Contenu du sommaire : Courage !

Anne Nivat, a winner of the Albert-Londres (2000) and Erwan-Berhot (2004) prizes, a special correspondent, war reporter and writer, travels alone and without protection in the most dangerous theatres of operations, notably Chechnya, Iraq and Afghanistan. Here, she provides first-hand evidence of war, courage, journalists and their credibility and fear, and of the split from the rest of the world.

Nafisa is a policewoman, Soraya a gynaecologist and Azeza a member of parliament : three woman who, in full knowledge of what they were doing, chose to take up occupations that seem conventional for women in most countries in the world but which can be fatal in their own, Afghanistan. They are not unaware of this, nor hotheads, heroines or victims ; just women who are committed, with little awareness that, in our eyes, they are models of courage.

You need courage to overcome the split that gnaws away at individual intimacy and divides society between its ethical aspects and its strength, at the risk of reducing political life to a disastrous opposition between cynicism (strength without ethics) and nihilism (ethics without strength). Going beyond this devastating opposition, renouncing the safety of believing yourself justified by belonging to a clan, and knowing that a world perspective does not yet exist and has not been given to anybody, call for courage to come as an ethical and cultural motivator.

Bravery is the expression par excellence of military courage. It has been extolled for centuries, deliberately in epic mode, and lies at the heart of a curious paradox in the army. It is now extolled more than ever, and in this respect the annual ceremonies commemorating the battles of the chasseurs at Sidi-Brahim, the Foreign Legion at Camerón, and the marines at Bazeilles have continued to magnify the bravura that constitutes those troops' heritage and inspires new generations. Yet the word has almost fallen into disuse, so how should we understand this paradox ? Isn't bravery still a soldier's cardinal virtue ?

Courage is undergoing a metamorphosis. It is protean and we admire it much more as shown by Hector than as shown by Achilles ; even more that of Rosa Parks. Courage is no longer the prerogative of a small number. That is its first transformation : no longer being the quality of a hero but that of ordinary people. The second is that it no longer involves confronting a mortal danger. For such cases, we need to reserve the word “bravery”. There is courage when an individual stands up alone against injustice, an iniquitous situation or simply absurdity. This slide in meaning arose with the Second World War, which established the model of resistance fighters. There were, however people who extolled the courage of those who, more controversially, mutinied in 1917. There nevertheless remains something of the courage of former generations. The oxymorons involved in that courage persist : a courageous act is, at the same time, absurd, individual and outrageous, but also exemplary, reasonable and heroic.

Courage has always been considered a soldier's quality par excellence ; it comes to life in the tales of mythical warriors, both feared and admired, but always hardened to physical suffering. In the collective mind, however, the notion of courage has undergone curious changes. Nowadays, while courage is still a characteristic attributed to heroes, our picture of such people has changed dramatically. They are no longer hardened men who fight wars ; they are now “gentle” types whose courage has a moral dimension, now being “ethical” and non-violent. Perceptions of courage are revealing about human nature through the centuries and across civilisations. They also show that associated imaginings reflect people's circumstances. Like the warriors of the myths, people dream of overcoming their society's circumstances, but the dream of “unlearning fear” can be achieved only by actions and words embodying their courage.

Acts of courage in combat are ephemeral, unpredictable and elusive, seeming to be erratic combinations of individual will in the course of events and the product of a collective logic. They originate in unique circumstances where extreme fear in the face of an immediate danger plays a key role. While courage is therefore no more decreed than granted, it is nevertheless always a matter of upbringing : competence, cohesion and consistency have to be acquired through training. If there is one supreme quality that seems indispensable because it arises from the other three, it is confidence : confidence in oneself, trust of one's comrades and confidence in the system. To summarise, while courage is expressed at a particular moment, the conditions for its expression are forged over time.

If there is one quality that the general public unhesitatingly recognises soldiers should possess, it is probably courage. Soldiers are those who, consciously and willingly, expose themselves to danger, those whose very function in society makes them accept possible sacrifice of their lives. The ubiquity of this view from outside of a soldier's occupation should, however, not be the last word on the subject. Listening to the “practitioners” reveals a less uniform conception than first appears. A fighter pilot, a submariner and an army officer here present their own approaches, views and conceptions of this military quality, at the beginnings of their own careers.

For a number of months, the writer of this article shared the life of a forward combat group, during and after its posting in Afghanistan. The contribution records surprise : when sent into the Afghan valleys, young people with whom you could rub shoulders in any discothèque or bar displayed a daily courage without making a fuss, and that demands respect. They were aware of the risks involved in their missions, but that was part of their ordinary life : every day getting into a VAB (armoured vanguard vehicle) that could run over an explosive device ; plunging numerous times into a dark area of dense vegetation held by the enemy, knowing that a hail of bullets could suddenly cut into them ; or emerging from a place of refuge to search for a comrade who had been hit. And one of the powerful driving forces for this ordinary courage was the group : the group as a “courage factory” !

As “professional heroes” of rescue and firefighting, civilian firefighters receive the insignia of courage and collective virtues with their kit. For them, however, courage is not a subject of discussion. What the general public call “courageous” is driven by a taste for danger, foolhardiness and pleasure derived from action. There is confusion, whether or not one is aware of it, between courage, recklessness and opportunities for easy recognition. This confusion of ideas, maintained to promote an image, has its dangers. Individuals may receive adulation, rewards and trappings associated with courage, and in fact be included in events that contribute to the collective glory, while having to cultivate a different kind of courage, that of distancing themselves from events. Firefighters are exposed to physical injury and psychological trauma, and have to learn to protect themselves. When affected, they have to find the courage to recognise their vulnerability and then, one day, undertake the difficult task of returning to normal life.

