mehl, dominique - the television of intimacy meeting a social need

8/8/2019 Mehl, Dominique - The Television of Intimacy Meeting a Social Need

1/12

Dominique MehlPauline Ridel

The television of intimacy. Meeting a social needIn: Rseaux, 1996, volume 4 n1. pp. 73-84.

Abstract

Summary: French television, which until recently was no more than an intermediary between the establishment and the general

public, developed a new type of programme in the 1990s based on emotion, confession and individual messages. The 'television

of intimacy' provoked strong criticism for its voyeuristic and exhibitionist aspects and for abusing its power by actively intervening

in public life. In this conclusion to her book La Tlvision de l'intimit, the author argues that the new programmes meet a need to

express expectations, hopes and criticisms that the social fabric does not satisfy.

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Mehl Dominique, Ridel Pauline. The television of intimacy. Meeting a social need. In: Rseaux, 1996, volume 4 n1. pp. 73-84.

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/reso_0969-9864_1996_num_4_1_3306
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/author/auteur_reso_260http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/author/auteur_reso_425http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/reso_0969-9864_1996_num_4_1_3306http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/reso_0969-9864_1996_num_4_1_3306http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/author/auteur_reso_425http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/author/auteur_reso_260


2/12

THE TELEVISION OFINTIMACYMeeting a social need

Dominique MEHL

Translated by Pauline Ridel

Summary: French television, which until recently was no more than anintermediary between the establishment and the general public, developeda new type of programme in the 1990s based on emotion, confession andindividual messages. The 'television of intimacy' provoked strong criticism for its voyeuristic and exhibitionist aspects and for abusing itspower by actively intervening in public life. In this conclusion to herbook La Tlvision de l'intimit, the author argues that the new programmes meet a need to express expectations, hopes and criticisms thatthe social fabric does not satisfy.

73


3/12

THE TELEVISION OF INTIMACY

4 THE

TELEVISIONOF INTIMACYMeeting a social need

Dominique MEHL

Reality shows, confessionshows, documentaries onthe personal experience ofanonymous people, 'forum'television, 'truth' television, 'townmeeting' television - all these new typesof programme that mushroomed at thestart of the 1990s are based on whatordinary people have to say.

The programmes and their presentersaroused fierce controversy, centred oncondemnation of their exhibitionism/voyeurism. Their defenders adopted aless strident tone, to point out that thereis a real and widespread demand forsuch shows. It must be said that boththe upholders of authenticity and thecritics of indecency are to some extentright, because these new public displaysare at the same time indecent and truthful, hameless and sincere. They allbreak habits and taboos by showingwhat was previously thought unfit to beseen, and yet they all provide an opportunity to air genuine distress, real

lems, and honest expressions of need.Screening such displays does not cancelout their authenticity; the spectacle doesnot destroy truth. They work in tandem.But the television of intimacy raisesother, fundamental, questions concerningot simply the media and theirresponsibility, but public debate andthe way modern societies aredeveloping.The television of intimacy materiallychanges the bases and shifts theemphasis of public speech.The principal characteristic of publicspeech, which addresses society as awhole, fuels public debate and helpsshape public opinion, is that it easilylends itself to generalisation. It relieson shared knowlege and beliefs, collective convictions and meaningfulexamples.In these new television shows, on thecontrary, public speech articulates bothindividual points of view and generalconcerns. It embodies personal andsecret expectations, impressions, emotions and feelings, then exposes theseconfidences to public view and hearing,thus providing them with an audience.In this sense, it transforms privateexpression into public speech.The methods used by the media to articulate private expression and publicspeech are not identical. The levels ofpersonal involvement and commitmentto the community vary according to thesubject, the motivation of the peopletaking part, and the ambitions of the TVprofessionals who orchestrate theseshows.Four types of approach can be identified,ach involving particular individualaspirations, distinct media responsesand different social approaches.

