Like most of those who study history, he [Napoleon III] learned from the mistakes of the past how to make new ones. (Taylor 1963)

Intuition for the writer is what experiment is for the learned, with the difference that in the case of the learned the work of the intelligence precedes and in the case of the writer it follows. That which we have not been forced to decipher, to clarify by our own personal effort, that which was made clear before, is not ours. Only that issues from ourselves which we ourselves extract from the darkness within ourselves and which is unknown to others. (Proust 2016)

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. (Einstein, quoted in Verdo 2018)

To have to play for ten years to become a passable musician, what a miserable thing for man. (De Musset 2003)

Among all the techniques, there is a technique of discipline, and it cannot be satisfied with the old obedience obtained, worth as much as it is by empirical processes, and which should have been said to be less discipline than moderate indiscipline. The technique will at some point claim to train collaborators committed to its principle, that is, they will accept without unnecessary discussion its conception of order, of life, of its reasons for living. In a world dedicated to efficiency, to performance, does it not matter that every citizen, from birth, is dedicated to the same gods? The technique cannot be discussed, as the solutions it imposes are by definition the most practical. (Bernanos 2015)

The creator is an archer who shoots in the dark. (Mahler 2018)

Machinism depends on the goals that man gives it and therefore it must recognize that the machine – apparatus, regulations, state – is a means, not an end, in the service of a reality that surpasses it: the personal life of man. (Ellul 2017)

All models are fake, some are useful. (Box, quoted by (Berthert 2018))

Epistemologists call ‘disposition term’ a word that refers not to a property of a physical system that would be directly observable […], but rather the disposition of a system to manifest such and such a reaction P° under specified circumstances P’. (Hempel 1956)

We must therefore resolve, that the original of all great and lasting societies consisted not in the mutual good will men had towards each other, but in the mutual fear they had of each other. (Hobbes 2007)

They [English intelligentsia] have also become infected with the inherently mechanistic Marxist notion that if you make the necessary technical advance the moral advance will follow of itself (Orwell 2017).

The network, obviously, became tighter and more capacious with each technical improvement. (McNeill and McNeill 2003)

Routine is the god of every social system. (Whitehead 1967)

We have thrown overboard all conventions, our sole guiding principle is that of consequent logic; we are sailing without ethical ballast. (Koestler 1974)

Morality is opposed to the formation of new and better morals: it stupefies. (Nietzsche 1911)

There’s nothing worse than the status quo!

“You have a promising sector here, don’t hesitate to get involved, you will be actors in these great transformations. You will have a job that is exciting. If you go into industry, it is a sector of almost full employment, with wages higher than the national average.” This is what the president of the IESF (Ingénieurs et scientifiques de France) said during the JNI (20e Journées Nationales d’Infectiologie) (Ventre 2019). Further, “The training of French engineers promotes the capacity for innovation and creativity, much more than other systems elsewhere in the world.” So then, why ask questions and write a book about major changes to be made? For the IESF, creativity does not seem to be the priority. Examining engineering training courses, including those in process engineering (see Appendix 1), reveals the lessons are essentially focused on needs related to the second industrial revolution – the fourth is explored in André (2019) – requiring operators capable of “demonstrating imitation, identical production in the era of mechanical reproduction. The adjoining programs focus on literacy and numeracy as basic skills” (Frau-Meigs 2019). Creativity that is often claimed, but ultimately poorly taught and poorly supported, is relegated to the rank of non-conformism.

However, Serieyx (2014) writes that we have “enormous and expensive education systems that are exhausting themselves in making more and more poorly filled heads, less and less prepared to face the uncertainty of time”. Between a structuring ideology, based on specialization and therefore on compartmentalization, designed to effectively manage stability, in a world that moves too fast in relation to possible incremental transformations, the resilience of the production system is necessarily questioned. What should we think of an organization (of which I am a member) that does not question the essence of its functioning, that is not really clear (in its words) on current and future problems, but that is justified (again with good reason in our country) by the development of a feeling of belonging to a conditioned, even dogmatized community?

