Comte's whole philosophy is driven by his political philosophy and this is inseparable from his reflections of education. The question involves how to go beyond the phase of Revolution and for this modern societies first need intellectual reorganisation. The distinction that Comte makes between temporal power and spiritual power attributes this task to the latter. This involves, on the one hand, an early education from birth to 21 years of age that is preparatory to life in society and, on the other hand, it ensures a more normative 'life long' function that reminds persons of the principles that underpin social consensus. It is within this framework that the projects of popular and professional education have their place. But this would not be sufficient; if the initial scientific and encyclopaedia-based education is to be capable of leading society to positive knowledge, it is through its moral and religious dimension that Comte's system can retain the ideal of a universal education open to all humankind.

The notion of growth has two aspects: quantitative and qualitative. The first suggests growth, increase or physiological change. The second concerns enrichment and personal fulfilment and this is linked to the task of education. The American philosophers John Dewey et Richard Rorty agree in emphasising the necessary indeterminacy of the notion of 'growth' in order to leave evolutionary perspectives open. Their points of view diverge, however, when is comes to valorising the period of childhood. One emphasises the creativity and individuality of adolescence, while the other refuses to allow such a distinction. An analysis of the two conceptions of the 'ages of life allows the author to identify two philosophies of education. Richard Rorty wishes to foreground literary education and the relations between teachers and students. For him the notion of growth finds its real home in the university, whereas John Dewey highlights the importance of a general method applicable in all educational institutions. How accordingly do the two authors help us to appreciate the ideas of maturity and of personal and collective fulfilment? How do they offer an educational alternative and social choice based on their particular epistemological models?

The author offers a contribution towards a reflection on the age of childhood by observing the interactions between the other stages of life. The childhood group can understand one another through the shared culture of peers as well as through its difference with other age-groups. With the help of interviews conducted with children of 4-5 and 8-9 years of age and also of questionnaires administered to adolescents of 14-15 years, the anthropologist notes how different groups represent the three groups and the interactions between children, teenagers and adults. By allowing children and adolescents to speak discloses their representation of the stages of life. Childhood is thus illuminated through a comparison with the ages that follow.

Due to the constraints of parental work schedules, the institutional and social opportunities in minding and caring for young children have grown. This has led sociologists to redefine the 'ages' of early childhood. These are 0-2, the crèche, 2-3 the kindergarten and from three years, play school. To this must be added home care with a child-minder for wealthier classes. Based on interviews with parents, É. Plaisance shows that those involved put freedom of choice first (even when the choices are rare) and the weight of evidence underlines that the solution arrived at was the best for them and their child. But the responses also show that they try to inform themselves by ways that favour word of mouth and give room for rumour and hearsay. The 'choice' of those involved is constrained, but as if to reassure themselves and to show that they are assuming their responsibility, they willingly describe it as 'free'.

The undoubted success of the television series Plus belle la vie is based on a subtle and balanced mixture of several elements. Its main source of originality is to put together three generations with their interactions, developing especially the collusion between teenagers and grandparents. The series has several selling points: it plays on one of the features of adolescent culture, its thirst for dialogue: explaining, commenting upon and justifying behaviour. It presents daily life with its little problems or its dramas. It is not reluctant to raise personal subjects such as love and sexuality. In this respect it can act as an 'education of the emotions'. In dealing with larger social issues (racism, unemployment, alcoholism, drugs), it tries not to reinforce stereotypes and it even challenges them in order to suggest a form of dynamic and contradictory morality that continues in the discussion forums.