75


4/12

Dominique MEHL

First type: the personal message. Inthis scenario, the invited guests go oncamera to communicate somethingthey have not said or could not say totheir nearest and dearest; illness,malaise, personal relationship problems, sad or shameful stories - thethemes vary. But the aim is always thesame: to communicate a hidden desireor an unbearable secret to peoplearound whom the guest has built a wallof silence. Television in this case takesup a position at the heart of the contradiction between the flowering of a society f communication and the stifling ofsome forms of interpersonal, intrafamil-ial and intraconjugal communication,between bosom friends.Second type: therapeutic unburdening.Guests behave like patients and theirquestioners like therapists. The relationship is based on non-judgmentallistening to what they have to say. Someelements of psychotherapy are sometimes shown on the screen. Above all,the conversations demonstrate anintention to take the drama out of psychic ill-being, to make the psychologicalpproach to problems commonplaceand to popularize some of its interpretiveases. In this sense, what mattersis not so much the slight benefit to theguest as the dissemination of therapeuticanguage, which is normally usedonly in therapist-patient situations.This type of articulation between private impulses and their public expressions part of the slow but far-reachingpsychologization of social life. It alsopoints up the gap between the significant xpansion of the 'psy-' culture,with its special language and way ofinterpreting the world, and the inaccessibility of the specialist institutions,which seem distant and elitist.

Third type: confession on camera. Thisform of public speech combines revelation f a situation, thought or feelingthat is difficult to live with, a search foridentity, and yearning for a sort ofcatharsis. The guests face the spotlights and recount situations fromwhich they would like to break free. Bygoing public with their plight they seekto distance themselves from it and elicitpublic acknowledgment of their problem. At the same time, by speaking toothers they unburden themselves of asecret and a feeling of guilt. But morethan anything they paint their ownsocial portrait by the image they project. Telling all on camera is part of thetrend towards the secularization of confession. It is akin to the formal confessional act in the Roman CatholicChurch, except that the burdeninvolved is not that of sin but only thefeeling of being different, and thatrepentance does not hold out the hopeof pardon but simply the possibility ofrelease.Fourth type: public messages. In thiscase the reason fo r giving public testimony is to issue warnings to the commun ity , to give advice or precepts thatothers may follow, and suggest lessonsthat can be applied in other contexts.These lessons do not however derivefrom established wisdom but from individual experience. Exemplary accountsor emblematic characters provide thetransition between the individual andthe general. This form of public expressions often linked to the work of associations formed by special-interestgroups. On questions concerningmorals, private lives, certain specialinterests and, more generally, culturaldifferences, the television of intimacyacts as a sounding board for or even

76


5/12

THE TELEVISION OF INTIMACYreplaces local associations and identitygroups.These new forms of expression arehelping to transform the public space.Hannah Arendt, Richard Sennet, and toa lesser extent Christopher Lasch andGilles Lipovestsky, expressed the fearthat public debate would wither away,the collective consciousness fade andpublic opinion become apathetic as narcissism tightened still further its gripon public consciousness.1The television of intimacy invalidatesthis forecast. The public space revisitedby the media seems remodelled ratherthan exhausted. In its two-fold dimension f 'public sphere of free expression, ommunication and discussion'and 'public stage, that is, a stage onwhich appear both actors and actionsand social events and issues',3 the public pace in the media era is hummingwith new ideas. The parading of personal experiences is at the heart of thisconfiguration.The rationally-based public space relieson knowledge, expertise, opinions andbeliefs, buttressed by learning or references to systems of thought. Its examples re instructive situations, publicfigures and stories. It gives a platformto specialists, scientists, intellectuals,artists and leaders. In contrast, the public pace based on experience accordsvalidity to emotions, promotes expression y non-experts, and fosters individuality. It offers individual examples,evocative cases and emblematic figures.It gives a platform to users, consumersand ordinary members of society. Onthe one side, the balance is tiltedtowards instruction, science and superiorknowledge. On the other, it swingstowards initiation and learning throughexperience; it bathes in light and shade.

This 'show and tell', as opposed torational argument, defines the boundaries f a feminized public space. Thisis confirmed by the television of intimacy: women are more willing toexhibit their private lives and womenare more inclined to watch these newprogrammes. The subjects broachedand the modes of access to reflectionpromoted by these shows seem to correspond more closely to a search foridentity based on human relations,which is characteristic of the femaleworld.3The television of intimacy promotes anew form of social debate which, farfrom merely pandering to the whims ofshowmen scrambling for better ratings,reflects a more widespread development.Complex, rapidly-changing societies are [...] decreasingly societies ofthe exchange of ideas, of communicationnd argument, and increasinglysocieties of expression', Alain Touraineobserves.4 The transformations in thepublic space induced by the televisionof intimacy are in step with this socialmutation. They are part of a generalmovement in which 'society can nolonger be defined as a set of institutionsor as the effect of a sovereign will; it isthe creation neither of history nor ofprinces, it is a field of conflicts, negotiations and mediations between rationalization and subjectivization, whichare the two complementary andopposed faces of modernity.8 Therenewal of public debate by privatespeech is an integral part of this movement described by Alain Touraine.The television of intimacy, then, posesthe question of the status of expertiseand the value of personal testimony inthe public space. Learning, knowledgeand the teaching relationship are at