At the same time, a country in a constrained situation like Israel has more agile and visibly more effective ways of creating startups (Challenges 2019) because the idea is to bring creations from laboratories to the industrial world via startups (see Technion in Haifa which has enabled the creation of 800 companies). If Israel has one startup for every 1,450 inhabitants, it is because behind it, there are choices, decisions and financing (4.5% of GDP) that allow this dynamic. Israel’s example is not unique. So, what should we do? In the field of processes, with fairly traditional technologies in basic chemistry, can we be satisfied with a status quo or should we revise our copy? The challenge of this work is to try to position oneself in relation to this question.

Bauman (2006), Cohen (2012) and Serieyx (2014) describe a planet that involves more and more complexity with shocks linked to digital technology, the increase in cultural diversity, globalization and the emergence, in France, of new attitudes towards its own accomplishments (relationship to work, growing individualism, distance from work, the notion of the value of work questioned, casualization of labor, etc.), all in a context where the refuge state must think of the place of citizens who expect resources. Don’t we have the right ingredients to be late to the party!

The liberal economy, supported by decision-makers in most developed countries, has introduced a stabilized, ideological framework, assimilated into rapid technological movements that do not adequately take into account major trends such as global warming, depleted reserves or social criteria. According to Baranko (2019), the environment appears to be an exogenous externality in most economic models. “The misconception arose at the dawn of the industrial revolution, a time when Western civilization first believed humankind, through the power of technology, could subdue the rough edges of the natural world.”

The production systems of products, consumer goods and energy have undergone some historical revolutions, from artisanal methods and the direct use of what nature produced and not artificial stocks of coal and oil, to production optimized in terms of financial value, linked to the exploitation of the disposable principle. Engineering sciences have enabled such radical transformations by introducing rationality and efficient models. The process engineering that is included in this context is no exception to this observation. For years (and this is probably not the end), these sciences have enabled considerable technological advances that have obviously led to material well-being and life expectancy inconceivable two centuries ago. So, with the ever-present success of technology, why move away from its beliefs, which are shaped by an education that goes to the heart of the matter and is translated into application facts? But, without considering the value of exploring other possibilities, is there not a risk of sclerosing the actors of industrial production, engaged in forms of single thought?

Livio (2013), in his book, “Brilliant Blunders”, reminds us of cognitive dissonance (Festinger 1957). When engineers receive external information through different media that is not compatible with their initial training, what do they do? What does their company do? In a form of mental storytelling, our cognitive system must build a coherent representation of its environment, which, for Berthet (2018) and Silver (2013), is a heuristic agreement between reality and what we perceive, with the consequence of what, in a reductive way, makes sense (illusion of validity). Livio (2013) writes:

To relieve cognitive dissonance, in many cases, instead of acknowledging an error in judgment, people tend to reformulate their views in a new way that justifies their old opinions.

But when the system cracks, how can a status quo be maintained?

Can we easily use traditional training and proven scientific research in the field of matter and energy transformation to meet the needs of a new world; exploiting impoverished reserves, digital performance, the complexity or use of the powerful citizen of ecological behavior? Today’s skills are fundamnetally beyond our understanding and our ability to fully integrate this near future. We are left to our own devices, especially if we respect the words of von Foerster and Piaget (2000):

The environment does not send us any information, we are the ones who go after it. We are the ones who build them from our perceptions of phenomena. Our world tells us nothing, we are the ones who create questions and answers from our experiences in relation to the world.

After the Second World War, the establishment, of a national chemical engineering research activity – in France – in leading engineering schools resulted from the postdoctoral stay of a few young French researchers in the United States. The latter, supported in their mission by the national economic partners in a country under reconstruction, were able to create structured teams of international, scientific quality, with new training courses at the time, and which continue to bear fruit. However, the coexistence between traditional disciplinary components and engineering sciences has not been so simple; it fades as the notion of engineer becomes more blurred, but persists in some ideologies.

Today, chemical engineering, which has become process engineering, is defined on the basis of an approach – both scientific and technological – with synergies between disciplines that contribute to its development, openings to the industrial sector and openings to society. It has taken several decades to stabilize this scientific component, in a highly hierarchical national research system (and this achievement may not be totally sustainable) and in training courses, which, on the contrary, are (probably excessively) stabilized in a few well established engineering schools.

Traditionally, “Pasteur’s Quadrant” (Stokes 1996) can be summarized in the table below.

