The expression "vivre ensemble" (living together), whether in its verbal form or as a substantive infinitive, first appears in Cameroonian discourse in the political and media arenas. It would certainly be instructive to study why and how this expression emerges in public discourse. In relation to which events? Which events popularize it and give it the status of a discursive formula? What is its semantic configuration? In other words, it would be interesting to analyze the political, social and moral representations instilled and conveyed by this expression in the utterances of actors in the Cameroonian arena.

It is possible, it seems to me, to identify its illocutionary and perlocutionary functions. By illocutionary function, in the sense of the philosopher John Austin, I mean the message conveyed by an utterance beyond its immediate meaning. And by perlocutionary function, again in Austin's sense, I mean the psychological, social or political effect, intentional or not, that the utterance may produce on the interlocutor or listener. I'm therefore interested in the use of the expression "vivre ensemble" (living together) as part of a performative speech act, i.e. one that belongs to, inscribes itself in, reproduces and supports an idea of social cohesion, but also inscribes itself in a way of promoting and acting in the direction of this cohesion, in short the conditions of its possibility and the actions that favor or disfavor it.

The hallmark of political and media discourse is that it is generally not self-reflexive, i.e. it rarely takes the time to reflect on what it implies, on the conscious or unconscious meanings it conveys or conveys. Words and expressions thus quickly become formulas, i.e. "a linguistic sign which, at a given moment in the relations of social forces and public debates, emerges in language with a strong prevalence, a strong availability, so that all speakers are urged to make use of it". (Khadiyatoulah Fall 2015, P. 24). In Cameroon's discursive space, the expression "vivre ensemble" tends to become incantatory, injunctive or rhetorical. It does not allow us to inaugurate a new reflection on the conditions of possibility of social cohesion and on the political and social practice of the various actors likely to achieve this cohesion. On the contrary, it tends to reinforce other formulas already in circulation, such as peace, stability, order, citizenship and, consequently, to form part of a lexical field made up of other formulas and opposing another lexical field perceived as its opposite, notably war, disorder, instability, intolerance etc.... In short, this formula is used not to question a reality or a political and social status quo, but to ward off any desire to call it into question.

 But some uses of the expression "living together" seem to configure not an already existing reality to be defended, but a horizon, an ideal to be achieved. But this ideal, which implies a quest, a strategic reflection, is rarely thought through or made explicit. While the expression "living together" is relatively recent in the national media and political arena, it has a long history in the international scientific arena. Very early on, it was coined, particularly in its substantivized form (le vivre ensemble), to define the very essence of politics (Hannah Arendt) in modern societies, in a break with an approach centered on legitimizing the repressive action of the state and its prerogatives as the authority with a monopoly on the use of force. The notion of living together was also called upon to question the conditions under which sociability is possible. The notion of living together has thus enabled various scientific disciplines not only to raise age-old philosophical questions, but also to reformulate them in the light of certain more recent events that testify to the difficulty of the state, including regulatory bodies, but also of individuals and groups, to manage their cohabitation, i.e., their living side-by-side, in a way other than that of opposition, exclusion and conflict.

At the scientific level, research and reflection on living together seem to be oriented towards intermediation between two practices that have developed strongly in recent years:

• On the one hand, there's identitarianism or communitarianism, which emphasizes the particularities of groups and uses a number of strategies to ensure their cohesion and durability, but also their demarcation, their difference from others and sometimes their supremacy.
• on the other hand, totalizing postulations that aim to erase diversities and define a modality of integration presented as the result of history, but at the same time constituting an indisputable horizon: this horizon will be given different names depending on the place: the melting pot, the nation, the Leitkultur (dominant culture).
• The first favors smaller groups, often in a minority situation, while the second favors larger groups, often in a position of strength. Both favor a conception of society in which the principle of homogeneity prevails, and difference or otherness is seen as a problem and an anomaly. They function by setting themselves two objectives: 1) to reduce within the endo-group any desire for splitting up and singularization, by constituting themselves as an instance of absolute appeal; 2) to work to make clear the difference with any exo-group. Within the endo-group, the duty of identification and solidarity is absolute. And with regard to the exo-group, an expectation is formulated: discrimination and possibly an attitude of rejection or even belligerence. It's a logic of inclusion and exclusion, of categorization, of identity and otherness, based on a self-evident and natural principle: it's within the meme, i.e., within a group considered to be united and homogeneous, that it's possible to fulfill oneself, one's desires and one's individual and collective development.

With the notion of living together, research and scientific reflection question and criticize these obvious facts. In relation to identitarianism, they attempt to understand its motivations and analyze the situations that give rise to it. By analyzing their legitimization and the ways in which they are constituted and expressed, science attempts to apprehend their functions, but also their lures and excesses. By perceiving them as a sometimes ineluctable moment in a social and political dialectic, they analyze their illusions and limits.

