With the growing expression of the need for meaning, a notion is gaining momentum : anti-utilitarianism. Brandished in turn by defenders of the common good, promoters of equality as a principle of justice, purists of fundamental rights, personal development enthusiasts in search of well-being (or even happiness), economists who challenge performance evaluation models and the wealth created, philosophers calling for the renewal of complex thought, anti-utilitarianism deserves to be defined...
And to do this, we must undoubtedly start by defining what utilitarianism is. We take a closer look at the concept(s).
An Ethic of Utility Maximization
At the origins of utilitarianism, there is the thought of the philosopher Jeremy Bentham. This is at odds with the principles of the " social contract" according to which the state embodies the general interest. According to him, there is no general interest that stands apart from the feeling that everyone can maintain that working together is useful to them.
Nor are there any fundamental rights or human rights that are of no value if individuals do not find it in their interest. As for equality, Bentham sees it essentially as a soothing illusion that would have no chance of being fully realized, while policies aimed at getting closer to it would above all contribute to discouraging the efforts of all to take control of their own destiny.
Fundamentally individualistic, Bentham's philosophy? Not completely, since he understands very well that we organize collectively in order to " give as much as possible to as many people as possible." But he considers that a system that produces a maximum of wealth, even if unevenly distributed, is more virtuous than a system that produces less wealth, which is better distributed. The overall increase in wealth and well-being is, according to him, in any case more favourable to the less fortunate ; Or to put it more trivially, it is better to be poor in a rich environment than poor in a poor environment. The least privileged in a society would therefore also have an interest in the society being rich, even if this implies very large differences in wealth within it.
Taking into account indirect utility
After Bentham, it was his godson John Stuart Mill who took up the torch of utilitarian theory by making the software more complex, which gave it a more human face. For Stuart Mill brings the notion of indirect utility: since wealth and well-being are not limited to the satisfaction of quantitative production, it is also necessary to integrate into the equation of interests everything that contributes to moral serenity, to the feeling of doing good, to the joys of collective life.
Even the pure utilitarian in the style of Bentham can be embarrassed by the trappings of swimming in wealth when he meets a destitute person (it's not good for morale). He/she will feel better by working to improve the condition of his/her neighbors ( charity will help him/her to do so).
He/she will have to gain by getting closer to different people and their own (which will make John Stuart Mill an ardent defender of the integration of women in the economy, since he considers on the one hand that it is too stupid to do without half of human intelligence and on the other hand that in the confrontation of points of view, the potential for wealth is stronger than in the recesses of the self). And then, inequalities have a cost : by producing insecurity, they can lead to the destruction of the value created.
Also, Stuart Mill, while remaining faithful to the idea that the most privileged must find interests to share, otherwise there is no legitimacy in asking them to give up part of what they own (wealth, power, etc.), argues for the importance of considering quality of life among the indicators of profit maximization. It is therefore necessary to propose convincing models of indirect and/or deferred profitability so that individuals agree to efforts for which they do not immediately receive the rewards.
When social performance makes its appearance
The nineteenth century, in the midst of the industrial revolution, laid the foundations for the implementation of a certain social performance as a necessity of economic performance: workers constitute a " human capital" in which it is necessary to " invest " in order for the production apparatus to function at its best.
It is useful to train the population, useful that they are in good health (well enough to be able to work), useful that they find satisfaction in their job (so as not to go elsewhere), useful that the workers are attached to the company (it limits the risk of social discontent, or even playfulness), useful that they are motivated (it's good for productivity) etc. For each action directed towards increasing well-being, a reason decided by the search for performance.
For the most pragmatic of social policy actors, there is a whole new field of possibilities: we are no longer demanding rights for workers, we are betting on the interest of employers to treat them well by objectifying the consequences on productivity of their " quality of life at work " ; gender diversity is not required for equality between women and men, but for the benefit of a better representativeness of the components of society for a better understanding of the clientele ; We are not advocating for the flexibility of work organization in the name of freedom, but in view of the analyses of " employer brands", we realize that in order to attract talent, it is necessary to offer a differentiating " employee experience"...
What happens to altruism ?
Does this mean that there is no disinterested altruism possible ? The Australian philosopher Peter Singer prefers to talk about effective altruism in an approach taken up by a whole section of the impact economy. The aim is to direct the efforts of social and charitable actions towards initiatives that demonstrate the greatest benefit for the community at the lowest cost.
