All posts by Juliette Grange

Extreme Tension on the Right in France*

I. Introduction

For several years now, extreme right in France has presented two tendencies. The first tendency, to be called neo-conservative, lacks an established party and is relatively new in the French political scene. Ultraliberal from an economic point of view, it is also ultra-reactionary in everything related to family values, abortion, contraception or assisted reproductive technology (ART). It arrived in France some fifteen years ago by transposing the American ultra-right (mainly the evangelist one) into the traditionalist Catholic framework favoured by the pontificate of John Paul II. It became a political force through movements such as La manif pour tous (LMPT)[1], Sens Commun[2] and journals like L’incorrect or Valeurs Actuelles. For a long time, it was present in very small circles, trying to influence, for example, N. Sarkozy, F. Fillon and L. Wauquiez[3]. This high-tech extremism has young activists and is embodied today by Marion Maréchal.

The second, better identified and commented, is populist and nationalist and more neutral in terms of family mores and values (does not show hostility towards contraception, abortion, same-sex marriage), this despite the presence of former Lefebvrists[4] within its ranks. It claims dédiabolisation and has a classic power-seizing strategy: in the ballots through a party, (Rassemblement National [RN], heir of the Front National [FN]). Its favourite topics are anti-migration, “remigration” and “the great replacement”. It is embodied by Marine Le Pen, who keeps, softened, the cheeky humour and the apparent frank talk of her father.

The existence of these two distinct right-wing extremist positions and the tensions between them have led to several identifiable consequences. First, there is a threat of break-up of the right (Les Républicains [LR]). This threat derived mainly from the attempts of neo-conservatives to enter classical right-wing parties (as is the case in the United States). François-Xavier Bellamy’s[5] candidacy at the head of the list for European elections is a significant example thereof. The aim was to eliminate the moderate right —in France, the Gaullist and regal right, and even more the social right. . Some of the traditional right voters who did not consider themselves as part of the ultra-Catholic neoconservative extremism of Laurent Wauquiez and François-Xavier Bellamy have already expressed their wishes and voted for La République En Marche.

Second, the RN has partly recovered and can prosper electorally in the context of the so-called “yellow vest” crisis. Here the lack of crisis management by progressive parties and even by the LR is quite noticeable (we saw Éric Ciotti[6] or Laurent Wauquiez put on a yellow vest in November 2018 before making a sudden turnaround in December). The political hound dogs are not mistaken. That is why Patrick Buisson[7], a consistent neoconservative, has abruptly approached the RN, and why LR municipal officials are already looking favourably at the RN for the Union des droites lists. Moreover, here has been an extremist rise over leadership within the LR, which became noticeable before the election of Christian Jacob as leader of the party. A rapprochement between the RN and LR is therefore possible, which would mean an extreme turn to the right for the French classical right, with its liberal centre wing joining the presidential party.

Although both extremists dream of union, such is a “forbidden debate” (Thierry Mariani[8] quoted by Ollivier, 2018). But, leaving their differences aside, do they form a “bloc” (in Gramsci’s terms) for the conquest of power? The strength of neo-conservatism, born from ultra-liberal think tanks, lies in its conception of State reform to impose market rules on public services (hospitals, education, pensions) by the power of the state. But in this field, La République En Marche is a competitor. The RN seems to be the only one to take charge of popular anger and demands, and this could bring it to power. However, how long will the hate speech (anti-elite, anti-migration, anti-parliament, anti-Europe, anti-journalism, etc.) disguise an inconsistent economic and social program? Even more decisive and disabling seems to be its lack of a proper religious anchorage. Indeed, this is a terrain where the extreme right is currently thriving worldwide. Will Marine Le Pen be seen in Notre Dame, as Matteo Salvini did before in the Duomo of Milan, taking the oath jointly on the Bible and the Italian constitution? The tension between the two extreme rights in the French political field undoubtedly plays out on the religious terrain.

These two political entities come from very different political backgrounds despite their family ties. The first one, a US-origin neoconservatist force, was transposed to France in the early 2000s. The other, a nationalist and populist force, got established in France during the nineteenth, and particularly the twentieth century. We will first analyse the history of the Front National (II) and then that of French neoconservatism (III) before drawing up a picture of their union (IV) and doing a partial analysis of the tensions this generates.