In relation to the demands for conformity and uniformity formulated at macro or mega level, i.e. at the level of state, national or civilizational bodies, science analyzes the contradictions, confronts the claims with lived reality and shows how behind the proclaimed sameness differentiations, hierarchies, ostracisms, nepotisms, injustices etc. develop. These are all realities that encourage people to withdraw into their own identities, and to seek out other instances of security and justice as a means of self-fulfilment and recognition.

With the notion of "living together", various scientific disciplines have reexamined the notion of diversity, as defined in particular by anthropology in terms of culture, otherness, identity, difference, ethnicity, ethnocentrism, racism, etc., to think in terms of relationships and interactions. This made it possible to extend them to other categorizations such as gender and imagined communities, and thus to other types of grouping and solidarity. This has also led to the realization that plurality is a constitutive principle of all societies, past and present. In my view, this opens the way to a reflection on the types of interaction at the origin of pathologizing processes of interactional dynamics (minorization, exclusion, discrimination, injustice, denial of recognition) and on social engineering likely to create therapeutizing structures, institutions and dynamics.  

With the notion of living together, scientific research and reflection become a critical body and a place for imagining the balance between the logics of fragmentation and the logics of building common spaces, between centrifugal dynamics and centripetal aspirations, between plurality and solidarity, between equality and difference.  

Some brief bibliographical indications

Arendt, H. (1998), The Human Condition: A Study of the Central Dilemmas.

Facing Modern Man, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2nd ed.

Barthes, R. (2002), Comment vivre ensemble. Courses and seminars at the Collège de

France (1976-1977), Paris, Seuil coll. Traces écrites.

Ette, Ottmar, ZusammenLebensWissen. List, Last und Lust literarischer Konvivenz im globalen Maßstab (ÜberLebenswissen III) (Berlin: Kadmos 2010)

Khadiyatoulah Fall, What is the expression "le vivre-ensemble" (living together)?

Cartographie d'une notion , in Francine Saillant(sous la direction de), P . 21-35

Saillant, Francine (sous la direction de)(2015), Pluralité et vivre ensemble, Presses de l'Université de Laval.

 Touraine, A. (1997), Pouvons-nous vivre ensemble? Égaux et différents, Fayard

Living Together as a Question and as a project

The expression ''living together'', whether it be considered as a verb phrase to refer to the process or activity of living in/as a community or as a gerund (the state of being together), made its first appearances in Cameroonian public discourse as a coinage brought into popular usage by actors of the political arena as well as by the media. It is worthwhile studying why and how this coinage made its appearance in public discourse. What particular events is it linked to? Who are actually those who brought it into popular usage, making it a handy discursive turn? What is its semantic bearing? It would definitely be interesting to analyze the political, social and moral representations made, circulated and instilled by different Cameroonian actors when they talk in the public space about living together.

It is by my reckoning possible to consider this expression from its illocutionary and perlocutionary functions. The concepts "illocutionary" and "perlocutionary" are used here in the sense of the Philosopher John Austin. According to Austin, the illocutionary function of a speech act refers to the message it conveys beyond its immediate or sentence meaning. As regards the perlocutionary function in Austin's understanding, it relates to the psychological, social or political effect, be it intentional or not, that a speech act could produce on an interlocutor or mere listener. I am therefore interested in the use of the expression ''living together'', thus in the idea of social cohesion it belongs to, it depends on, it reproduces and strengthen. I am as further interested in the representations in which the use of this expression is inscribed, especially the representations related to the conditions that make it possible and to the actions that favour or disfavour it.

Political and media discourse are typically not self-reflexive, in the sense that their authors rarely make time to reflect on what it implies, on the intended as well as unintended meanings it conveys. Words and expressions used by politicians and the media quickly gain a formulaic dimension, in the sense that "a particular linguistic sign at a given moment, considering the relations of power within the society and the nature of public debates, gains strong linguistic currency, becomes highly available, such that all speakers feel prompted to use them" (Khadiyatoulah Fall 2015, P. 24, our translation). Within the Cameroonian discursive space, the expression ''living together'' has tended to become incantatory, injunctive and rhetorical. It does not allow room for new reflections on the conditions and possibilities of social cohesion and on the social and political practice of actors who are supposed to attain such cohesion. On the contrary, it tends to reinforce other formula that are already in circulation such as peace, stability, order, citizenship and thereafter fits into a lexical field that considers itself in opposition to other expressions, such as war, disorder, instability, intolerance etc. In short, this formulaic expression is used, not to question a given reality or political and social status quo, but rather to nip any form of questioning or resistance to it in the bud.

