinks that it depends where: “In town, perhaps, on the ring road why not? But on the highway, it seems excessive to me. »“During the citizens’ climate convention, explains Frédérique, itis one of the first proposals that emerged because not only is it very effective – reducing the speed on the motorway by 20 km/h allows emissions to be reduced by 20% – but it is also one of the least restrictive measures because everyone only loses a few minutes. » “In the city, on the other hand, she nuances, it depends on what other phenomena it creates, like traffic jams. »
Sita nods. “Frédérique is very committed, when you listen to her, you learn things”she would say later. She answered yes to the question “Should we tighten access to social benefits for foreigners? “. But, she explains, “I could have answered no, it all depends on the context. There is certainly abuse but not from everyone. »“The term abuse hurts me, replies Frédérique. I volunteer at the Red Cross and I can tell you that the families I see are not abused, they are just trying to survive. »
“It’s true but we need better support, continue Sita. A mayor from the Basque Country explained to me that there were families who were given accommodation in his town and that they were bored, they had no French lessons or training. We can’t keep spending money without looking at how things are going. »“When families ask for asylumagrees Frédérique, At the time of their application, very often, they have neither language courses nor training nor access to employment. I agree, we should provide better support. » Before adding: “See, you answered yes to the question and I didn’t. But in fact when we discuss we tend to agree. »
After an hour and a half of discussion, Sita and Frédérique discussed their disagreements. Without an ounce of animosity. Without trying to find out if the other has changed their mind either. “Most of the time, summarizes Sita, When we talk about things we don’t agree on, it never goes very far. There, the exchange lasted a long time, we were face to face, we took the time to dig in, to listen to each other. It’s more interesting. Children should be taught to debate like this in schools. » “When there is a framework, resumes Frédérique, It’s rare that we argue with each other even when we don’t agree. I am convinced that we should increase this type of exchange because we have lots of difficult decisions to make and if we are no longer able to talk to each other, it will be a bonus for the extremes. »