The single thought : myth, mirror and inner freedom

Does single thought really exist? an empirical debate

Before analyzing its effects, we must first ask: is single thought an observable phenomenon, or merely a political slogan?

For sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, symbolic domination operates less through coercion than through the unconscious internalization of social norms. Thus, “single thought” would not be an explicit dogma, but rather a set of presuppositions shared by elites and diffused through the media, education, or language. This perspective nuances the idea of a voluntary homogenization of minds.

By contrast, researchers such as political scientist Philippe Corcuff emphasize that the public sphere remains marked by a plurality of opinions, even if some are marginalized. Single thought would then function as a “critical myth”, used to denounce an ideological domination that is felt rather than empirically measured.

Empirical data and its limits

Recent surveys (IFOP, 2023; Pew Research Center, 2022) show that despite media concentration, diversity of opinions persists in mainstream Western outlets. For instance, an analysis of political coverage in France reveals that even in generalist channels, divergent perspectives are present—though sometimes in the minority. On social networks, research from the University of Oxford (2021) indicates that polarization does not necessarily lead to uniformity but rather creates “parallel ecosystems” of opinion.

However, it is important to note that these studies rely on varied methodologies (content analysis, audience surveys, social network mapping), where criteria for measuring “diversity” or “plurality” often differ, limiting comparability and the generalization of results. Moreover, media visibility does not always guarantee the actual influence of minority opinions on public debate.

Complex mechanisms: How does a thought become “single”?

Single thought does not arise from a conspiracy, but from multidimensional social processes:

Media and the Framing of Information
According to the propaganda model of Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, mainstream media, influenced by shareholders and advertisers, filter information in line with the interests of economic elites. Example: strike coverage is often reduced to its economic impact rather than to the underlying social demands.

Institutions and Normalization
Michel Foucault showed how institutions (schools, hospitals, administrations) produce normative discourses that shape behavior. Psychiatry, for instance, has historically legitimized the exclusion of divergent modes of thought (madness, neurodivergence).

Social Networks and Algorithms
Eli Pariser (author of The Filter Bubble) explains that digital platform algorithms confine users within informational bubbles, reinforcing both the homogeneity of beliefs within groups and polarization between them.

Economic Interests
Naomi Klein, in The Shock Doctrine, describes how neoliberal think tanks imposed a worldview centered on deregulation, exploiting crises to marginalize alternatives.

Mardès, a house of publishing, culture, and transmission
Mardès is an inclusive and modern house that edits poetry collections, essays, magazines, and works on the art of living. It also creates cultural and artistic events that foster reflection and sharing.
Its mission is twofold: to edit and to transmit — transmitting poetry, thought, and the gestures of daily life that ease existence and enrich sensitivity.
Through its support, several Musarthis contents remain freely available, affirming a generous and elegant vision of culture.

This article is offered freely, with the support of the swiss publishing and cultural house Mardès, and of Marlena’s Home, where refinement and well-being meet.

Single thought, often described as the imposition of a dominant idea at the expense of the diversity of opinions, is regularly denounced as a source of suffering, discomfort, and numerous cognitive biases. Yet this concept, both polysemous and controversial, deserves in-depth analysis, as it is invoked in varied and sometimes contradictory contexts.

Cultural and geopolitical diversity: a variable dynamic

The dynamics of single thought vary across political and cultural contexts.
In authoritarian regimes (China, Russia), single thought is often imposed through censorship and repression, while in democratic societies it manifests more through mechanisms of social and economic normalization.
In countries with strong ethnic or religious diversity (India, Brazil), plural opinions can coexist with attempts at ideological uniformity, particularly around identity or nationalist issues.

Examples such as Japan—with its social culture valuing collective harmony—or post-apartheid South Africa, where diversity is institutionalized but sometimes conflictual, show that the management of consensus and plurality is deeply tied to historical legacies and the social structures specific to each country. Finally, the role of social media in authoritarian regimes, such as the strategic use of TikTok during the 2022 protests in Iran, illustrates how single thought can either be bypassed or reinforced depending on the context.

Political instrumentalization: a malleable concept

The denunciation of single thought is itself a powerful rhetorical tool, used for contradictory purposes:

• In France: In the 1990s, the left criticized neoliberal hegemony, while the right denounced progressive “political correctness.” Today, the far right accuses the media of spreading a “woke ideology,” while some environmentalists stigmatize “climate denial.”

• In the United States: Donald Trump made the fight against “fake news” and “media single thought” a cornerstone of his communication, while simultaneously promoting an alternative, often conspiratorial, narrative.

This dual use of the concept shows that it serves less to defend plurality than to delegitimize the opponent.

Case Study: Managing the covid-19 Pandemic

The health crisis illustrated the tensions between necessary consensus and single thought:

• Positive side: An initial scientific consensus on preventive measures enabled coordinated action in the face of urgency.

• Negative side: The marginalization of critical voices (physicians proposing alternative treatments, researchers questioning the origin of the virus) fueled conspiracy theories and public mistrust.

This case shows that the boundary between single thought and legitimate consensus is porous and context-dependent.

Epistemological tension: plurality and scientific truth

The question of single thought raises a fundamental challenge: how can we reconcile openness of mind with adherence to verifiable facts?
Bruno Latour, in his work on the social construction of science, reminds us that scientific truth is always the result of a collective process, subject to debate and revision. However, excessive relativism can lead to the denial of scientific evidence, as in cases of climate skepticism or anti-vaccination.

It is therefore necessary to cultivate a critical plurality, capable of distinguishing between legitimate opinions and disinformation, between open scientific debates and ideological dogmatism.

How to move beyond the trap of single thought?

• Distinguish healthy plurality from toxic relativism
  Diversity of opinion is a strength, but it must not legitimize anti-scientific positions (climate denialism, miracle cures).

• Educate toward critical thinking
  Learning to identify cognitive biases, decode sources, and practice methodological doubt (Descartes).
  Concrete example: Since 2015, French schools have introduced media and information literacy modules to foster students’ critical thinking toward digital content.

• Reform media ecosystems
  Support independent media and regulate algorithms to limit filter bubbles.
  Concrete example: The European Digital Services Act (2022) imposes greater transparency on algorithms and combats online disinformation.

• Foster intercultural dialogue
  Encourage exchanges between different social, cultural, and political groups to avoid the closure of informational ecosystems.

Conclusion

Single thought is at once a mobilizing myth, an insidious mechanism of domination, and a rhetorical weapon. To move beyond it, we must recognize its complexity, avoid simplifications, account for the diversity of contexts, and cultivate a demanding balance between openness of mind and critical rigor.

“To think against one’s time—that is what it means to be a philosopher.” — Georges Canguilhem

“To think freely is not to oppose everything.
It is to dare to traverse the world without dissolving in it.” — Marlena Des

Scientific and literary references

• IFOP (2023), Pew Research Center (2022), Oxford Internet Institute (2021)

• Bourdieu, P. (1979). La Distinction.

• Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and Punish.

• Klein, N. (2007). The Shock Doctrine.

• Chomsky, N. & Herman, E. (1988). Manufacturing Consent.

• Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble.

• Sunstein, C. (2017). #Republic.

• Latour, B. (1991). Science in Action.

• European Commission (2022). Digital Services Act.

• Canguilhem, G. (1966). The Normal and the Pathological.

the boutique