Should we not consider process engineering sciences as governed, both by the quest for the discovery of fundamental principles on the one hand and by systemic research that promotes the creation of economic and social value on the other? If this is the case, these sciences must have singular characteristics: openness for some, deepening for others.

In terms of scientific deepening, “bottom-up” research – a common approach within other scientific fields – can be at work. Yet, to allow the eventual emergence of technological solutions with a potential market, it is necessary to engage in reflection and prospective monitoring: in operational choices, in the mastery of applicable methods, etc. Time bases may not be quantifiable in a bottom-up deepening approach. On the other hand, it must be different in the context of problem-solving (top-down), based on systemic scientific tools and more stable knowledge.

There is therefore no possibility of presenting, without a significant scaling back, process engineering sciences as black or white, but rather as a specific culture of integrator, assembler, creator of in-depth scientific knowledge and original methods (system approach) of action, allowing within it, a confrontation and enrichment of ways of thinking and acting. It is therefore not only just about scientific technique, it is a matter of doing so in an economic and social context. We no longer build settlements against the inhabitants, we do it with them, which broadens the situation. The legitimacy of process engineering must be built de facto by the dynamic and recursive sharing of scientific knowledge for an end whose origin comes from the scientific component or that of the applicators, or from a request from decision-makers. It is a science of action: “It is a dynamic in progress […] by its transformative, manipulative, constructivist power…” (Hottois 1992).

Undoubtedly, in light of these comments, we must try to begin to optimize process engineering around revisited foundations. For example, the era of fossil fuels and carbon chemistry that has led to technological advances (and this is probably not yet over) has introduced standardized forms of reasoning and the establishment of costly infrastructures that reinforce and shift cognitive dissonances to other fields. But where will we be tomorrow? In fact, in agreement with Raymond Boudon (2006), the mass capture of collective phenomena that transform disinterest, even rejection, into something accepted, or even desirable, are only the result of accumulated weak signals, of more or less individual origin. They are formatted as great ideas of the moment, a form of integration of common “values”, by synchronizing emotions (Chazel 1974; Virilio 2010), sometimes based on verifiable data. Ideologies with their “fake-news” reign, placing technology in an ambiguous situation to meet new requirements. Virilio writes: “The great ecological fear combines these three types of pollution: pollution of substances, distances, and pollution of knowledge.”

According to Matthew Hornsey (2019), a researcher at the University of Queensland in the USA:

“We grew up in an era when it was just presumed that reason and evidence were the ways to understand important issues; not fear, vested interests, tradition or faith […] But the rise of climate skepticism and the anti-vaccination movement made us realize that these enlightenment values are under attack.”

What is to be noted, however, in the increase in uncertainty is, paradoxically, the place of individuals who are increasingly separated from the collective, but who must integrate consistent thinking. It is undoubtedly for this reason that the communication industry is, for Jean-Claude Michéa (2008), the second largest item of expenditure in the world (after armaments). This situation leads Huxley (2015) to state: “But when applied to the problems of human society, the process of simplification is, inevitably, a process of restriction and regimentation, of diminution of freedom and denial of individual rights.” Manipulation and propaganda are old methods as the world has shown in campaigns, especially digital campaigns, of strategic manipulation, with the intention of influencing political processes in the broad sense (EP 2019). Lobbying is at work.

Several scenarios are possible, and it is difficult to know which is the most credible (see, for example, the often-irrational debates between fossil fuels, nuclear and renewable energy on the one hand and energy consumption and transport on the other). To progress, there is not only the pressure that forces the movement, there is the need to take ownership of the issues in order to control them; and above all the organization of a collective imagination allowing innovation for engineering sciences in the broad sense and process engineering for this particular work, a certain promise of pleasure associated with the development of this imagination (and a certain assurance in the activity to be conducted). On this basis, we need to recharge our batteries to redefine, for a time, a new “nervous system” of the economy, essentially developed on a new culture and education to force us to leave our current comfort zones, perpetuated habits and therefore the status quo.

