@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
Olivier5 wrote:
Quote: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
a phrase used to express the immutability of central tendencies in human nature that remain evident in things, despite detailed and often superficial changes.
That's correct yet there're other, more practical meanings: eg that change as heralded by politicians (or managers) is often more rhetorical than real, that bosses and leaders often chose ON PURPOSE to fiddle with details, as a way to keep everything that really matters unchanged while pretending to reform.
That too is an enduring facet of human nature. Humans everywhere, even the supposedly stupid proletarians who are the object of so much of the interest of, often power seeking, political figures, are very adept at manipulating established processes in pursuit of their self-interest - indeed just as adept as the political figures themselves.
I agree with you that human nature includes a tendency to avoid control, but I agree with Blatham that you tend to dismiss, in a facile, unconvincing way, the possibility of real historical or political change. E.g. the seeing of change itself as a positive thing is a modern tendency, no older than the 19th century, and therefore the political posturing of change in lieu of real change is also a modern tendency. The latter is a form of avoidance of the former.
So political change can be elusive, over-hyped, risky or rare, that's true. But it remains possible and often desirable because we need to adapt to an ever changing environment or can always do better.
To sum up, your interpretation of "plus ça change..." is that it's naïve to believe in the possibility of real change. I think that's facile. IMO a truer interpretation is that societies always resist fundamental change because it's painful; they often pretend to change, therefore. But that doesn't mean we should never try.