77


6/12

Dominique MEHL

once effects of truth and effects ofimposition. They form the foundation ofthe rationality of the public space whilein a way devaluing the layman. Experience, n the other hand, accords importance to particular cases and toaffectivity. As a vector of authenticity, itgenerates effects of discovery, initiationand learning, but also effects of obscurantism and partiality. It raises awareness nd possibly stimulates reflection.It does not spark discussion.The preponderance of experience in thepublic space thus produces equivocalresults. To a certain extent it introducesindividual but emblematic knowledgeinto the collective heritage. It sets theseal of approval on the layman's baggage of intuitions, sensations andmodes of interpretation. On the otherhand it devalues established knowledge, eads to the proliferation of ad hocand biased viewpoints and annihilatesthe very idea of debate, since all experience as equal value. The public spaceshaped by experience thus appears likea consensual melting-pot in which conflict, contradiction and controversy arescarcely given house room.Incidentally, the valorization ofemblematic testimony may well resultin these individual statements beingheld up not as examples but as models.This option is therefore liable to surreptitiously reintroduce tendenciestowards conformity, under cover of theequivalence of points of view. After all,why not follow an exemplary example?Some observers are therefore hauntedby the spectre of standardization.6The public space is changing under theinfluence of a new articulation betweenthe private and public domains. Thetelevision of intimacy contributes toand reinforces a twofold trend towards

privatization of the public space and thepublic expression of private concerns.Richard Sennet diagnosed the adventof a public private life'; the television ofintimacy is ushering in a 'private publiclife'.Sennett, examining the link betweenintimacy and the public sphere, perceived a distinction between the rule ofimpersonality and the regime of personality.he first, from the point of view ofappearances and disguises, is characterized by anonymity and by the similarity between street demonstrationsand theatre. In the second system,social life is a psychological interaction,nd Sennett's 'tyrannies of intimacy' shape the public space. With theexhibition of emotion, the parading ofemotions and the public flaunting ofpersonal relationships, a third form ofpublic appearance is being promoted bytelevision, ushering in the era of theinterrelational. In this scenario, a society f relations which brings togetherindividuals and experiences supplants asociety in which relations based oninfluence, power and class are to thefore.Public space/private space; the idea hasnow taken root that these areas areintermingled, that distinctions are nolonger operative, that the psychologiza-tion of public life and the mediatizationof private life have broken down the barriers. As Dominique Wolton* puts it :"The principle of "publicity" hasbecome the rule to the point where thepublic space, the political space andcivil society virtually overlap [...] Issuesconcerning conscience, death, religionand morals [...] have virtually beenmoved from the private sphere into thepublic arena and are discussed in thevocabulary of the public space.'

78


7/12

THE TELEVISION OF INTIMACYThe media, to all intents and purposes,are putting the finishing touches to amovement of mutual territorialencroachment The most private areas -the couple, the family, the home - havebeen invaded by public scrutiny, whilethe most public spheres - newspapers,radio and television - have been monopolized by private discourse. Intimateand secret matters are put on show.Personal practices have been collectivized: education, health and procreation re no longer discussed solelywithin families or between individualsbut have been taken in hand by theinstitutions. Alain Ehrenberg9 hasannounced that 'Subjectivity hasbecome a collective matter'. On theother side of the coin, public rules,norms and laws have been privatized,rewritten and reformulated in individualprivate lives; for instance the matrimonialond, divorce (or 'demarriage'), sexual roles, educational convictions andmourning.Private matters and public issues are soclosely linked that the boundariesbetween them have become unde-tec table. It has become less possiblethan ever before to consider the internal ithout reference to the external.As Franois Dubet10 says, 'the criticalactivity of the subject is carried out neither in a cultural void nor in a socialvoid and, even in the secrecy of the conscience, introspection is nothing morethan an interiorized social dialogue'.Or, as Jacques Chevallier11 puts it, 'individual identity is constructed out ofongoing transactions with the institutions'.This interaction is now even moreclose; and moreover it is on display. It istherefore becoming increasingly difficult to isolate personal territories and