The success of the upcoming transition is likely to require integrated solutions that should reorganize economic activity in matter and energy transformation to maximize the strengths and minimize the weaknesses and tensions that are increasingly emerging. This will make more dopamine from the ventral tegmental area and the accumbens nucleus of the brain (Fiorino et al. 1997) of process engineering (PE) researchers and trainers for their happiness (and if possible, that of society and the planet). Moreover, Einstein, quoted by Bernstein (1991), wrote: “Never regard study as a duty but as an enviable opportunity to learn to know the liberating influence of beauty in the realm of the spirit for your own personal joy and to the profit of the community to which your later works belong.”

However, in principle, in the field of process engineering, as in other engineering disciplines, great scientific adventures should increasingly escape normality, the “all foreseeable”. Indeed, recent developments have revealed numerous and complex couplings between systems, going well beyond the disciplines. For researchers in the field, there is undoubtedly a need to “look outside” their discipline, which should be reflected in educational actions. “Interdisciplinarity seems to be the order of the day. Though some people worry that the dilution of specialization may lead to a decline in the standards of intellectual rigor, the insights that one field of thought can bring to another cannot be ignored” (Sokal and Brichmont 1997).

A central paradox of process engineering is the diversity that lies behind an apparent unity or at least a proposed coherence, a real portmanteau term. If we take, for example, a leading review in the field such as AIChE J (American Institute of Chemical Engineering Journal), it is possible to highlight the diversity of the field, with in-depth articles and original boundary objects that exploit stabilized know-how in process engineering. When trying to compare scientific articles with each other, it is not always easy to consider them as strictly belonging to the same scientific field. Moreover, the lack of consensus on the part of the scientific world on a definition of PE and the irreducible diversity of practices covered by this engineering science, which is a little over a century old in the USA and the United Kingdom, are symptoms of its particular epistemological status. And this is both the demonstration of a strength, inclusion in a community of thought, and at the same time a weakness by transfer (another form of delegation) to current objects that need the support of PE knowledge. This breadth is essential, because of the opportunities it allows, with the chance of becoming a science that serves social areas with greater potential. But the field of process engineering undoubtedly needs scientific and technical controversies and new enigmas to stimulate its imagination in order to evolve; the rich vascularization between its private preserve and its natural partners (and sometimes complicated in relationships) is an asset for its healing. This situation is in fact a considerable asset when one considers the difficulty of inventing such collective spaces in interdisciplinary operations. These links, with the associated boundary objects, will therefore be logically mentioned in the book.

NOTE.– While in English, the term Chemical Engineering is used preferentially, in France, initially the term Chemical Engineering was used, then some proposed the term Process Engineering, probably to better distance themselves from chemistry? In the text, process engineering and its abbreviation PE are generally used by convention.

“But since the object has been decomposed and its constituent elements distributed and hierarchized by, and because of these intellectual constructions that are the disciplines, the question then arises of the subsequent convocation of those portions of the object which, at first, were not considered naturally suitable to constitute the subject of scientific investigation” (Alvarez-Pereyre 2003). Thus, in order to avoid confining the researcher and/or teacher-researcher to his or her discipline, in which he or she exercises freedom (autonomy) and activity that allows him or her to go beyond the limits of knowledge, it is probably necessary to find ways of “transgressing” that must authorize and support new cultural couplings that combine divergence and creativity. These must allow the promotion of appropriate synergies, allowing the creation of new concepts or artefacts that are useful to society. This is what the (happy?) idea of coupling science and technology expresses. By supporting creativity at the interfaces, by developing creative hybridization, it is therefore a question of going beyond other frontiers of knowledge, but undoubtedly on the basis of new or revised methods, by placing “research and researchers in the context of the life of the city” (Pompidou 2004). This view is supported by Araujo-Jorge’s (2001) position, which emphasizes that it is now necessary to “integrate the knowledge acquired at a higher level to understand the global functioning of nature in order to truly understand its complexity”. However, if these visions are supported by most scientists, in reality, the situation is less simple.

Thus, from these various comments emerge a set of questions allowing a better understanding of how a research unit in process engineering, how a school of engineering specialized in process engineering, positions itself in the academic world in relation to society and companies in the field. But, in addition, the world is moving around us, which implies a reflection on a certain internal dynamic of changes in terms of concepts, value creation and applications. The prospective, presented in a reductive way in this book, will also help us to consider these possible changes.

