I do agree to your conclusions, and most importantly, to the use of the expression social contract to talk about the current state of affairs.

I recently attended a conference by Louis Chauvel, a french sociologist mainly working on classes in france, along socio-economical lines as well as generation lines.

He made the quite obvious remark that those in power now are those who ingrained the contradiction of Mai 68 into french society, that these people know nothing about the Low Cost Generation that in turns knows nothing of continued growth. His conclusion, then, was that we could really see what was going on right now as the consequence of a generational conflict, in which the clear loosers are the young. They have less purchase power, less capacity to get property [a year of average salary could buy 9m2 in Paris in 1970. Today, it can buy 4; numbers' his].

However, he warns against a sort of new Mai 68 that would simply move the burden away from the young and not actually solve the true problem, being generational conflict.

It is here that he introduces the notion of a renewed social contract in which, to put it simply, the old soixant'huitard would start to understand what was going to on and start caring, and the young would not fall in the same trap as their parents [jeopardizing other people's future]. Basically, he presupposes the solution for the resolving of the problem.

All I try to say, then, is that it is crazy to expect a sort of symetrical discovery of the solution to the problems of the young. It is much realist to hope that the Elite will become a bit more modest and forget their personal upbringings and sense of class belongings, which would enable them to listen more. Thus, i totaly agree with your last paragraph.

Btw, i don't think I have missed a single piece you wrote in the last three months.

Rien n'est gratuit en ce bas monde. Tout s'expie, le bien comme le mal, se paie tot ou tard. Le bien c'est beaucoup plus cher, forcement. Celine