II. A look back at the history of the Front National

A. The Front National, its origin and evolution

At the time it was born in 1972, the FN was based on the revanchists of French Algeria, and some monarchists and nostalgics of Pétain[9] and the 1934 leagues, all of whom dreamed of overthrowing the Republic. After years of a highly fragmented right-wing extremism reduced to a small extent—in particular by the cleansing and disapproval of the collaboration—and surviving only at groupuscule dimension (GUD[10], Occident[11], Ordre nouveau[12], Jeune nation[13]; some of which would join the FN), the issue was to create a mass party for action (identified with Doriot[14] and the Italian MSI); one likely to enter the legalism of the electoral game, at least in appearance. The party attracted several kinds of activists: Poujadists, traditionalist and fundamentalist Catholics, neo-Nazis and was characterised by an oratory style that appealed to violence in line with a totalitarian style. Among its founders, Francis Duprat[15] claims to be a Lenin-like revolutionary[16]. Direct action is part of the (neo-fascist) groupuscule culture inherited by the FN. Disciple of Doriot, former communist and collaborator Victor Barthélémy[17], for example, has made several references to Mussolini. In addition, the symbol of the Italian MSI neo-fascists (a green-white-red flame) has been transposed into blue-white-red for the FN.

The programme was simple: society must be organised according to “natural” rules. A hierarchical order is natural if it reassures the legitimate, non-transferable authority. This order opposes “constructivism”, egalitarian individualism and modern contractualism. Thus, the natural authority affirmed is that 1) of the owner over their property (of the craftsman, the peasant, the entrepreneur over the fruit of their work), 2) of the father over his children (education as well as the budgets for culture and health need to be privatised), 3) moreover, inhabitants are rooted in the territory as their vital space, a territory that generates a natural, ethnic and cultural identity. Furthermore, “Nature” is regarded as the standard of the Good and the Beauty. It constitutes a hierarchical order just like the Church or the army. Since men are neither good nor perfectible, a hierarchical authority is necessary. This somewhat rustic common sense is far from the neo-conservative economic theories of the Institut Turgot[18] or Atlantico[19].

B. The dédiabolisation of the FN

During the 1980s, the fact that the FN entered the representative system, its rise and growing importance on the national political scene and the break—at least on record—with, among others, those who were nostalgic for Nazi Germany were quite remarkable events. Nevertheless, some past legacies have remained to this day: the exaltation of Catholic virtues and the “promotion of the French family”, the condemnation of “secularist, Masonic and leftist sectarianism” and of the laws allowing abortion[20]. Abortion was conceived as genocide and and it was seen necessary to destatize an education perceived as Marxist. SOS Racisme[21], MRAP (Mouvement contre le Racisme et pour l’Amitié entre les Peuples)[22] and LICRA (Ligue Internationale Contre le Racisme et l’Antisémitisme)[23] were labelled as anti-French lobbies, while feminism were the result of the Marxisation of the mind. Joan of Arc and the Virgin Mary were always called to the rescue, but within a more neutral rhetoric that moves away from that of fascist or National Socialist mass parties. It was the end of the appeal to violence, despite the ambiguities and diverse positions taken by subgroups or individuals.

Since the mid-2000s, pro-colonial and, at times, royalist topics, nostalgia for the collaboration and anti-Semitism seemed largely exhausted subject matters. The French far right seems to have broken with the non-conformist reactionary utopia (Doriot), even if the idea of a radical transformation of society, of a break necessary to return to the past, of a revolution in the etymological sense still persists. The Republic was no longer the object of imprecations, although the recent rhetoric of Frontist “republicanism” did little to hide its discourse of national identity in the non-republican right-of-blood sense. Mostly, the party moved from anti-Semitism to anti-Islamism. There has also been a shift from ultraliberalism to an “anti-system” critique of globalisation, from the praise to NATO and Reaganism to an anti-American sentiment and praises to Vladimir Putin.

Alain Soral[24] is said, among other things, to be at the origin of Marine Le Pen’s speeches (“republicanism”, “people of the workers”) (Albertini and Doucet, 2014, p. 281), while at the same time, Nicolas Sarkozy seems to be actively exploiting the ideological background partly undone by the FN, with the help of Maurras’ follower, Patrick Buisson. The dissemination of extremist language and values has been very broad and constitutes an ideological victory. “[…] FN leader and his favourite topics—immigration, lack of public safety, national identity—have ‘contaminated’ the French political agenda so deeply that the discussion is built around them” (Chebel d’Appolonia, 1996, p. 394). Nowadays, even Macron’s LREM uses an analytical framework partly coming from the RN (Grange, 2020).