However, some usages of the expression, ''living together'' seem to configure not actually an already existing reality which has to be defended, but rather a horizon and an ideal to attain. But then, this ideal which implies a quest and strategic thinking, is hardly thought out or clarified. Although the expression "living together" is a relatively new one in our national media and political arena, it has for long now been in common usage in international scientific settings. It has been used, especially as a gerund (the state of being together), to define the very essence of politics (Hannah Arendt) in modern societies, creating a breach with an approach centered on legitimating the repressive action of the State as well as on its prerogatives as exclusive owner of the right to use violence. ''Living together'' has equally been used to question the conditions under which sociability becomes possible. Living together as a concept has thus allowed for various scientific disciplines to pose often times ancient philosophical questions, but also reformulate them in the light of some more recent events which point to the difficulties faced by the State, understood here both as governing body and as individuals and groups, to manage their cohabitation, that is living together in a mode other than that of opposition, exclusion, and therefore conflict.

            At the scientific level, research on living together seems to be geared towards intermediation between two practices that have been greatly developed these past years:

• On the one hand, identitarism or communitarianism lays emphasis on the specificities of groups and works through a number of strategies to ensure group cohesion, continuity, but equally demarcation, difference with other groups and at times their supremacy over the others.

• On the other hand, there are absolutist postulates which aim at erasing diversity and at defining a mode of integration presented as resulting from history but simultaneously constituting a non-disputable horizon. This horizon receives, depending on the place, different denominations: the melting pot, the nation, the Leitkultur (dominant culture), etc.

Both practices, although they oppose each other, fall within the same paradigm; they reproduce the same logic and simply modify the intensity. The former opts for smaller groups, which are usually in a minority situation, while the latter favours larger groups that are often in a position of power. Both give privilege to a conception of society in which the principle of homogeneity prevails and where difference or otherness appears as a problem and as an anomaly. They function with two objectives; 1) nipping in the bud within the endogroup any endeavor to fractionize it by posing as an absolute instance of appeal. 2) Working towards making differences with exogroups clearly noticeable. Thus, within the endogroup has been formulated an absolute duty of in-group identification and sense of solidarity. Vis-à-vis the exogroup, an expectation is formulated: discrimination, and eventually an attitude of rejection and belligerence. It therefore functions in the logic of inclusion and exclusion, of categorization, of in-group identity and otherness which sets off from a principle considered as natural and self-evident: the principle of sameness, i.e. that only in a group considered as united and homogenous it is possible to achieve self-accomplishment, to attain individual, as well as collective desires.

With the concept of living together, scientific research questions and criticizes these commonplaces. As far as identitarism is concerned, research seeks to understand its motivations, and analyses the situations that produce it. By analysing its legitimation and the modalities of its constitution and expression, science seeks to apprehend not only its functions, but equally its lures and dangers. By perceiving them as an inevitable moment inscribed in a social and political dialectics, scientific research analyses at the same time their illusions and limits.

Pertaining to the conformity and uniformity demands formulated at the macro or mega levels, i.e. at the level of State, national or civilisational bodies, science analyses contradictions, confronts claims with the reality observed and portrays how behind proclaimed sameness other forms of differentiations, hierarchies, ostracism, nepotism and injustice emerge and are even consolidated in everyday practices. All of these realities favour cultural isolationism, the search for other instances of security and justice, as a means to attain fulfillment and being fully acknowledged.

Through the concept of living together, different scientific disciplines have re-interrogated the concept of diversity, which the anthropology has configured around the notions of culture, otherness, identity, difference, ethnicity, ethnocentrism, and racism to envisage it under the prism of relations and interactions. This made it possible to extend them to other categories as gender, imagined communities, thus allowing room for the perception of other forms of grouping and solidarities. This also made it possible to realise that pluralism is and has always been the constitutive basis of every society. By my reckoning, this paves the way for reflection on the type of interaction at the inception of processes that pathologise interactional dynamics (minorisation, exclusion, discrimination, injustice, denial of recognition) as well as on the form of social engineering likely to create structures, institutions and therapeutic dynamics.

With the notion of living together, scientific research therefore becomes a critical space as well as a place for striking the balance between the logics of fragmentation and the logics of building common spaces, between centrifugal dynamics and centripetal aspirations, between plurality and solidarity, between equality and difference.

Somes very few bibliographical indications

Arendt, Hannah (1998), The Human Condition: A Study of the Central Dilemmas Facing Modern Man, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2^nd edition.

Barthes, R. (2002), Comment vivre ensemble. Courses and seminars at the Collège de

France (1976-1977), Paris, Seuil coll. Traces écrites.

Ette, Ottmar, ZusammenLebensWissen. List, Last und Lust literarischer Konvivenz im globalen Maßstab (ÜberLebenswissen III) (Berlin: Kadmos 2010)

Khadiyatoulah Fall, What is the expression "le vivre-ensemble" (living together)?

Cartographie d'une notion , in Francine Saillant(sous la directionde), P . 21-35

Saillant, Francine (sous la direction de)(2015), Pluralité et vivre ensemble, Presses de l'Université de Laval

Touraine, A. (1997), Pouvons-nous vivre ensemble? Égaux et différents, Fayard