اخبار تونس- وطن نيوز

اخر اخبار تونس اليوم – اخبار تونس العاجلة

W6nnews.com  ==== وطن === تاريخ النشر – 2026-04-13 15:27:00

The great paradox in Tunisia lies in cognitive wealth versus executive poverty. Deep scientific contributions are often classified as an “intellectual luxury” in the corridors of decision-making, rather than a “guiding compass.” This disconnect ultimately leads to “socially blind policies,” which may succeed in listing numbers but fail to gain people’s trust or change their reality. Redha Ben Salamah * This is a call that carries within it a deep appreciation for the role of reason and its companions, and it reflects an awareness that when criticism exceeds its limits and turns into insult, it may burn the bridges that build collective awareness. The “elite” thinkers are usually the ones who carry the torch of enlightenment in uncertain times, and being kind to them and their ideas does not necessarily mean absolute approval, but rather it means creating a safe environment for disclosure, where the idea can mature without fear of marginalization or exclusion. Likewise, distinguishing between a person and an idea, because criticizing the intellectual method never requires undermining the dignity of the thinker, and understanding the context means appreciating the historical and social circumstances in which this thought was born before making ready-made judgments. Sociologists are “doctors of society.” They study its phenomena with a scientific methodology to understand the roots of problems and sometimes contribute to providing solutions to them. Diagnosing society’s ills is the first and essential step towards reform. The sociologist not only observes society, but seeks to make the “imbalances” clearly visible and solvable. Sociology in Tunisia has witnessed a remarkable development thanks to a generation of founders and researchers who analyzed the structural transformations of Tunisian society, most notably but not limited to Taher Labib, Abdel-Wahab Bouhadiba, Al-Moncef and Nass… The state of independence in Tunisia was closely based on the social sciences as a tool for directing public policies and building the modern state, as sociological knowledge was used to understand the structure of society and change it in line with the modernization project. In the first decades, studies and policies supported by social research focused on development issues, in addition to studying social segments. Research institutions were established to provide studies that support public policies, by attempting to socially engineer society, such as personal status laws and universal education… These policies were essentially based on sociological insights aimed at breaking traditional structures (such as tribalism) in favor of a modern national identity. Cognitive wealth versus executive poverty, but there is a fundamental point that reveals a tangible reality, which is dispensing with the results of social research when making public policies, which is due to several structural and technical reasons, which prevent the translation of “knowledge” into “decision.” The decision maker is now looking for quick results and “emergency” solutions that serve immediate social calm, while solid social research requires a long time to understand the roots and accumulate data. Priority is always given to the results of the deaf “language of numbers” (growth, inflation, budget deficit), if they are not false, at the expense of the “human dimensions” and the profound social effects proposed by the social researcher, since the latter is more difficult to measure quickly, physically. Social research often puts its finger on the wound (structural poverty, marginalization, crisis of values), facts that the “decision maker,” who lacks direct experience and needs training, may prefer to ignore to avoid the cost of political or financial reform that seems prohibitive in the short term. The great paradox lies in cognitive richness versus executive poverty. Deep scientific contributions are often classified as an “intellectual luxury” in the corridors of decision-making, rather than a “guiding compass.” This disconnect ultimately leads to “socially blind policies,” which may succeed in listing numbers but fail to gain people’s trust or change their reality. The intersections of sociology with politics. Today, one can explore the works of Al-Hadi Timoumi and Mouloudi Jassoumi, which are among the most prominent examples of “non-dogmatic” social and historical research that provides a deep dissection of Tunisian society, yet these contributions often remain far from the political decision-making table. Al-Hadi Timoumi is one of the most prominent academics and historians in contemporary Tunisia. Although he is primarily known as a historian, his works intersect deeply with historical sociology, as he focuses on the study of social structures, The marginalized classes, and the Tunisian identity, and he adopts the “history from below” approach, concerned with groups that have been neglected by official history, such as the peasants and the working people. He is famous for his ability to link historical events to the current sociological and political reality in Tunisia. Among his books are: “The Social History of Tunisia (1881-1956), which is considered an essential reference for understanding the interactions of Tunisian society and class transformations during the colonial period,” and “How Did Tunisians Become Tunisians?” It is a historical sociological study that analyzes the features of the Tunisian personality and identity throughout the ages… As for Mouloudi Soumi, he has non-dogmatic competence, is free from ready-made templates, and is distinguished by cognitive humility and emotional intelligence without bias. This prominent Tunisian academic and researcher in sociology, known as a “citizen researcher,” focuses his studies on the intersections of sociology with politics and current history in Tunisia. Use the academic historical approach that deconstructs social and political structures. He performs the process of “diagnosis,” but he adds the modern sociological field dimension. Among his books are: “Revolutionary Society and Post-Revolution”: a study of the transformations of Tunisian society during the revolutionary movement,” “Facing History”: a monitoring of the path of political reform and democratic transition, “The Cognitive System of Sociology in the Blog of Al-Hadi Al-Timumi,” which is an epistemological reading of the works of the historian Al-Timumi, “The Obstructed Societal Transition”: a study of the obstacles to Tunisian political society. Especially through his important book, “Marginal Society,” he diagnoses “marginal culture” and violence. He focuses on the fact that the main defect is not in the poor, but in the system of marginalization. He sees that Tunisian and Arab society suffers from a “schizophrenia” between the center (large cities, elites, formal economy) and the margins (rural areas, popular neighborhoods, unemployed