« When the immediate devours, the mind drifts »

Edgar Morin

There are authors whose work seems to grow in relevance as the world becomes harder to understand. Edgar Morin (who has just passed away at the age of 104) is one such figure. At a time when our contemporary societies are facing a proliferation of ecological, geopolitical, democratic and technological crises that intersect and reinforce one another, his thinking stands out as an indispensable critical, hermeneutic and socio-philosophical resource.

The tribute we can pay to Edgar Morin today is not merely a matter of recalling the scope of his work. Above all, it is a matter of recognising just how open his intellectual project remains, and how essential it is to our present age. Faced with the growing fragmentation of knowledge, the specialisation of expertise and the accelerating pace of social and technological change, Edgar Morin never ceased to champion a fundamental ambition: that of connecting. This demand for connection undoubtedly lies at the heart of his thinking. It runs through his epistemological reflections as well as his sociological, anthropological, political and ethical works. Above all, it stems from a fundamental conviction: human realities cannot be understood through disciplinary divisions that artificially isolate what, in lived experience, remains deeply intertwined.

Connecting beyond categories 

In this respect, complex thinking was never, for Edgar Morin, merely a theoretical programme, but rather denotes an attitude that is both intellectual and practical, consisting in recognising that reality always transcends the categories we devise to conceptualise it. The desire to understand therefore requires us to hold together dimensions that are often separated: order and disorder, autonomy and dependence, the individual and society, reason and the imagination, barbarism and civilisation. Such a way of thinking is particularly valuable in a context where technological innovations are transforming the conditions of our collective existence in many respects. Current debates surrounding artificial intelligence, algorithmic governance and digital identities highlight the difficulty of simultaneously considering the technical, economic, political and anthropological dimensions of a single phenomenon.

One of the strengths of Edgar Morin’s work lies precisely in reminding us that none of these dimensions can be viewed in isolation from the others. One of his most fruitful insights is undoubtedly his conception of the human being. In a world increasingly marked by processes of identification, classification and quantification, he reminded us that human beings cannot be reduced to a stable and perfectly definable identity: human beings, he wrote, are « full of holes like Swiss cheese, multiple like a sea anemone, open like a corridor ». (1) This image is neither anecdotal nor merely metaphorical. Human beings are fundamentally plural, traversed by contradictory legacies, multiple. The human subject never exists as a self-contained identity. Any attempt to reduce it to a single, unambiguous definition inevitably results in a loss. This insight resonates particularly strongly today in debates concerning digital identities. As technologies for tracking, profiling and identification become more sophisticated, they tend to favour a representation of the individual as a stable, coherent and calculable entity.

The Irreducible Human

One of the key contributions of Edgar Morin’s critical thinking lies precisely in reminding us that the richness of human experience lies in what eludes this logic of reduction. Human beings cannot be reduced to the data used to describe them. This understanding of anthropological simplifications ties in with a more general critique of the fragmentation of knowledge. Edgar Morin readily claimed to have an « omnivorous hunger for knowledge », (2) refusing to submit to what he called « dominant cultural imprinting », namely « the injunction that compels everyone to specialise, to devote themselves to the fragmented, piecemeal knowledge of experts ». (3)

This intellectual position seems surprisingly relevant today, at a time when knowledge has never been more accessible, computing power has never been greater, and yet our ability to develop a comprehensive and profound understanding of phenomena is dwindling. Yet it is easy to understand why: the major issues of our time (such as climate change, the digital transition, crises of democracy and changes in the world of work) do not fall within the remit of any single discipline. They lie precisely in the gaps between established fields of knowledge. Edgar Morin identified such tensions very early on, emphasising that the challenge was never to produce total knowledge, but to construct forms of knowledge capable of articulating heterogeneous, even contradictory, dimensions of reality. Complexity is therefore not an accumulation of data but rather an (unexpected) configuration of relationships, of unions between truths deemed a priori contradictory.

The Ethics of Uncertainty 

This way of thinking has, in particular, led to a renewed understanding of ethics, highlighting the fact that all human action is always embedded within networks of interactions that profoundly alter its effects. Intention is never sufficient to define the scope of an act. Once set in motion, the action partly escapes the control of the person who initiated it. This is why he could assert that « ethics is complex ». (4) This statement resonates particularly strongly in the context of the deployment of digital technologies in our lives. For contemporary systems often produce consequences that far exceed the initial intentions of their designers. Feedback effects, unintended uses, misappropriations or dependencies now even constitute an essential dimension of our collective experience.

Therefore, raising an ethical question no longer consists merely of questioning the intentions of those responsible for an action, but involves analysing the contexts, interactions and indirect consequences that accompany all human action. Such an approach leads to an ethics of expanded responsibility, attentive to the uncertainty inherent in human action. This focus on uncertainty is surely one of the most remarkable features of Edgar Morin’s thought, who has always regarded uncertainty as a constitutive element of the human condition. Not as a limitation of knowledge, but as an irreducible dimension of reality itself. Such a position proves particularly valuable in an era marked by the constant temptation of algorithmic prediction. Digital technologies promise to anticipate behaviour, calculate risks and forecast future developments. Yet, the more complex societies become, the more central the unpredictable becomes.

A philosophy of openness 

Edgar Morin has, in this regard, often pointed out that history never progresses in a linear fashion. Crises themselves can even become turning points from which new forms of social and political organisation emerge, paving the way for transformation. Such a vision is neither naive optimism nor catastrophism. Rather, it expresses a vision of historical openness. Whilst the worst remains possible, so does the best. Nothing is a foregone conclusion. Human societies always retain a capacity for creation and reinvention (often entirely unexpected). (5)

Such trust in the potential of history is rooted in a deep conviction: human beings remain capable of imagination, which enables them to envisage the world differently from how it is and thus to open up new horizons for action. In a world dominated by the imperatives of performance, efficiency and profitability, this defence of the imagination proves particularly valuable: it reminds us that societies – and democratic ones all the more so – need not only knowledge and expertise, but also the collective capacity to invent new ways of living together. For excessive rationalisation in the management of people, under the guise of modernity, often leads to the worst: there is indeed an inability on the part of the techno-bureaucratic mindset to perceive the complexity of human problems. Complexity is never synonymous with confusion but, on the contrary, demands lucidity: an understanding of complexity enables us « to perceive the different and contradictory aspects of people, situations and events, and this perception fosters kindness. My ultimate lesson, the combined fruit of all my experiences, lies in this virtuous circle where open-minded reason and loving kindness work together. » (6)

To honour Edgar Morin’s complex thought is to recognise the profoundly liberating significance of the imperative that underlies it: to reconnect what has been separated, to contextualise what has been isolated, and to understand what appears contradictory. This is surely the most pressing sociological, philosophical and political task that his work bequeaths to us in the troubled times in which we live.

NOTES

1. Edgar Morin, Journal 1962 – 1987, Editions du Seuil, 2012, p. 179.

2. Edgar Morin, Mes philosophes, Éditions Fayard/Pluriel, 2013, p. 14.

3. Ibid., p. 19.

4. Edgar Morin, La méthode 6. L’éthique, Editions du Seuil, 2004, p. 33. 

5. Edgar Morin, Leçons d’un siècle de vie, Editions Denoël, 2021, p. 143.

6. Ibid., p. 142.