To describe complex strategic issues, Relativized Cindynics have extended cindynic modeling, and formalized the notions of conflictuality, diversity, uniformities, variances and tolerances. These formalizations allow us to better conceptualize the concept of peace, and to show how the notion of diversity is more demanding. From an ethical point of view, they also highlight the relationship between the notion of uniformity and that of equity. This last point is illustrated by recent events, since it is central to the arguments of the public rapporteur who has just pleaded before the Administrative Court of Toulouse for the resumption of work on the A69 freeway before the decision of the Court of Appeal.
Beyond dissonance: variances and uniformities
With the development of Relativized Cindynics, the bestiary of cindynic notions has been significantly extended, notably through the formalization of the notions of conflictuality, variances, tolerances and diversity. Initially, Cindynics considered dissonances, i.e. differences between observed actors, as factors of danger or vulnerability of a situation. This was not necessarily explicitly stated, but it was obvious that not all differences between actors are cindynogenic (i.e. factors of vulnerability). This led to the definition of variances as non-cindynogenic differences between observed actors, and then to the definition of uniformities as cindynogenic absences of differences between actors, i.e. cindynogenic absences of variances.
Transformation and tolerances
From an operational point of view, Cindynics aims to transform a real situation, a set of observed real actors, into an ideal situation (e.g. resilient), in other words, a set of ideal actors. Relativized Cindynics introduced the notion of tolerances, defined as non-cindynogenic differences between ideal actors. Dynamically, the creation of tolerances by a transformation reduces uniformities, thus creating variances.
Relativization and strategic vision
Relativized Cindynics are born of a simple, even trivial observation: if I observe a situation and wish to transform it in a certain way, other actors also observe this situation, and also wish to transform it, but perhaps in a different way. In other words, each observer has his own perception of a situation (his perspective) and his own estimate of the ideal situation (his prospective): a situation relative to an observer is therefore made up of his perspective and his prospective. This leads to the observation of a set (or 'spectrum') of relative situations, which constitutes no less than a strategic vision of a set of perceptions and desired transformations.
Conflictuality, divergences and perception disparities
Describing a spectrum of situations enables us to highlight divergences, defined as differences between observers' prospectives, and disparities, defined as differences between observers' perspectives, or perceptions. The more numerous these divergences and disparities are, the more the situation (or rather, the spectrum of situations) will have a propensity to trigger antagonistic transformations, and to fuel these transformations: which leads us to define conflictuality as this propensity. In France, the word conflictuality (conflictualité) tends to become fashionable, often used as a synonym for conflict, or the intensity of a conflict: this is not the meaning retained by Cindynics, who see conflictuality as arising even before a conflict is triggered. It's a question of intervening upstream, by reducing divergences and disparities, to prevent conflicts, even if, once a conflict has started, the reduction of divergences and disparities makes it possible to put an end to it. Which, incidentally, highlights the major role played by perception warfare, and therefore the attention it deserves.
Peace and diversity
A priori, peace would therefore be the perfect solution to achieve, by reducing conflictuality. But: conceptually, it would be possible to achieve a peace based on an absence of divergences and disparities, but where all observers would unanimously wish for an absence of differences between actors, in other words, an absence of variances. Such a peace would be based on generalized uniformity, which would constitute a perfectly dystopian model of society: a world of clones where no differences could exist. This consideration has led to the formalization of the notion of diversity as a function increasing with variances and tolerances, and decreasing with divergences, making it a superior, or more demanding, concept than peace as the simple absence of conflictuality. And this leads us to consider the relationship between the notions of uniformity and equity.
Equity in practice: a case study in environmental Cindynics
Equity is an a priori straightforward notion, referring in particular to equality of rights. However, the invocation of equity can lead to uniformity, i.e., to a cindynogenic absence of differences between actors, and thus to the generation of damage, for example in the environmental field. And this is exactly what happened on May 21 at the Toulouse Administrative Court, where the public rapporteur had to argue in favor of resuming work on the A69 freeway: as Alice Terrasse reminds us, three reasons could be given for requesting this resumption. The first two - that the project would improve road safety, or that Castres would be left behind economically or demographically - were deconstructed. The rapporteur could then only invoke territorial equity to call for work to resume before the Court of Appeal's ruling. The reasoning was simple: since Albi is linked to Toulouse by a freeway, Castres should also have the right to a freeway. In this case, the territorial equity invoked would justify the environmental destruction that would allow the realization of a project based on road freight and fossil fuels: from a cindynic point of view, this equity constitutes a damage-generating uniformity. This apparent paradox can be explained quite simply by temporality: if such projects were conceivable in the 90s, which led to the A68 between Albi and Toulouse, by 2025, i.e. ten years after the Paris agreements, they no longer are. And beyond the environmental damage alone, a strategic risk not to be underestimated that would result from this 'territorial equity' would be that of a generational divide between boomers clinging to anachronistic models, and the new generations who will have to survive the materialization of climate risk.