Read this article published on the Cercle Psy website.

On a collective level, globalization can lead to considerable loneliness, a lack of confidence in the future that can even lead to mass depression, or even forms of paranoia, in the guise of racism for example, in which the other is seen as radically different and dangerous. Generally speaking, it’s important to remember that the problems to which we are currently subjected are mostly mass problems. This is also true of stress in the workplace, although it can be dealt with on an individual level. In this sense, it is reductive to approach these pathologies solely from an individual angle, as if the individual were « out of context ».

All individuals are at risk, insofar as globalization is global! In terms of mental health, risks can be found at both ends of the spectrum: among the poorest and the richest. Some people are socially excluded because of their poverty, their lack of access to culture, their difficulty in finding employment or housing. Others, on the contrary, are excluded by an obligation to excel. In this sense, the individual can be confronted with exclusion « from above » as well as « from below ». At present, we focus mainly on the bad kind of precariousness: that which shatters confidence in oneself, in others and in the future, and plunges the individual into psychological, somatic and financial disaster. On the other hand, there is a healthy precariousness that nobody talks about. The latter constitutes a bond, a positive interdependence with others. In this sense, being (naturally) precarious means: I can’t live without the other, I’m dead without the other. Let’s not forget that the human being is first and foremost a social being. Today, financial neoliberalism is affecting precisely this good, healthy precariousness that binds us together. And the tipping point between good and bad precariousness occurs at the very moment when individuals lose confidence in politics, in others and in the future. As a result, they become isolated.

Globalization affects all countries, whether rich, poor or emerging, for the main reason that globalization… globalizes effects. These are particularly worrying in African countries, where family disorganization is breaking clan ties, impoverishing communities and driving children and teenagers to work and live on the streets of African megacities. The situation is also critical in India and China, where the suicide rate is one of the highest in the world. Countries with solid collective structures, which are more resistant to the atomization of the individual, are – in theory – less affected.

I know a man who suffered greatly from the management style of his workplace: he regularly complained of headaches, while the features of his face continually showed great suffering. One day, to my great surprise, I saw him completely transformed and happy. He was another man. Spontaneously, I asked him why he had changed. He replied: « I’ve decided not to care about my work, just my family and my vacations ». For this man, this division between the professional and the personal is a survival mechanism, the consequences of which can be harmful. For, by cutting himself off from professional suffering, this individual also cuts himself off from his fellow workers, from the work itself, and from the good work he was supposed to do for his company. Over time, this abandonment of the professional could lead to an over-investment in his family: this man is likely to be more irritable at home, to expect more from his children, to find it harder to accept his wife’s remarks… The balance between the personal and the professional would thus be disrupted, and the family would become a place of over-investment and compensation. This example perfectly illustrates how an individual’s loss of confidence in his professional future affects the quality of his relationships with others. Generally speaking, it’s healthier for people to be indignant and rebellious, rather than resigned.

This conference is an initiative of the Observatoire National des Pratiques en Santé Mentale et Précarité, of which I am Scientific Director. Its aim? To determine the extent to which, in a collective dimension, the social context can be the object of suffering for individuals. Initially, in the 1990s, we focused on individuals on the margins of society and in precarious financial situations, such as the homeless or the long-term unemployed. We have gradually extended our expertise to individuals whose financial situation is satisfactory, but who are nonetheless likely to develop management-related suffering at work. For, whatever the financial situation, we find the same fragility in the social links between individuals. In this sense, poverty needs to be distinguished from precariousness. Poverty means having little. Precariousness means being afraid of losing social objects, such as money, work, housing, family, status… This doesn’t mean that the poorest people don’t have problems. In this context, it means precisely that, whatever their status in society, individuals are likely to suffer from the same lack. We then went a step further and addressed a global context that encompasses all five continents: the context of globalization within the framework of neoliberalism. Our approach to globalization is unprecedented, in the sense that we approach it not only through its economic effects (such as enrichment, bankruptcy and growing inequality), but also and above all through its psychosocial effects.

Indeed, a number of disagreements emerged, notably over the drafting of the Lyon Declaration. Some of the Americans felt that the declaration was too violent, while others felt that it was entirely appropriate. It’s true that we wrote it in a Latin spirit, but always in close collaboration with the Anglo-Saxons. Generally speaking, our Asian colleagues agreed with our points of view. Differences then allowed us to refine the communication of our ideas, in the hope that they would be positively heard by economic decision-makers and the international community. We planned to introduce the notion of human, social or psychological « capital ». This jargon, specific to mainstream thinking, would appear more audible, less persecutory, and thus more likely to be positively received.