Dear Editor,
In the introduction to his “folie” (Act of madness, or extravagance); to his “essay” on getting rid of the menace of endemic joblessness in France, the late former Mayor of Saint Martin, Dr. Hubert Petit wondered if it was presumptuous of him “to think that it is possible to eradicate unemployment in France,” to do away with joblessness in the nation, forever. L’éradication totale du chômage en France, (Gutenberg XXIe siècle), 2000, was published in France, some six years before his passing in 2006.
In the introduction to the essay, we read (I translate): “Given that unemployment is the social priority; all economic considerations must follow in the wake of its suppression. (...) Human kind has never experienced such rapid and profound changes as those that it is experiencing now. The inequities, the injustices, and social fractures, are more and more real, more and more difficult to bear. To make matters worse, television, and other media accentuate the suffering of the unemployed with spectacles of those who are lucky enough to be active, and employed (...). Why should some be able to work, and not others? What faults are the unemployed guilty of? (Introduction, p. 7-9)”
In the first 10 chapters, the physician/politician/essayist examines the phenomenon, the scourge of chronic unemployment in France, and he proposes his “solution”: “Le partage du chômage,” (The sharing of joblessness). He then anticipates reactions to his prescription, and he discusses them under three other headings: “Le pourissement; L’affrontement; Fractures et misère (The Worsening of the Situation; Confrontation; Fractures and Misery). His final chapter, “Le référendum” is a sort of “mise-en-scène,” a staged journalistic account: a vivid rendition of events leading up to the said plebiscite.
As for the outcome of this popular vote: “Aucun doute n’était possible (...); il n’y aura plus jamais de chômage en France!” (There was no doubt possible (...); there will never again be unemployment in France!) This is an unusual approach to this subject, but a rather interesting way of considering it, of apprehending this very important phenomenon.
The salient points of the essay inform on the injustice of joblessness, and the need for a legislative/legal “right to employment“; the failure of politicians, and of union leaders to address the scourge of chronic mass unemployment; “oversights,” and “mistakes” in social organization; the current nature of joblessness, and a review of past attempts to combat it; the “solution” to unemployment (the author’s): away from being “enslaved to work” (“des esclaves du travail”), rather towards the pleasures of life; perspectives of “sharing joblessness”; and the dangers of resisting his (the author’s) “solution” to the plague of mass unemployment in France.
Since the mid-1980s, unemployment in France has fluctuated between 7.5 per cent and 10.5 per cent. During the decade leading up to the publication of this essay (1990-2000), joblessness in metropolitan France was around 10 per cent ─ more or less ─ where it is today. But in the French Antilles, in Guadeloupe, in Saint Martin, in French Guyana, and in a few other “outposts” of the Republic, unemployment was 3 times the metropolitan rate: over 30 per cent — just as it is today.
Indeed, today, almost 20 years after the publication of Dr. Petit’s essay, joblessness in France has not improved. With a rate somewhere between 9.5 per cent to 10.5 per cent, France has the highest unemployment rate of the major EU member countries.
I’ve searched the Internet to no avail for some “reception” of this book; for some commentary on this essay. But we must not despair. We must hope that someday soon, someone much better versed and endowed than this reviewer, will render proper justice to this inventive and unusual effort, to this enigmatic essay. And, maybe, just maybe, French decision-makers may pay heed.
Gérard M. Hunt