Philosophical reflection is unquestionably in short supply in France's armed forces. Military culture severely restricts the range of thoughts of solders who, more than ever, need to think innovatively. It therefore seems necessary to encourage the emergence of people with character : free spirits who are able to liberate themselves from the constraints of the system by opposing the prevailing conformism. These free spirits, for whom Nietzsche fervently hoped, could then enrich discussion and offer new avenues for reflection. Being a free spirit necessitates courage, however, in an institution characterised by submission to authority. It is through this courage to speak the truth, as expressed in the Greek word parresia, that soldiers can play a full part in world developments. Nietzsche's free spirit and Foucault's “courage of truth” should become part of military culture.

Reflecting on courage shows that it is not just a simple matter of character, and that courageous people need greater conscience to exercise the quality. That conscience is, moreover, a primary factor in intellectual courage, which is first of all based on dissatisfaction with the current state of thinking. Intellectual courage is, however, not solely the preserve of intellectuals : people in charge of things also need it, through the simple fact that they have to take decisions and therefore put an end to uncertainty. That is particularly true for the leaders : being in command requires reflection. It is also true for those in charge of strategy, whether constructing it or implementing it. Preparing strategies to deal with surprises does not just involve mulling over more information, but also being able to think differently.

The “courage of truth” is a notion on which Michel Foucault worked in the lectures he gave at the Collège de France from 1982 to 1984, by studying the Greek concept of parresia (speaking freely). This article examines four illustrations of this courage : democratic courage (that of politicians who are bold enough to speak to the people on unpopular themes), Socratic courage (Socrates' painful testing of minds, daring to confront people with their own ignorance), cynical courage (denouncing social hypocrisies starting from an outside position) and the courage of the Enlightenment (daring to think for oneself).

Courage is the hidden quality of politics ; it distinguishes statesmen from politicians. It can take the form of physical courage, ideological courage, psychological courage or true political courage. It is constantly risking being unpopular, further increased by the media-dominated era and the tyranny of transparency.

Courage is a solid value, defended by institutional authorities, fundamentally associated with awarding medals and decorations, which portray it within the military microcosm. It nevertheless emerges that, at the very heart of this piece of theatre, sometimes there are just the trappings of light, while intrigues that are much less noble are hidden in the shadows. From deception to shame and from the fringes of madness to committing offences, a mask of courage can hide truths that it sometimes suits people not to reveal.

Being disabled can lead to rejection or, in contrast, act to nurture the destiny of a hero. Among those with disabilities, people with Down's syndrome have become our societies' new scapegoats. They find themselves victims of society's choices, which condemn them and remove them. Welcoming and defending the lives of vulnerable persons points the way to a new chivalry : a sign of the contradictions of our era and of increasing moral awareness.

As a counterpoint to Thierry de la Villejegu's article, the thoughts described here relate to the writer's clinical practice as a family therapist. Rather than talking about courage, it seems more helpful to keep in mind the psychological capabilities that can be offered to a child and the ways to experience satisfaction in living so that, together, parents and child can transform misfortune into something good, despite everything. We can understand that some people do not feel able to keep the child, and we can respect the choice they have made, not as a matter of convenience, but because they are fully aware of what is involved.

Reducing Pierre Schoendorffer to a war and sea film director, and trying to describe and categorise him, means sidestepping his humanity, the existential questioning that guided him and the emotions and stories, both small and large, that he was able to bring together and portray for us. This homage tries to show us a life and communicate the attachment that could be felt when dealing, however briefly, with this far-from-uniform “Crab” (to refer to one of his best-known films).

When Pope Innocent III called, in 1213, for a new crusade to be organised, he satisfied the expectations of many Christians, who were anxious to reconquer Jerusalem and the Holy Land. The expedition, launched to include Egypt, so as to weaken Ayyubid power, ended as a resounding failure, however. Critics stood up rapidly ; they were equal to the hopes that had been roused by recruiting of the troops. Among them was Huon de Saint-Quentin who, in Complainte de Jérusalem contre la cour de Rome, denounced the Papacy's attitude and reminded Christians of their duty to fight and to retake control of Jerusalem. His arguments, providing evidence of the discussions aroused by the very idea of a 13th century crusade, met with some success. The text was copied, and combined where appropriate with illumination, again drawing attention to the view and complementing the message.

You need courage to overcome the split that gnaws away at individual intimacy and divides society between its ethical aspects and its strength, at the risk of reducing political life to a disastrous opposition between cynicism (strength without ethics) and nihilism (ethics without strength). Going beyond this devastating opposition, renouncing the safety of believing yourself justified by belonging to a clan, and knowing that a world perspective does not yet exist and has not been given to anybody, call for courage to come as an ethical and cultural motivator.

Bravery is the expression par excellence of military courage. It has been extolled for centuries, deliberately in epic mode, and lies at the heart of a curious paradox in the army. It is now extolled more than ever, and in this respect the annual ceremonies commemorating the battles of the chasseurs at Sidi-Brahim, the Foreign Legion at Camerón, and the marines at Bazeilles have continued to magnify the bravura that constitutes those troops' heritage and inspires new generations. Yet the word has almost fallen into disuse, so how should we understand this paradox? Isn't bravery still a soldier's cardinal virtue?