circumscribe common territories. Thisbeing so, the distinction between whatconcerns private and public life must beapprehended without reference to loci.Instead of trying to identify spaces, thefocus must be shifted to studyingprocesses and the stages on which theytake place. On the one hand, there isthe process that models, shapes anddefines private concerns: it encompasses all activities aimed at isolatingsingularity and circumscribing interpersonal relations. On the other, thereis the process that delineates andshapes public affairs: it comprises allthe phenomena that promote generalityand regulate social relations.Each of these processes is played outand can be observed on a particularstage, which is defined by the size andnature of its audience. These stagesconstitute 'theatres' attended by moreor less numerous and more or less targeted audiences; they are distinguishedby the size and specificity of the audience. The political, legal, professional,urban and media stages provide greatvisibility for the processes of privatizationnd publicization. The family, conjugal, associative and interrelationalstages attract a limited audience tothese processes, although they can playas important a role as the big stages inshaping opinion, as the phenomena ofspreading rumours, fashions and preferences through proximity prove.The big stages are not reserved for public ffairs and the small stages for handling private embarrassments.Watching television confirms this: thelarge theatres are also the repository oflittle confidences, while the smallstages are shaken by major public controversies.This interdependence between the inte-

79


8/12

Dominique MEHL

rior and the exterior is nothing new. Onthe other hand, the allocation of anissue, theme, reflection, or matter ofconscience to one space rather thananother, which was previously fixed byrules, can fluctuate. Neither religion,norms, nor shared beliefs are now available to signpost the terrain and laydown what should be kept to oneselfand what can be said to others. Everyone efines their own limits and boundariesn their own way.Intimacy is no longer socially determined; like the idea of 'morality'12 or therepresentation of modesty, it hasbecome subject to individual definitionsformulated in interaction with theencouragements or condemnations ofthe social fabric, which are themselvesformed in a purely empirical way. Asour societies entered the era of culturalliberalism, they also entered the era ofcultural relativism. Modesty, decency,reserve and intimacy are caught up inthis twofold movement which results inthe subjectivization of value systems.Far from leading to the dissolution ofspecifically private space, this evolutiontends rather to produce a renewal of thevarious modalities of expression of private life. Private space, private life, intimacy, the innermost being: theapproaches to privacy are being redefined.The private space takes shape in thedomain of debating ideas and theprocess of forming opinions and values.Social customs and everyday life definethe limits of private life. Affects, emotions and sentiments shape intimacy.The innermost being is seen as the seatof the conscience and internal debate.And everybody models themselves anddevelops in relation to the exterior. Private space and public space overlap.

Private life and public life impact eachother. Intimacy and 'extimacy' combine.Innermost being and external being correspond.13 However, while private space,private life and now intimacy havebecome visible, the innermost being isfor the moment still kept out of thespotlight Matters of conscience, introspection, pondering motives and indecisionre resolved away from the publicgaze, and (for the time being?) in theshadows. Those who appear on the television of intimacy bear witness to this;even while revealing themselves, theyredraw the borders of their 'secret garden'. While unburdening themselves,they retain their singularity. For thesake of the show they exhibit thosefragments of their personality of which,according to them, they do not haveexclusive possession. Their personalreserve survives the ordeal intactSo, more than ever before, the television f intimacy prompts us to envisagethe shaping and expression of subjectivity ot in a coalescent and secretrelation with the private, but in a reciprocity between the private and the public, n incessant confrontation betweeninternal drives and external pressures.At a time when the social bond isundergoing a crisis and social movements are in decline, the television ofintimacy is characterized by a peculiarmode of intervention in the politicalarena. By showcasing individual hurts,blighted destinies and social misery, itexposes and gives a platform to suffering.y orchestrating benevolent viewerreaction, inviting an audience to sharethese sorrows and sympathize withthese misfortunes, and sometimesspurring public charity with day-longprogrammes fo r victims of AIDS orother diseases, television forges a pact

80


9/12

THE TELEVISION OF INTIMACYwith the people of which compassion isthe wellspring.In some ways the television of compassions akin to humanitarian organizations.t shows but does not accuse. Itreveals but does not promote criticalpolitical argument. It appeals to thepublic to show empathy and solidarity,but not to revolt. It does not call foraction but takes it upon itself to healthe wounds. As Luc Boltanski14 hasshown, it operates in a framework ofsentiment, not condemnation.Humanitarian aid and charitable televisionhave often been criticized. PascalBruckner18 brings a two-barrelledcharge that well sums up current reservations. He condemns both theapproach taken by television charityprogrammes and the ideology that subtends the commitment of contemporarysocieties to these 'binges of pop, compassion and hedonism'. He protests:'Abolishing suffering serves first of allto promote the do-gooders, who pushthemselves forward independently ofthe people who need help. When charityassociates itself with publicity itbetrays its first commandment: tact andsecrecy [...]. We claim ownership of thesuffering of others, we collect t and distil t like a nectar that sanctifies us.There is, then, a charity that raises upthose we help and readies them tobreak free from their problems, andthere is another that pushes them further down into their affliction andrequires them to collaborate in theirown de-humanisation. In this case, thephilanthropist is no longer a friend ofthe poor but a friend of poverty.' What isworse, he says, is that modern societiessanction a worldview based on victimization. This way of thinking encourages he 'average citizens of the