This positive vision with voluntary resourcing, as we know, will compete with conservatism, which requires less energy and effort than the search for the new social utility which breaks with certain forms of social blindness (Kerven 2007; Simone 2012), especially if we follow René Descartes (2018) with comfortable inertia: “Reason wants us to choose the path that is usually the most secure.” These conservatisms, or these barriers to change from various origins, on the part of principals, scientists (Barreau 2007) or pedagogues, sometimes from those who demand it (but rather for others), have led the authors to sometimes, but voluntarily, take large leaps rather than the conventional small steps. So how did we get to the writing of this book?

First of all, the two authors come from (but not at the same time) the same engineering school. However, this initial common culture does not correspond to a desire to belong to a community, nor to a desire to exist separately. We have remained free of our convictions, of our dreams for their implementation with our knowledge and our vision of the physical and intellectual means that seem to us to be at our disposal. The freedom claimed by everyone, for everyone, has obviously not prevented exchanges or debates – debates that are merged into this co-authored material.

Rather, I am engaged in research on light-matter interactions (including additive manufacturing (André 2018, 2019) and, in this context, nothing predestined me to write about process engineering that is just familiar to me. But, with a long career (begun in 1966), following the initial (conservative) path was not always envisioned, which has led to detours towards research management (in engineering sciences at the CNRS or in the private sector as scientific director of an insurance company, involved in occupational risk prevention) and finally to a return to (engineering) science. In this journey, it is possible to examine needs, ways of thinking, the need for teleological approaches, the difficulties of successfully implementing interdisciplinarity in innovation, etc. In all these areas of uncertainty, reality (at least the perceived one) is complex and effective solutions for one time are simplistic, considered effective, but only for a while. As Sevilla (2000) writes, this is the temporary victory of the fleeting over the permanent, more or less unattainable, especially if, independently of regulation (or the anticipation of its evolutions), the “socially correct” monitors us. Should we then be satisfied with the least bad proposals possible?

Back at the CNRS in Nancy, my office is almost opposite that of Éric Schaer, Director of Studies at the ENSIC (as he was at the time), a true specialist in process engineering, as a young man and, apart from his basic research in PE – see his thesis (Schaer 1997) – concerned with pedagogy and moreover involved in a European network called Iteach¹ (under the responsibility of Professor Jarka Glassey from the University of Newcastle – Glassey et al. 2016). The goal is to develop a framework that will support the evaluation of teaching effectiveness not only in terms of basic knowledge of chemical and process engineering but also in terms of basic employability skills in a range of geographical and educational contexts. This framework for activity is summarized in the figure below from Glassey et al. (2016).

In our friendly relations, Eric tells me of his strong involvement in this European comparison operation based on a measurable existing one, and associates myself with it. So, when we started playing together, we started making a common dopamine, when one is a specialist in process engineering pedagogy, the other more involved in disruption and a holistic vision based on foresight, we had to succeed in transforming discussions, desires for change into a written document; here it is.

In fact, we are ambitious for the field in the hope that, in our modest skills and at our low level, we can contribute our little bit to process engineering (which deserves it) by trying to follow, under the same conditions, these words by Gaston Bachelard (2007):

Reality is never what you might believe, but it is always what you should have thought. Empirical thinking is clear, after the fact, when the apparatus of reason has been put to the test. By looking back at a past of mistakes, we find the truth in true intellectual repentance. In fact, we know against previous knowledge, by destroying mistaken knowledge.

But for the authors, there is, in any case, no desire to seek to separate or even oppose process engineering from scientific activities that are essentially cognitive, theoretical, symbolic and observational of the world. On the contrary, in current scientific developments, several cultures and visions can and should coexist and enrich each other. This is one of the aims of this book, which is also based on Callon’s (1998) reflection:

The infinite frontier of basic research, funded as an end in itself and with the distant expectation of practical results, is replaced by a model of ‘infinite transition’ in which basic research is linked to its use through a series of intermediate processes.

The same is true for us for PE training.

