Originally, “to entertain” means to distract one’s thoughts or actions. Entertainment is either the result of the will of the entertained, or the result of an external event, or even the result of the intervention of a third person.
Modern language has retained the word “entertainment” in the sense of leisure. This meaning is found in judgments of the Court of Cassation, for example, in the description of harm to pleasure “reduction of opportunities for intellectual leisure due to intellectual deterioration and narrowing of social life due to exacerbation of personality disorders” (Second Civil Chamber, May 28, 2009). 2009 Appeal: 14084-08 and Civic Chamber 3 June 2009 Appeal: 40981-08-40982 08-40983 08-41712 08-41713 08-41714, both messages can be found on the Legit France website). The decision of the First Civil Chamber (March 20, 2007, appeal: 0521541, Legit France) even referred to “joyful entertainment”.
In the language of private law, the word “entertainment” is synonymous with the word “concealment” or “distraction.” Thus, in the ancient text of article 1477 of the Civil Code, we read the following: “Whoever of the spouses has any things in common; he loses his share in these things.” No doubt, for reasons of updating legal vocabulary, and because the use of the verb “entertainment” or the noun “entertainment” can lead to confusion, “entertainment” in the current text of the Civil Code has become “enjoy”. This word is no longer found in the Civil Code, except for Article 976. But this may be an oversight. “Leisure” can be read in the sense of “distraction” in the motives of some recent decisions of the First Civil Chamber (February 20, 2007, appeal: 18487-04 and February 6, 2007, appeal: 05-18622, Legit France)
We are talking about the concealment or alienation of the property of the heir who has taken possession of the property that constitutes an integral part of the inheritance, which belongs to several co-heirs and whose belonging to the hereditary property he hides, or which of the spouses surrendered in deceit the rights of the wife with whom he married by order of society. In any case, the author is deprived of his share in the inheritance or in the common share.
The cover-up does not necessarily mean an act of appropriation, it can be the result of any process aimed at depriving one of the spouses of his share in society (First Civil Chamber, January 9, 2008, appeal: 05-15491 05-16313, Legit France), but he suggests physical element. It consists of any process designed to deprive the husband of his share in society and the deliberate element of the deliberate desire to undermine the equality of the division. Parties complaining about entertainment must establish the truth about fraudulent maneuvers that could bribe them in the department, against the person against whom the case is directed (Civ. I, d June 17), 2009, appeal: 08-17712. Legit France). Court states that in order to assess whether embezzlement has taken place, the court must refer to the date of filing of the writ of divorce as the date of the dissolution of the community (First Civil Chamber, 6 February 2007, Appeal: 05-18622, Legit France)
The hidden spouse may exercise his right of deduction from the transferred asset to recover his possession or reward once he has proven the existence and amount of his claim. In this regard, after the society was found to be indebted to the husband, he was entitled to withhold the amount he embezzled, according to the wife (I Civil Chamber 1, 23 January 2007, appeal: 04-10526). If the concealed property does not end up in the hands of the spouse guilty of the concealment, revaluation, in principle, should be made by determining by seizing the property from the common property, and not by conviction, the guilty husband must pay the value of the hidden property in favor of his wife (First Civil Chamber, 12 November 1998, Appeal: 96-21221, Legit France).
The origin of this relationship is economic. Man sees himself completely surrendered to the forces of liberalism. The latter requires the full mobilization of individual capabilities. Everything in man should contribute to the increase of production. Yields increase, more demanding rhythms subject man to destructive rhythms. The result is exhaustion and exhaustion. Leisure time finds its justification in the worker’s fatigue. It relaxes a person who is tired from work, and at the same time makes him more dependent on work, allowing him to enjoy his rest. Work, the goal of capitalism, is legitimized by the means of entertainment, which, according to the subjective view, become the goal that work overcomes. Entertainment is thus an anonymous example of the legitimation of action in ordinary life. Provides greater compensation for labor hardships. Revitalizes tired subjects, once again able to obey the rhythm of the task. Horn chimer and Adorn note: “Under advanced capitalism, pleasure is a continuation of labor. It is sought by those who want to escape from the mechanized labor process in order to face it again.”
It is permissible to complete the picture drawn by the Frankfurt School and recall, together with the entertainment police intended for the workers, the practice of gambling aimed at the poorest. Pierre Bourdieu’s analyzes analyze the criticisms of the Frankfurt School as they show that even for those who are unemployed and outside the picture described by Horn chimer and Adorn, there is a particular leisure culture associated with gambling. . If the proletarians and wage-workers are included in the culture of entertainment by the attraction of everyday taste, then the lower proletarians, the unemployed, in the process of economic decay, absent from the symbolic process of the world of culture, is literally a step outside in relation to the average products of leisure art. This phase shift is explained by a self-established hope for a better future, which contrasts in every way with the experience of the present, devoid of any possible self-respect. The low respect that the lower class suffers from can be temporarily avoided in overvalued, objectively meaningless, subjectively important gambling. What remains for those left unjustified in the game of appreciation and reward? Nothing but the hope of chance in the only form in which those present can agree to refuse to recognize the game.
Two criticisms of Horn chimer’s analysis, Adorn and Bourdieu, can be formulated. First, it is sociology. The second is philosophical. All three argue that recreational practices are the ultimate alienation, the most ingrained form of social violence. The views of Horn chimer and Adorn are based on the idea that the soul of capitalism goes to unite those it manipulates. The culture of entertainment, in fact, is nothing but the manifestation in the basis of everyday life of this fusion in the scheme of alienation … In a similar note, Bourdieu argues that the social understanding of poverty involves an analysis of the types of entertainment. to which it corresponds. Entertainment and gambling are the two forms of play in the social age.
SELF USE AND LEISURE PRACTICES
The second critique of the integrative model of leisure culture can be made not socially, but philosophically. Of course, this is not about denying the contribution of the Frankfurt School and Bourdieu’s analyses, but rather about limiting its scope. The social critique of entertainment and gambling culture continues to be very fruitful. By revealing that culture is a dimension of production, these authors teach us that one of the laws of capitalism is an increasing continuum between the endless accumulation of capital, the endless appreciation of cultural capital, and the intensification of cultural differences in politics and the media. Practices that turn into recreational practices. From Horn chimer to Bourdieu, it is about understanding how economic mores interact with the cultural norms of all social situations. The distinction provided by the proper use of cultural norms of good taste.