Since the election of Marine Le Pen as president of the party in 2001, several shifts have taken place, which turn right-wing extremism into neo-populist nationalism, whose activists or supporters are partly former workers or people from certain modest middle classes. These social groups were driven out of working-class or socially mixed structured urban neighbourhoods and relegated either to remote “urban” areas or to areas mainly occupied by immigrants, their competitors in the labour market. At the same time, there has been a notable shift, a form of reversal taking place within the FN. Anti-Semitism has given way to an anti-Muslim discourse[25] and anti-communism is fading in favour of an anti-globalisation rhetoric (even Brecht, Marx and Michea have been quoted). The left-right landmark has been knowingly blurred. This nationalist, protectionist anti-liberalism contrasts with the libertarian neo-conservative hyper liberalism, which is generally pro-European, even if it is a Europe with “Christian roots”, a federation of nations.

Over the past decade, the electorates of the UMP (Union pour un mouvement populaire, now Les Républicains) and the FN have seemed less and less disjointed (Fourquet and Gariazzo, 2013). Both parties have been getting closer on matters related to identity and immigration, but increasingly diverging on social and economic issues.

“The stances taken by different leaders of this conservative current, whether the new general secretary of the party, Laurent Wauquiez, or the leaders of the Sens commun movement, deliberately refuse to choose between the FN and the PS and seek to develop a doctrinal body able to attract an electorate potentially seduced by the FN to the UMP–LR and to the parliamentary right” (Brustier and Escalonga, 2015, p. 525). Right-wing extremism has been thus ideologically absorbed by a government party[26].

The collapse of the middle classes and the social suffering of the “blind spot of globalisation” (the working classes of developed countries) (Guilly, 2014) created an invisible mass in distress, which has been left outside the social game and political discourse. In all regions, the Frontist vote is over-represented around large metropolises, in the suffering peri-urban areas, and extends towards small towns and rural areas (Guilly, 2014, p. 58). The working classes, the unemployed, the young people excluded from employment, the low-income retirees, middle-class declassed, the petit blanc, choose the Front National, which has become the Rassemblement National. This success is partly caused by the weakness of social discourses among progressive parties and the disappearance of the communist party.

III. Another extreme right: the transposition of American neoconservatism to France

The so-called neoconservatism in the United States has long been a realistic doctrine that aspired to international military and political influence, therefore, to the hard power of the American State apparatus. From Reagan’s presidency, but especially after 2003 under G. W. Bush, the prevailing objective—fuelled by the evils of counterculture—has been the inner remoralisation of America, together with a theological approach to politics. The goal was to cause panic in an already restless public opinion after 9-11 and to gain strength through soft power. God has chosen the US of free enterprise to fight Evil. The forms of action and slogans of evangelist and Catholic groups in the United States have been implemented in extreme Catholic groups and tradismatic movements (traditionalists and charismatics) in Europe. As in politics, as in Religion the catholic new conservatives, thought of themselves as a morally exalted, outsider group, standing in judgment over a sinful nation (Allit, 1995).

A. GRECE[27] and the Club de l’Horloge[28]

The new intellectual right comprises the Club de l’Horloge —founded in 1974 by Henry de Lesquen[29], Yvan Blot[30] and Jean-Yves Le Gallou[31]— and GRECE (the “new atheist right” according to the FN), which operated independently (the FN incorporated some of its ideas between 1988 and 1992, before breaking up in 1992-93) (Chebel d’Appolonia, 1996, p. 373).  It sought to rebuild an essentially neoliberal right based on the elites and think tanks, far from the insults and questionable jokes of FN members—although there are some deserters between different groups and the FN. The aim was to preserve Western values, to criticise Christian idealism and weakness in a somewhat Nietzschean tone and to establish a “cultural counter-power” (Alain de Benoist). It was this rather peculiar right that would meet the powerful current of neoconservatism coming from the United States at the beginning of the millennium.

“Convinced that the best tactic for taking down an adversary is to turn their weapons against them, GRECE adheres to the theories of the left […] On the other hand, within the reference system built by GRECE is Gramsci, who supposedly ‘demonstrated’ that the conquest of political power requires that of cultural power” (Chebel d’Appolonia, 1996, p. 320). Club 89[32] created by Alain Juppé worked in parallel (but has also written a joint report with the Club de l’Horloge) offering a more realistic and statist approach to take power—the concept of “national preference” was born in this context and later taken on by the FN.