The difficulty of improving and developing elite training and scientific research structures is not new in any field. The change must be explained according to criteria of various origins, whose robustness is sometimes questionable, with many obstacles to overcome, which leads to modest final added values, because sometimes they are based on foundations that are far from rational. Indeed, the value of the quality of instant efficiency training and the importance of research activity are probably undeniable for the future, because the objectives of science and technological development themselves are also undeniable. What stems from this are demonstration difficulties that are potentially problematic, but that have stimulated us in this work. Mahé (2002) considers, for example, that “the conservatism of science is not so much a rejection of change, as this need for consensual norms without which science could not be achieved”. Is this also true for training?

Reading this book, which obviously remains insufficient to get to the bottom of (in view of the large number of scientific and technical works, scientific publications, etc.) a subject that is part of an uncertain future and that must evolve, you will realize that we have tried to open a project, to make people think, but not to shut down the adventure which can be fascinating for many. In fact, in agreement with Latour (2007a), process engineering has found its place in the technical (and scientific) society by delegation from other local partners. On this transfer, which was profitable, PE was able, in return, to explore other paths, other areas of action, other ontologies, while sharing the same fate as its traditional associates in chemistry, products, materials and certain forms of energy. The questions raised in this book make it possible to examine, in essence, with a deeply disturbed environment, how the legitimacy of this confident transfer, involving the pooling of interests, is maintained, deployed, amplified or, if on the contrary, the status quo linked to the stationarity of methods risks leading to a loss of scientific and technological credibility (for example, because of the unprecedented development of artificial intelligence) and, subsequently, to a rapid senescence. By advocating openness to others, it is not, obviously, up to the authors of this book to define the good for the domain.

So that’s something which will share with us all a little more dopamine or, less pleasantly, maybe a little more stress, with cortisol production? This book, which does not close any doors, wishes to give time to time, while things can still be changed in a thoughtful framework of social utility, with the risk of thinking that we will see tomorrow, or later, when it will be necessary, that is, when it will probably be too late, because there are, in any system, inertia and delays. Indeed, under time pressure, the associated emotions (stress, anxiety, etc.) are not always taken into account, and these emotions (the body tries to monopolize all its faculties to dominate the situation or, conversely, to flee it (Santé Magazine 2018)) induce difficulties in thinking rightly, thinking broadly and in proportion to the intensity felt.

This is one of the reasons why we have devoted a chapter to PE-oriented foresight with the definition of several scenarios. As a result, we indicate trends, take sides in some options, sometimes give an opinion, but it will not be up to us to do so. Our aim is elsewhere, to make you think about the place of an important engineering science which, like most scientific and technological disciplines, faces an uncertain future. We are just convinced that it is necessary to change position, ways of thinking and acting in this science that is chemical and/or process engineering.

A certain laziness in thinking about the future, forms of carelessness or even passive incompetence on the part of some leaders, far too much conformity with a restricted freedom and initiatives, are forms of expression of a good old principle of inertia. We just want to participate in a positive questioning of the stationarity of goals and methods to achieve them, in a system that protects our world too much from any changes that break with perpetuated habits. To move forward, we need all of you to prove wrong the second sequence of D’Olivera Martins’ (2007) writing: “After the first symptoms, it becomes clear that the global economy is sick – and the crisis can be conducive to the adoption of new solutions. But there is also the risk of the temptation of selfishness and solutions that turn communities and economic spaces inward.”

From Science comes foresight; from foresight action: this is the very simple formula that expresses in an exact way the general relationship between science and art. (Comte 1998)

Technology doesn’t work, it organizes need. (Jünger 2018)

The chief, if not only spur to human industry and action is uneasiness. (Locke in Leibniz 1996)

Results are achieved by exploiting opportunities, not by solving problems. (Drucker 2006)

The design, manufacture and use of the machine are inscribed, even in their dreamlike deliriums, at the heart of dramas involving dreams, love, temptation, despair and even madness, accompanied by all the vertigo that can lead to a quest for intoxicating discoveries. (Brun 1992)

Respect for ordinary life is not a good program. (Ellul in (Latouche 2013))

Those who advance research are in very small numbers compared to those who repeat or replay things they have found elsewhere; the largest number publish banalities that do not advance anyone. (Rovere 2019)

Science and technology are what socializes non-humans in such a way that they have an impact on human relationships. (Latour 2007a)

