If you are told " active minorities", there is a good chance that you immediately think of the actors of hasthivism who carry the messages of women's rights, LGBTQI+, racialized populations, etc. And you wouldn't be wrong : the " minorities " have made social networks a space for expression and action that makes them more visible, allowing the issues of inclusion to rise in the media, political and economic agenda.

But the dynamic of " active minorities" is not as simple as it seems. So, let's take a look at this concept : its history, its theorization, its contemporary applications, the criticisms it arouses...

Before " minorities ", the state of minority

While the notion of minority is now an essential part of the conversation about  diversity and inclusion, it is relatively recent in the history of ideas. In the eighteenth century, the notion of minority was used to evoke the diversity of religious groups. For the rest, the minority was defined until the beginning of the twentieth century above all as the state of dependence in which the individual finds himself when he is a child or when he has reached adulthood but is unable to take care of himself.

A certain confusion in the republican political narrative set in : against the law of the strongest or the power of the noblest, the legitimacy conceived by the Estates-General of 1789 stemmed from the " majority fact", i.e. the ability to gather the most support in one's camp. Those who represent the smallest number of members are in the minority. Except that in the Assembly, the " minorities " are careful not to call themselves that : they are the " opposition " ! And it is quite understandable that in the political arena people refuse to take the name of " minority " since precisely people in a minority state (i.e. " incapacitated ") were not allowed to participate in the election... Among these minors : women !

An ambiguity biasing the debates on the fundamental principles of the Republic

At the time, non-citizens (women, non-nationals, " natives " of the colonies, etc.) did not enjoy the rights that the republican promise made. They will then have to fight to become equals and be fully included in society. But the demands of these " minorities " are viewed with suspicion. Every time they will assert " as " a woman, " as " non-white, " as " non-Christians, etc. access to the same rights as the instituted citizen, they will be readily opposed to the risk of communitarization in contradiction with the indivisibility of the Republic.

This is a huge misunderstanding , since the primary demand of these " minorities " is precisely to count fully in the universal, to no longer be this or that sub-category specified by its gender, skin color, origins, religion, customs, physical state, economic-social condition, etc.

But now we are entering a debate on the method : for everyone to be equal to the other, should we deny inequalities or on the contrary denounce them? Philosophy did not decide on the substance, but sociology, which became a discipline from the 1890s onwards, leaned more towards the necessary highlighting of the shortcomings of the majority fact.

From passive minority to active minority, including nomic minority

But by the way, how do the " minorities " behave in the face of this majority fact? The psychosociologist Serge Moscovici, author of Psychology of Active Minorities, distinguishes three main attitudes :

• The first attitude is " passive " : the minority group does not conceive of itself as such, does not form cohesion, and its members will willingly deny the disadvantages (or, more rarely, privileges, in the case of wealthy minorities) linked to their condition.

• A second attitude is called " nomic " : the minority group refers to the rules of the norm, either to conform to them (for example, in a assiduous desire for integration) or to challenge it (for example, with openly protesting expressions and actions).

• The third attitude is that of the active minority: they are aware of their condition as a minority and of the influence that the social norm exerts on them by positioning them on the margins. The majority group also recognizes it... And is interested in it. Because this active minority brings it " difference " and as such, contributes to energizing society as a whole. It is even the main vector of transformations : by challenging the norm with its heaviness, its contradictions, its resistance to change, the active minority pushes the walls of the rules in place, forces social models to be renewed, habits and habitus to question themselves. In short, in contemporary managerial language: it challenges !

The active minority in the trap of its position as " challenger of the system " ? What inclusion for the " different " ?

While in " soft power ", the role of the " active minority" is undeniable. But does this dynamic really move the lines of inclusion ?

Indeed be the " diff useful" to the reform of the norm, it is by definition to be and remain positioned outside the norm. " Invited " to the table where the rules of the game are discussed and social part played, there is not really a napkin ring. For if the " privileged " concedes to changes in the system in favor of necessary and/or profitable innovations, he does not shoot himself in the foot either by overturning the norm by which he has gained access to his privileges.

This Marxist critique of the model proposed by Moscovici led the psychosociologist to clarify, from the 1980s onwards, in particular through the various editions of his book Social Psychology of Relationships to Others, the notion of otherness. This is indeed the heart of a virtuous and equitable dynamic of co-influence between the beneficiaries of the norm and the " active minorities" who shake up this norm. We need to move away from the " standardized " versus " different " dialectic to enter into a logic of inclusion : the co-recognition of the other, as an individual but also as a representative of a sociogroup. Which we all are, with an awareness of our community affiliation that is all the less acute because the communities of which we are members are close to the social norm. In other words, the closer one is to the norm in terms of one's ways of life, opinions, beliefs, identity markers, the more one has the feeling of representing the universal. And conversely, the further one is from the social norm, the more one perceives oneself as a minority, at the risk of perceived and/or experienced exclusion.

What are the conditions for the empowerment of (and by) the working minority?

From this point on, the question is that of the conditions necessary for us to no longer position ourselves as " different" but as " other ". A synthesis of Moscovici's work indicates two key factors of what is now called empowerment (and which can be translated as " empowerment and participation " ):

1/ Awareness-raising : the representatives of a minority (in the sense of a sociogroup more or less removed from the norm) must become lucid about their condition and understand the social mechanisms that are at work in it (for example : the causes of the glass ceiling, the systems of self-censorship, etc.). etc.). Without necessarily being " activists for the cause " of their sociogroup, their own consciousness must infuse the consciousness of other sociogroups.

2/ Critical mass: awareness is also the acceptance of the feeling of " forming a group ". It is not a question of relying on a fixed community that excludes other belongings, but of recognizing oneself in a " commonality " in the face of given situations. For example : as a woman, you belong to a socio-group that is more exposed to the risk of hitting the glass ceiling; To work together with other women on this issue does not reduce the individual to his or her feminine gender alone or oblige him or her to assume an invariable solidarity with all other women ; On the other hand, it is by working together with other women on the issue of the glass ceiling that we will escape the pesky Smurfette syndrome and be able to constitute a massive force calling for the transformation of the rules of the game, and as a result, shaking up the norm.

This " critical mass" effect is based above all on cultural inclination. However, a number of studies have attempted to evaluate this in figures: all of these studies agree on a rate of at least 30% of " different " people in a " standardized " group to produce a dynamic of inclusion. Nevertheless, the interpretation of these figures is open to discussion : sometimes understood as " If I have 70 middle-aged straight white men in the room, I have to find 30 other profiles : so a few women, a few young people, a few juniors, a few seniors, a few people with dark complexions, etc."  This is obviously not likely to produce the " active minority" effect. It is therefore a question of treating " differences " not as a catch-all set of what is not " the norm " but as a series of issues questioning " the norm " at the various pegs of its construction.