The Club de l’Horloge and GRECE subsequently showed a significant evolution towards criticism of economic liberalism and condemnation of Occidentalism. In any case, the complexity and versatility of the doctrines make the work of GRECE difficult to analyse. But this right-wing extremism was the first to fraternise with the neoconservatism from across the Atlantic. They were both “cold” political trends originated in private circles or groups, far from the anti-intellectual nature and bloody nationalism of the FN. Hence, “the issue is no longer to take power, but to provide an ideological, philosophical and cultural basis able to guide (or contradict) decisions”, as stated by GRECE (Favard-Jirard, 2008). “The Nouvelle Droite[33] went to (ideological) war with a package full of masks, lamps, cotillions and pamphlets […] The murderous theories of yesteryear, those that had thrived in the France of the Barrès, Maurras and Déroulède, would be carefully removed from the limelight, without being put back permanently […]. Therefore, GRECE members’ speeches include multiple references to Che Guevara, Blanqui, the Brigate Rosse” (Maricourt, 1993, p. 33). Despite the differences in the discourses, some of the characteristics of the Nouvelle Droite and GREECE are used by the new French conservatism represented by Marion Maréchal.

The mode of action of the Nouvelle Droit is similar to that of the think tanks on the other side of the Atlantic. For a long time, however, this was a neo-pagan movement, neither Christian, and certainly, nor Catholic. This is why American neoconservatives have long struggled to make a real alliance with these groups. “What is left of this attempt at renewal? Simply, and this is not a small thing, the irruption of ideas that the Nouvelle Droite helped spread, popularise in the intellectual debate […] The rehabilitation, against the Jacobin republican model, of religious and ethnical communities […] The introduction of American communitarians into France as well as of a set of works around Carl Schmitt and Ernst Jünger; a renewal of the economic positions of the rights, in an anti-materialistic sense in the case of GRECE, and in an ultra-liberal sense in the case of the Club de l’Horloge” (Maricourt, 1993, p. 176).

Some (namely, the populist extreme right) made use of the common themes (the fight against homosexuality, feminism, pornography, abortion, euthanasia, parliamentary democracy) to defend the Nation or French identity; others (neo-conservatives from big cities or western Paris and other gentrified spaces) used them to defend the Christian commandments (hidden under terms such as “natural order”, civilisation and even “human values”) and to support the contentment with a Christian Europe (Manent, 2006).

B. One of the legacies of Pétainism

What brings the ideology of the “National Revolution” and neoconservatism closer together is the reactionary utopia of the “natural order” (the natural neoliberal character of the market, social and family order) successfully combined with industrial rationalisation (as far as Vichy is concerned). In both cases the imposition of a new economic and social order responds to roots more counter-revolutionary than traditionalist. A reactionary revolution aimed at society, by instrumentalising the State: such was the paradox both in 1940 and 2010. In 1940, the prerequisite was the repeal of the 1875 republican constitutional laws—some neoconservative currents dream of this even today, although they will not admit it. To this they add, among other things, the challenge to the programme of the National Council of Resistance.

Despite having a different socio-historical and economic context, their common ground is to impose a radical social transformation, a change in the meaning of institutions (what is currently called a “state reform”), whose aim is to impose market rules on public institutions. The instrument for this institutional change is an unusual anti-republican State with a strong executive power, a State that transforms society through administration to inculcate or impose its “moral values”. “Vichy left traces where the traditionalists had a free pass: the family, public morality” (Paxton, 1999, p. 138).

It was in the context of defeat and occupation, under the threat of an even more fatal fate, that Vichy has imposed a new counter-revolutionary social order. It is under another form of threat, i.e., the social crisis in fact generated by an economic crisis, that neoconservatism is trying to impose itself today. Likewise, a civil war, critical events or disorders may be the source of a new divine surprise [34] that some neo-conservatives are secretly calling for.

“On the one hand, extreme right-wing thought is based upon the affirmation of an immutable “natural” (or divine) order to which all human societies must conform […]. And on the other hand, against the course of the universal decadence of human things, its political project aims at establishing a “new order”, rebuilding a deeply degraded and perverted social edifice on new bases […]” (Janin, 2009, p. 150).

The bottom line is that the establishment of this “new order” is not “natural”. Like in Pétainism, the instrument to restore the intermediate bodies, the political role of fathers of large families and the defence of corporations is the state or the administration. Similarly, the return to values is carried out within a state framework: “family” values are set by the state.