First example : if you want to donate 100,000 euros to an association that fights against precariousness, should you prefer the one that with this sum will be able to train 100 people who are far from employment and announces that 50% of its trainees will find work in the following 6 months or the one that immediately distributes food to 10000 people for a week ?
The logic of effective altruism leans more readily towards the first option, considering that integrating 100 people, half of whom will find a job that allows them to find housing and food over time, is the best allocation of available resources.
Another example : if we want to finance holidays for those who cannot afford to take them, should we offer 2 days at 50 euros/day to 100 people or 5 days at 30 euros/day to 65 people? The overall amount on the bill is the same, but the first option may be preferred (although the daily price is higher) considering that the marginal benefit of the 3rd day and the following in terms of the well-being of the people affected does not justify leaving 35 people out of the project.
Homo economicus in all sauces
" What cannot be counted does not count", we readily hear in companies, as well as in the associative world, the structures of the social and solidarity economy, diversity networks, the condominium manager or the neighborhood collective... Because in order to assert the usefulness of what you do, especially if it involves financial resources (but even when this is not the case), you have to be able to quantify the results. Suffice to say that it's shame that you'll maximize if it turns out that what you're doing is useless...
Because everything would work, liberal economists tell us, and each of us would have a little calculator in mind to assess the risks and benefits of any action. This intimate algorithm, driven by a " natural " propensity to maximize our interests, would guide even the most sentimental – or the most apparently irrational – of our decisions. The economist Gary Becker is convinced that love, marriage, family, social relationships, education and training, conflicts, discrimination and even addictive and criminal behaviour are all part of a form of rational calculation.
Everyone anticipates their profits, measures their costs and adjusts their behaviour so that the ratio is to their advantage. Before falling in love with someone, you understand what you have to gain by giving up part of the individual freedom conferred by celibacy and if it appears that the social valorization, material comfort, personal narcissization that the relationship could bring you do not compensate for the sum of the other person's defects to bear, Your heart is finally beating less wildly, (a one-night stand will be very good).
The level of attention you pay to your friends would depend on how much support they are able to give you in terms of the risks you feel you need to be boosted, what hanging out with them allows you to get in terms of social status and access to opportunities, what neglecting them can cost you if they start saying bad things about you (and you're already undercalculating that it's more annoying to disappoint Machin·e who has an address book as big as that than Bidule who doesn't know anyone but whom you keep in the scope, because you shouldn't insult the future).
Tired of seeing your spouse's face on a daily basis: if you have assets in common, networks to share, a social status enhanced by this union, you would be more willing to find qualities for him/her, while he/she will be all the more motivated to make efforts because the divorce would cost him/her.
And irrationality, f****el !
We cannot say that the mirror held up by homo economicus is very flattering... But above all, it is very distorted, the anti-utilitarians tell us. Since the work of Raymond Boudon, we know that a whole series of social facts escape rationality, especially belief systems.
However, these cover a much wider spectrum than religious belief. Beliefs are everything that takes on the value of truth from the perspective of an individual or in the systemic perspective of a collective. Beliefs include: stereotypes, hypotheses, inductions, projections, ideologies, etc.
And among the ideologies, the formidable ones that masquerade as fields of truth, including utilitarianism (even if the seasoned utilitarian will most likely explain to you that you are addressing this criticism to serve your own interests !).
For there is indeed an ideological fund, the philosopher Jean-Pierre Cléro reminds us, in this theoretical ensemble that would like to convince at the same time that individuals are rational (but then, what about emotions ?), that the sum of individual interests produces collective interest, that nothing is more effective than pragmatism, that wealth trickles down, that the most powerful actions are those that bring the most satisfaction...
None of this has been demonstrated and we can even, say the anti-utilitarians, provide as much aplomb as a frenzied utilitarian proof of the underperformance of policies based on this theoretical foundation: all we have to do is change the indicators !
Is utilitarianism too attractive to be alone at the helm of politics?
The fact remains that utilitarianism exerts a strong power of seduction. Flattering to the individuals whose merits it extols and salutes their calculating intelligence, it gives a simple reading of the world that makes it easy to move from a cause to its consequence, from a movement to its impacts, from a reason for action to a lever for influencing action.