capitalist "paradise" to view themselveson the model of persecuted peoples'.The hero of this situation is the 'self-proclaimed martyr' who, even thoughprivileged, well-off or simply happy orvaguely satisfied, feels he has a right tocomplain.Against this vision of a peevish worldfull of querulous grumblers, BernardKouchner18 raises his voice to assertthat 'humanitarian aid does not function simply like an ambulance andstretcher-bearers'. He pleads that itinvolves 'a way of looking at the world, amethod and a morality'. Kouchner, whohas been much criticized for attractingmedia attention to himself, points outthat making sure the cameras are onthe scene is not a matter of craving personal publicity but part of a politicalplan: 'In criticizing the lack of follow-upand the perversity of television newsreporting, people overlook how much ithas stirred things up. Television hascertainly made horror commonplace,but it has made it visible [...]. Whenthere are no images, no news, publicindignation atrophies,' he argues.The television of intimacy is at theheart of this controversy, which itarouses, feeds and sustains. But hereagain, television positions itself in thepublic space not as a great manipulatorindependent of social forces, politicians, current sensibilities and theissues of the day; it reflects, shapes(and therefore possibly deforms) thepromptings and aspirations that flowfrom civil society.Television, which stages social life inits documentaries, magazine programmes, and fictions based on real-lifesituations, has always been involved indebates about values and morality. It infact plays an active normative role by

81


10/12

Dominique MEHL

virtue of what it shows or hides, thepeople it invites to appear and those itignores, and the lifestyles it extols andthose it disparages. From this point ofview, its involvement seems inverselyproportional to the vitality of the institutions which, officially, lay down thelaw and set the standards.At the start of the television age, Frenchsociety was starting imperceptibly toshake off the yoke of rigorism, but thefamily, educational and even religiousinstitutions were holding out strongly.At that time television was happy to giveairtime to the most traditional currentsof opinion. Then came the surge of anti-establishment dissent sparked by the1968 student revolt and the ferment ofthe movements to break free of moralrestrictions, in particular the feministmovement. But they were not reflectedon the nation's television screens. Thedebate was 'in the street', not on television. With the exception of a few boldsallies by Pascale Breugnot, such as thePsy show, television held itself alooffrom the hurly-burly. The aggressivity ofcivil society found no echo on the airwaves.The 1990s present a completely different icture. A society which has nowbeen won over to cultural liberalismand the relativism of value systems hasits own misfits; those who are upset bymodern life because they are still wedded to tradition, or conversely thosewho have been set apart by modernsociety even though the taboos havebeen officially lifted. The television ofintimacy plays to both these audiences.On the one hand, it tries to reconcilecouples who are on the brink of separating and to reunite runaways withtheir families. With programmes suchas L'Amour en danger (Love in Danger)

and Perdu de vue (Gone Missing) it hasno hesitation in setting itself up as thedefender of family stability and opponent of divorce. On the opposite tack, itseeks to make deviant behaviouracceptable and win recognition fo r people in marginal situations. Bas lesmasques (Drop the Masks), whichopens its studio to 'forbidden subjects'17 mines this vein. In both its traditional and critical versions, thetelevision of intimacy assumes responsibility for present-day uncertaintyabout values and norms for living.In trying to prop up shaky relationships,ngaging in charitable works andpracticing what Perdu de vue presenterJacques Prdel calls 'social hygiene',the television of intimacy steps outsidethe medium's usual role. As an intermediaryetween elites and ordinary people, economic forces and consumers,institutions and users, television wasuntil recently simply a more or lessobjective passer-on of messages, butwas not involved in the action. It hasnow become a social actor able to question the decision makers, interrogatethose in the know and shake up institutional nertia.This interventionist television is stillfeeling its way in France. In the UnitedStates, where television stations sendteams out to conduct criminal investigations on-camera, independently ofthe police, the process has gone muchfurther. It has in Italy too, where television layed a leading role in the 'cleanhands' operation against political corruption. French politics has beenspared this wave of media activism forthe moment. There have only been a fewtimid attempts at 'forum' television,such as the Demain les jeunes (YouthTomorrow) programme moderated by