The proposal to return to the foundations (love and family, meaning and spirituality, discipline, authority) is presented as spontaneous and popular but, on closer look, seeks to impose such values by law and the state. This is a particular brand of reactionaries (the Pétainism of 1940, the Printemps français[35] and Sens Commun at present). It is neither traditionalism (which would simply like to reinvest the religious, moral or cultural past and operate in continuity), nor conservatism in the sense of immobility and perpetuation of existing institutions. This particular form of extremism is adorned with the rhetoric of rupture: the return to “values” would be innovative. The “new paradigm” is something different from a return to the past. It is a religious and political revolution.

Therefore, the neoconservative extreme right seeks to review the achievements of the French Revolution, May 1968, the welfare state and republicanism, with the aim of “returning” to the social (and political) role of the church. In the words of Bernard Antony:

“Thirty years after May 68, we must develop the necessary cultural counter-revolution. The fight will be hard! But we have already had some successes: in 1996 the celebration of the fifteenth centenary of the baptism of Clovis, last 9 November the trial of communism, France has a universal destiny” (Mendès-France and Praz, 1998, p. 229).

C. Return to religion

Despite some common ideological elements, this mixture of populist nationalism and traditionalism is nevertheless quite different from the neo-conservatism that came from the United States. Neoconservatism in the United States has been transformed and greatly strengthened by its alliance with the Tea Party and evangelical movements. It grew from some small think tanks to a large political movement. A similar but more troublesome attempt has been taking place in France since the 2000s. The circles of the new intellectual right, including the Club de l’Horloge, have attempted to create a larger and more popular movement by returning to the religious tradition. But French Catholicism is not evangelism. It retains strong traces of Gallicism as well as of social Christianity. In addition, the French society seems much less willing to retain or return to religion than the American society. Then, in a context of secularisation and thanks to the action of certain extreme-right bishops, a return to religion movement was launched in France by means of another American import: the charismatic movements.

The charismatic movement, which appeared as an exotic variant of Christianity, heterogeneous to the theological culture of the Church of France (evangelical Christians practise a literal reading of the Bible)[36] and to the Catholic institutions of Europe, has remarkably grown in importance within the church itself. This movement, which perceives itself as capable of saving a church in decline thanks to the vocations of the new evangelization, has served as an incubator and support for the protest movements. Its more recent manifestations range from the LMPT to the politicisation of the Sens Commun movement, linking the traditionalist Catholic branch of the FN to the neoconservatives.

The reactionary currents (LMPT, Les Veilleurs[37]) that manifested themselves on the French streets in 2012 and 2013 do not represent a reactionary intolerance or a simple attachment to the past. They are syncretic and come from several sources. These groups have worked on their language elements for a decade or two within the Nouvelle Droite think tanks and prayer and evangelisation circles. They show great activism, sometimes even within academic institutions, and have stood out for their numerous publications, and specially their intense online presence.  They evoke a dogma or unitary metaphysics such as novation, a re-enchantment revolutionising the supposed disenchantment of modernity, a return to myths and beliefs.

This re-enchantment is assimilated to post-secularism [38]. Dedicated to materialism, scientism and reductionism, modern secularism would be impoverishing for humanity, an “anthropological rupture”, “a subtractive story”. Human nature would require belief, presented as a form of fundamental impulse, an intuitive and spontaneous search for “re-enchantment”, an irrepressible conviction, a taste for the “wonderful”. Faith and belief would be an individual and collective evidence. In this simplistic scheme, the break with superstition, the modern scientific progress, is regarded as loss (“the loss of meaning). In response to the question: what is modernity? Henri Guaino (2016) answers[39], “[…] surrogacy, euthanasia, gender theory, denunciation, communitarianism, suppression of notes or cursive writing, commodification of the world. But what is this modernity before which everything must give way?” Capitalism is virtuous, but it is the defeat of morality, the weakening of religious practices, consumerism and the relaxation of morals, which, since May 68, has transformed social and economic activity into disorder and immorality.

The return to moral values (in fact religious and if possible Catholic) is presented as the only answer to the culture of death and the need for meaning that has emerged at the very heart of postmodernity. This return is therefore quite frequently linked to religious fundamentalism. Following René Rémond, this would mean considering that a past moment of the institution is an eternal model (Camus and Lebourg, 2015, p. 183). Fundamentalism refers to all those who fight against the political and social openness of Catholicism by any means including denunciation; then, the adversaries of any openness who confuse devotion to the past with loyalty to the Lord. (Poulat, 1969, p. 78).