youth). Sumi believes that society suffers from a state of “disintegration of traditional ties” without building strong modern civic ties, which makes the “street” the only place for expression, and it is often unorganized expression. Soumi criticizes the elites who formulate superficial theories that do not understand the language of “popular neighborhoods” or “peasants’ roundabouts,” which makes the proposed solutions to society’s defects inapplicable. If Al-Tayumi diagnosed and dismantled the defects with history, documents, and temporal roots, telling us, “We are here because of the errors of history,” then Sumi analyzed the “social body” as it moves and suffers, and diagnosed the defects of the current reality with sociological observation. One of the most important “previews” he presented was the criticism of some intellectuals and politicians. He believes that they have a defect represented by “field blindness,” as they develop solutions to defects that they do not touch, and they speak a language (democracy, modernity) that is not understood by those who struggle for a living. The bottom line in his vision is that what happened in 2010-2011 was a “historic opportunity” to correct society’s defects (marginalization, nepotism, exclusion), but disappointment occurred because the “elites” reproduced the same old practices with new faces, which made the “marginal” feel deceived again. The “screams” of social scientists are rarely heard. It is strange that the “screams” of social scientists are rarely heard. Rather, those who read it and support it are a small number compared to the majority because it did not find interest, popularization, or dissemination to spread awareness. The question arises: Why? Although Al-Hadi Timumi and Mouloudi Vassumi are familiar in some serious cultural and political platforms, although they are rare, their contribution is limited to a group of readers and is not taken as a reference for reform. This conclusion touches on the essence of the “crisis of social sciences” in Tunisia. Despite the high cognitive value of names like them, there is a clear gap between “intellectual production” and “political decision,” and this can be attributed to several reasons. Among them is that the general reader prefers quick and direct analyses, which limits their impact to a narrow circle. The “technical expert” or “economist” remains the preferred authority, while the sociologist or historian is viewed as an “annoying critic” or writer of reflections, and not as a partner in building field solutions. Because both Taimoumi and Fassumi work on “the present tense” and criticize current political paths (such as the faltering democratic transition), their opinions are often classified as “intellectual opposition.” This classification prevents their ideas from being transformed into “reform projects” adopted by state institutions. The Tunisian arena also lacks a cultural “mediator” (translators) who can transfer the juice of these books into simplified sociological or educational programs of action that public opinion can adopt and press for reform. They provide the “diagnosis” with surgical precision, but the “treatment prescription” remains locked on the shelves because those who have the “reform scalpel” in their hands often ignore science in favor of narrow political considerations. The media cannot be exonerated for its shortcomings, nor can society be blamed alone, as they live in a state of “backfeeding” that has led to the absence of deep thought. Instead of “awareness-making,” we went to “managing excitement,” where a large portion of the Tunisian media, especially audiovisual media, drifted toward the “commercial media” model that searches for “ratio” (audimat) by replacing sociologists and historians with “chronographs” (continental analysts) who provide impressions. Personal rather than scientific analysis. There seems to be a systematic exclusion, as a thinker like Mouloudi Gasoumi or Hadi Timumi is rarely given enough time (an hour or more) to explain a complex idea. Rather, they are asked for “elegant words” that suit the fast pace of the broadcast. A large portion of the media has turned into platforms for crude propaganda, making “free thought” seem out of context or burdensome to the observer. In addition to the “reading crisis” and the worrying numbers, the official figures for the year 2025 show a shocking reality that reflects the depth of the societal crisis: Tunisian citizens spend, on average, only 5 hours and 16 minutes per month reading books, compared to hundreds of hours on social media platforms. Statistics indicate that only 11% of Tunisians bought one book during the past year, while the reading rate does not exceed 0.7 books per person annually. This digital superficiality has led to an “inability” to be patient with long texts and reference books, as society tends to derive its information from “short publications” that lack depth. A cry in a valley. What is strange about the matter is that there are some “intellectuals” and “universities” in Tunisia who in fact represent an obstacle to any progress, because their behavior weakens the institutional fabric and disrupts efficiency. Most notable among them are those with an inflated “ego.” These narcissists hinder teamwork and reject constructive criticism. They suffer from “scientific arrogance,” which is characterized by denying the academic or scientific value of others and belittling their achievements. Despite their university level, they are characterized by intellectual isolation, rejecting the creative other, resisting him with silence and isolation, and even suggesting to the mob of people by launching insults and following the “herd mentality.” The poet Mahmoud Ghoneim used the title of one of his collections, “A Cry in a Valley,” to express his commitment to his nation’s issues and to make calls for reform at a time when his voice may not receive a response. From this is his saying in his piece “The Shepherd and the Flock”: The herd passed by a land whose waters and grass were good, so he drew from its water and grazed, and his shepherd shouted: Come on, oh herd, we have escaped from The thief came out and a ram said to him: What is the difference between you? Both of you seek satiation from our meat. We will leave for him and escape. If you love alone, you will not be more ascetic or pious than him. What a wonderful escape that “You would come to chant it, if only it would save us from him and from you.” When a person screams in the valley, the echo of his voice is heard, like a fruitless action or a call to which no one responds. The echo may reflect the reality of the problem or get lost in the complexities of the terrain of circumstances, which makes it a symbol of expressing frustration or trying to communicate in an unresponsive environment. Despite all of this, we must always try. Delivering an optimistic message to an indifferent society or group of people who have turned a deaf ear to the truth * Writer.