What about common?


The scene takes place at the Musée de l’Histoire Vivante in Montreuil, where two citizens are debating the importance of the Paris Commune. One expresses the need to make room in history by discarding what is cumbersome, while the other insists on the importance of preserving and questioning the legacy of the Commune.
The dialogue explores the different perceptions of this historic event, between temporary success and failure, and how it still resonates today. The citizens also reflect on the meaning of the term “citoyen” and consider new words to reinvent political and social discourse.
The conclusion underlines the importance of the Commune’s legacy as an invitation to action and the invention of new practices.


The scene unfolds at Rieti City Hall, specifically in the hall of the municipal council. A group reunites, pondering their identities and experiences since their last meeting in France. Questions arise about individual existences and the formation of a collective “we.” A literary analogy explores the notion of authorship and recognition.

A story about a French missionary in New Caledonia illustrates differing perspectives on the self and community. The missionary’s encounter challenges Western notions of individuality, revealing a worldview where plurality forms unity.
Discussion shifts to Caress Crosby’s commune in Rocca Sinibalda, contrasting it with the Paris Commune. Crosby’s experiment in communal living emerges from a different context, embodying a luxurious ideal of chosen community.
The concept of a “private commune” is examined, echoing Roland Barthes’ notion of “Idiorrythmia” as an ideal community. It represents a shared dream of living among friends, free from societal obligations.
The narrative concludes with reflections on the universal desire for such communities, likening them to theater companies—a private commune driven by love, brotherhood, and shared creativity. Caress Crosby’s commune serves as both inspiration and model for the group’s aspirations.



The text explores the meaning of the term “revolution” from various perspectives, including etymological and historical. It highlights the link between the meaning of “turning back the clock” and the idea of abrupt, disruptive change. Instability and mobility are central elements associated with revolution, which implies a political reversal and a change of direction. It is emphasized that revolution is more than a simple insurrection or uprising; it prepares the future by anticipating the transformations to come. The importance of collective movement and radical energy is also emphasized. Finally, questions are raised about the appropriateness of the term “revolution” in certain historical contexts, suggesting other alternatives such as “bifurcation” or “collapse”.

PR9-04 EN

The text explores the concept of justice and the role of citizens in questioning institutional justice. It suggests that institutional justice often falls short of meeting the universal need for justice. The idea of citizen tribunals arises as an alternative to institutional justice, aiming to revive the native impulse of justice before its capture by the state or private entities. The text discusses the limitations of both public and private justice systems and proposes the citizen tribunal as a space for common deliberation. Unlike a referendum, a citizen trial focuses on the process of justice rather than the outcome, emphasizing the importance of collective deliberation. The text highlights the transformative potential of participating in citizen trials, suggesting a middle ground between state justice and divine justice. It also touches on the concept of citizenship as an active task rather than mere identity, advocating for continually questioning and reenacting justice to keep it dynamic. Overall, the text explores the complexities of justice systems and the role of citizens in shaping and challenging them.