DIANA PINTO
97
possible to continue expanding the size of the pie with unequal privi–
leges for all. So that society does not split again into two major social
divides of haves and have nots, it is imperative that the privileged
workers, whose status was acquired in the opulent 1960s and 1970s,
lose some of these privileges and share them with those workers who
are defined by the current phase of economic stagnation. For
Closets, Albert, and Minc, only the Left in power can have enough
moral authority to carry out such an unpopular program without be–
ing accused of vile rightist objectives. The cost will be high, because
it entails cutting into the privileges of one's own supporters, but
there may be little alternative.
After having seen at length in all three books the major con–
straints which strap France, the authors' conclusions that the future
can be bright smack of blind voluntarism and a quasi-religious faith
in national redemption. But looking closer one can see that their
reasoning draws its legitimacy from deep-standing reflexes em–
bedded in French culture. The solution to the French crisis which
Albert, Minc, and Closets propose is drawn from purely social con–
siderations which eschew the economic realm entirely as a no-win
proposition. Paradoxically, it is France's original unwillingness to
espouse economic liberalism which serves the authors' optimism,
and which allows them to abandon economic solutions and dream in
the much more familiar French terms of culture and society.
The authors' consensus is that France can pull itself out of the
crisis by becoming a much more open, flexible, and modern society.
Jobs as a scarce commodity will have to be increasingly shared by
all, through an increase in part-time work, leaves of absence, more
studies, and early retirement. Behind this optimistic view lies a fun–
damental assumption that French society in its younger generations
has changed life styles and philosophical priorities. Work as an ab–
solute goal and self-definition has been replaced by the notion of
quality of life priorities, by the search for creative leisure time, and,
ultimately, by non-financial criteria of well-being. It is this new ac–
cent on leisure which makes Minc think along with Albert that part–
time work will become the wave of the future. This more fluid and
open mentality will have little in common with the neo-corporatist
and culturally authoritarian ethics of the traditional working class.
As Minc says, civil society has proven its dynamism, its liberalism,
and its capacity to adapt spontaneously to a static economy. The
energies which go into moonlighting, alternative styles of consump–
tion, and barter are the energies which will stop unemployment in