82


11/12

THE TELEVISION OF INTIMACYMichel Field during widespread studentprotests in 1994 against an educationalreform.French television crusades in the areasof morals and the family are bolder. Themedium's engagement in the field ofvalues shocks some observers, whowould like to see television stick to theneutrality befitting an impartial mediator.hey consider the new departure tobe an abuse of power, as specialistmediators have no legitimacy to usurpthe institutions, even if these are foundwanting.Yet the popular success of these initiativessignals a demand that is not beingmet by the social fabric. Television isperforming the function, for civil society, of giving form to the expectations,hopes and criticisms of people whohave been reduced to silence. The innovations introduced by the television ofintimacy are thus challenging the vitality f the social fabric and its officialinstitutions, voluntary associations andsocial movements. All things considered,t seems to be simply the converseof social apathy. It is both a substituteand a symptom.By putting people in distress in thespotlight, the television of intimacy alsocontributes to the definition of individualism in a time of crisis. The hedonism and narcissism that went hand inhand with the affirmation of the individualriumphant are in retreat. Dissatisfactionand the search for recognitionare feeding the doubt of the depressiveindividual. The television of intimacypresents itself as a vast marketplace ofvalues in which, to be sure, all references are given equal weight, but theright to be different is proclaimed andthe claims of special categories areadvertised. In this sense, it subscribes

to the management of otherness byacknowledging the difference andminority status. It participates in boththe uncertainty surrounding values andthe quest for identity that is characteristicf present-day societies - a queststamped with the seal of anxiety andneed.ReferencesARENDT, H. (1988): Condition de l'hommemoderne. Paris: Presses Pocket(translation).BOLTANSKI, L. (1993): La Souffrance distance. Paris: Mtall.BRUCKNER, P. (1995): La Tentation del'innocence. Paris: GrassetCHEVALLIER,J. (1995): For intrieur etcontrainte institutionnelle, in CURAPP(Centre Universitaire de RecherchesAdministratives et Politiques dePicardie), Le For intrieur. Paris: PUF.CURAPP (1994): Les Bonnes Moeurs. Paris:PUF.DUB ET , F. (1994): Sociologie de l'exprience.Paris: Le Seuil.EHRENBERG, A. (1995): L'Individuincertain. Paris: Calmann-Lvy.KOUCHNER, B. (1995): Ce que je crois.Paris: GrassetLASCH, C. (1980): Le Complexe de Narcisse.Paris: Laffont.LIPOVETSKY, G. (1984): L'Ere du Vide. Paris:Gallimard.LIVINGSTONE, S. & LUNT, P. (1994): Se faireentendre dans l'espace public. Lesfemmes, la tlvision et le citoyenspectateur. Rseaux 63.9UR, L. (1992): L'Espace public: de lathorie politique la mtathoriesociologique. Quaderni 18 .RUI, S. (1995): Foule sentimentale. Rcitamoureux, mdia et rflexivit. Rseaux70.SENNETT, R. (1979): Les Tyrannies del'intimit. Paris: Le Seuil.TOURAINE, A. (1989): Communicationpolitique et crise de la reprsentativit.Herms 4.TOURAINE, A. (1992): Critique de lamodernit. Paris: Fayard.WOLTON, D. (1992): La contradiction del'espace public mdiatis. Herms 10 .

83


12/12

Dominique MEHL

WOLTON, D. (1995): Espace public-espacepriv. Libration, 6 April.Notes1 H. Arendt (1988 - translation); R. Sennet,1979; . Lasch, 1980; G. Lipovetsky. (1984).2 L. gure. 1992.3 See S. Livingstone and P. Lunt 1994, and S.Rui, 1995.4 A. Touraine, 1989.5 A. Touraine, 1992.6 D. Wolton, 1995.7 R. Sennett, 1979.8 D. Wolton, 1992.

9 A. Bhrenberg, 1995.10 F. Dubet, 1994.11 J. Chevallier. 1995.12 CURAPP. 1994.13 See CURAPP, 1994. op. cit14 L. Boltanski. 1993.15 P. Bruckner, 1995.16 . Kouchner, 1995. (The co-founder and former head of Mdecins sans frontires, who hasbeen prominent in aid missions to Somalia andBosnia-Herzegovina.)17 In the words of its presenter, MireilleDumas, who called her 1994 book Parole interditeParis: Editions n' 1).

84

mehl, dominique - the television of intimacy meeting a social need

Documents