We need impertinents, deviants, the shifted, the marginal. We need people who have new ideas and dare to implement them, who dare to break the implicit rules established. (Baransky 2014)

“Science” is limited to studying the events whose regularity can be discovered. (Friedman 2018)

To train minds without conforming them, to enrich them without indoctrinating them, to arm them without enlisting them, to give them a strength from which they can build their strength. (Rostand 1959)

“Science” cannot be defined independently of its counterpart, independently of an environment accepting as an image of itself all the judgments that are organized around the qualifier of non-scientific. (Stengers 2006)

If the idea of a France in peril is so vivid, while it brings together so many talents, it is undoubtedly because, at last, awareness is growing that in France, more than elsewhere, our rules of the game and our collective modes of operation sterilize all the intelligence, all these creative capacities, all these potentialities. (Serieyx 2014)

There is a fatal deficiency in contemporary knowledge based on compartmentalized, quantified, unidirectional, bureaucratized knowledge. (Keynes 1996)

At every moment, therefore, the present is full of several possible futures. And man becomes an actor “of” history, capable of acting, either by weighing at the critical point or by working on the propagation medium. The first mode of intervention explains the role of minorities (or even the individual) in history; the second depends on the responsibility of all. (Passet 2011)

The very idea of satisfying needs no longer makes sense because they are barely satisfied by a new object and are reactivated by another, newer one, which relegates its predecessor to the status of waste. (Bauman 2009)

The slower you pedal, the slower you move. (Poulidor, quoted by (Serieyx 2014))

Because, without knowing what is written up above, none of us knows what we want or what we are doing, and we follow our whims which we call reason, or our reason which is often nothing but a dangerous whim which sometimes turns out well, sometimes badly. (Diderot 2000)

In cultural terms, no company is built on dreams alone and no company is built outside of them. Successful action is by necessity the result of practical considerations. But the purpose of any action is explicitly defined by the deep nature of the human being, his dreams, his vision of life, his culture. The dynamics of life, the challenge of risk and uncertainty require a new effort of creativity that will lead us to the reconstruction of the notion of progress, the one that philosophers, the ideologues of certainty, have damaged and almost destroyed. (Giarini and Stahel 1990)

We too often forget that specialists are produced from amateurs, just as the military is produced from civilians. (Latour 2007b)

In a physical environment of interaction, [places] add meaning to exchanges. They locate and contextualize them. They guide behavior and speaking skills. (Berthet 2018)

In France, strangely enough, it is not these regulars of the high seas, these specialists of the concrete that are asked for advice to guide the flagship, but the members of a caste who remain in port and have, for the most part, only a very theoretical knowledge of the sea. (Beigbeder 2012)

The technique has taken on a new dimension and organization. I am looking here for its specific structure, and I have realized that it exists as a system, that is, as an organized whole. (Ellul 2004)

Those in the organization who have ideas for doing things differently or better are divided into two categories: those who do not dare and those who dare. Those who do not dare understand the stakes and the importance of new ideas, but they are paralyzed by risk-taking and fear of displeasure. Having never tried anything, they have not failed and are therefore unharmed by reproaches […], they are renouncers. Those who dare, innovators, move forward by disturbing agreed ideas, organizations and sometimes procedures. They raise fears and misunderstandings and are strongly criticized… (Philippe 2012)

Andersen’s paradox: “Everyone in the working classes can see that the king is naked; but everything is done, consciously or unconsciously, to make everyone believe that they are the only ones to see him.” (Michéa 2008)

If […] a society is in favor of high energy consumption, then it will necessarily be dominated in its structure by technocracy and […] it will become […] intolerable. (Illich 2004)

A discipline is by definition an encounter with constraints. (Miller 2014)

In fact, flexibility is often more apparent than real, and the impression of freedom may only be apparent or compensated for by a great loss of time. (Simondon 2018)

All things considered, neither the mind nor the world are, after all, partitioned and compartmentalized. Relationships between the various areas of reflection must therefore exist. All you have to do is detect them. (D’Espagnat 2015)

Because there are generally several responses to a structural demand and some innovations do not meet any demand. (Boudon 1984)

Éric SCHAER

Jean-Claude ANDRÉ

March 2020