Let's take the example of the business case of gender diversity in companies, which has been particularly marked by utilitarian thinking for two decades : to motivate managers, a correlation has been established (readily taken for causality) between team diversity and organizational performance; From there, policies were designed imbued with trickle-down theory (taking the decision to start with the diversity of the governing bodies which, with the help of model roles , were to cascade the culture of equality at all levels), pragmatism (if women do the majority of domestic and family work, let us make it easier for them to combine these obligations with those of professional life, by putting in place measures to reconcile life and to strengthen the leadership of individuals (in particular through personal development).
The result ? Real progress can be seen in the parity of boards of directors (and soon of Executive Committees), in the growing affirmation of ambition among women, in the reduction of the wage gap...
But we must not neglect the role of approaches other than utilitarian software in the advances ( quotas, for example ; but also all the work of massive awareness of the culture of equality or the influence of major social movements such as #MeToo...).
Many leaders now also admit that while utilitarian arguments (including data linking gender diversity and performance) helped win support in their organizations, the measures that really made a difference on the gender equality front were also driven by the burning conviction and relentless determination of those who saw gender equality as an imperative of justice above all else.
What do we do with the useless, the inefficient, the unprofitable ?
The possible counterproductive effects of this utilitarian business case of gender diversity have also caused a lot of ink to flow. Réjane Sénac, author of Equality Under Conditions, among others , warned in the early 2010s about the flaws of the model : what would happen to gender equality if the promise of increased performance was not kept ?
Should we then reduce ambition, or even give up acting for gender equality altogether? And if, thanks to a major technological transformation or a crisis (randomly, a health crisis), the objective of social performance were relegated to a lower level of the agenda of priorities, would we not risk seeing the gains made in terms of equality rolled back?
There are subjects that it is perhaps not relevant to look at from a utilitarian angle, critics tell us, because the question of the effectiveness of the policies implemented is not primary in the understanding of these questions : human rights, principles of justice, and the values of civilization need a framework that is less subject to the vagaries of markets and the variability of strategies in order to achieve sustainable progress.
There are also issues that escape, if not the laws of utility, then at least those of profitability. For example, the management of old age and loss of autonomy can hardly be the subject of an opportunity study demonstrating profitability without sacrificing the quality of care, the humanity of gestures, and the dignity of patients.
The question also arises for the support of people who are greatly desocialized or the terminally ill; it is still at stake when it is necessary to react to disasters, when the emergency imposes costs that cannot be part of an investment logic... Or more generally when ethics do not meet economic modeling.
The Paradigm of Gift, an Anti-Utilitarian Approach to Assiduous Action for the Common Good
The Anti-Utilitarianism in the Social Sciences (MAUSS) movement, co-founded and directed by Alain Caillé, proposes an alternative to the instrumental approach to social relations. By placing itself under the aegis of Marcel Mauss, " father of French anthropology", this movement is at the origin of the paradigm of the gift.
The paradigm of giving is based on a " self-consistent " approach to giving: even if we can find economic, social, and political " reasons " for giving, giving is first and foremost a " total social phenomenon" in itself that affects all spheres of our lives and has the relationship as its centrality.
In other words, we enter into a relationship with our interests (like a kind of baggage with which we travel everywhere), but it is not our interests that guide the relationship : the common thread of the bond is the very fact that being alive implies interactions with other living beings.
From this, we could always try to absolve ourselves temporarily, for example by massacring, enslaving, reifying the other, but the solution seems inhuman in every sense of the word. Then, we can (and this is what we do on a daily basis) set up regulated, fair and stimulating relationships with our environments.
To do this, we must consciously follow the dynamic highlighted by Marcel Mauss : to give (is to enter into a relationship), to receive (it is to accept the other's request) and to give back (it is to give in turn, at the height of what we have received)... The perpetual bond established by the gift maintains the relationship, making everyone responsible for their part to do for it to exist and be positive, forcing everyone to contribute to enriching it.
In concrete terms ? In the couple, where we know that 1+1 makes 3, we not only have to take care of the other without forgetting each other but also to invest in the quality of the exchanges. At work, where we know that a collective is more than the sum of the individuals who make it up, we have to assert our uniqueness as much as to respect that of others, while contributing to group work. Between companies, when we know that the organization is part of an ecosystem, we have to defend our interests without being unfair to the competition, while being actors in the preservation and positive transformation of the ecosystem, etc.