The neo-conservative return to religion is very selective. Spiritualities without institutions, clerics or churches, non-Christian forms of faith, beliefs without monotheistic transcendence are left aside, as well as many currents within the Church itself, social Christianity, among others. Not to mention, agnosticism or deism. Non-fundamentalists are designated negatively by default and are violently fought even today

But what characterises fundamentalism (Protestant, Muslim or Catholic) is that it is less a spiritual search or a religious movement than a political process. The aim is to politically embody and literally realise religion in society by political means (with some preferring violence to politics). The fundamentalist conception of faith implies an absolute truth of dogmas. It does not allow the possibility of religious convictions confined to the private domain (this is the secular ideal), nor the possibility of praying in Assisi next to devotees of other creeds. Originally close to traditionalism—the aim being that liturgy and the organisation of the church stay the same—and inner to Catholicism—in opposition to liturgical progress, modernisation of the dress code and language of worship, etc.—fundamentalism supports a political return to an anti-modern past that confuses politics with religion. At present, its Catholic neoconservative version wants to prevail through cultural and political influence rather than violence.

D. Intellectuals, philosophers and other extremist influencers

In the last decade, an unseen “new paradigm” has silently become dominant in France, hidden by the downfall of entire branches of the human sciences in French research and public universities. However weak its intellectual coherence—despite a self-proclaimed superiority—this new paradigm is ideologically coherent—challenging modernity and the Enlightenment, proposing the end of state and institutional secularity—and, of course, has consequences on French public policies. In fact, the definition of natural moral rules, the idea—between cognitivism and Thomism—that there are social rules inscribed in our neurons and the notion that there are “social essences” that do not derive from contractualism or history has led to sophisticated expressions of the Vatican’s views as well as to radical evangelism. For example, regarding the state of the embryo. They have also led to justify neoliberal economic arguments that fiercely opposed the public service of education, as well as any tax or state regulation on the economy (Roucaute, 2005; Folscheid, 2002; Nef and Livet, 2009; Delsol, 2002; Delsol and Grimpret, 2008; Nemo, 2002).

The warhorse of neo-conservatives, as will be explained in detail further on, is the return of religions to the societal space. “God is for everyone! The Catholic faith must open up to public debate and it is not good to send everything back into the private sphere” (Clavier, 2013). They postulate that secularisation or secularism (the latter being the recognition and guarantee of respect for any individual conviction, which neoconservatism denies) would be the bearers of a true crisis for French or European society. A claim that is far from being demonstrated; on the contrary, we may presume that the crisis is linked to the capitalist world economy or to the lack of clarity of progressive socialism.

The Christian religion, the return to the Christian roots of France and Europe, would be destined to rescue true freedom and true democracy (Ratzinger, 1994, p. 50). The liberticidal tyranny of the State, the legal subjectivism “without territory” and social Darwinism would lead to anomie, suicide, relativism. Therefore, tradition, borders, limits should be proposed as a counterbalance. The family and its values then rise against the state, pornography, surrogacy[40]. Relativism and the the culture of death derived from May 1968 is destined to be overthrown by a new and traditionalist “May 68” (Bès de Berc, Durano and Roktvan, 2014). According to this rhetoric, the negative and nihilistic Parisian philosophers do not understand that there is a “failure of the soul”, a “repression of God” (Allan Bloom, Pierre Manent), and that republicanism is oppressive (it even leads to foeticide).

Therefore, a necessary re-enchantment is imposed: a return to emotions, meaning, faith, to the real life of the real people (muted by intellectuals, lazy and evil Marxist teachers, and by the forced secularisation of institutions). People from the suburbs would be in need of meaning, their poverty is spiritual in principle. Suffering and social unrest derive from a failure caused by atheistic modernism, hedonism (related to consumerism), individualism (related to selfishness), by secularism and relativism fundamentalists and even by capitalism (when bosses and managers are no longer Christian).

This rhetoric of “re-enchantment” and “new paradigm” is not traditionalist, it is post-post-modern and neo-reactionary. A rhetoric that strives to bring back the work of critical thinkers (such as Foucault, Bourdieu, Barthes, Debord, G. Anders) and democrats who criticised modern democracy in the name of the ideal of modernity (such as Tocqueville, Marx, Proudhon, Nietzsche, Zyzek). It maintains Nietzsche’s challenge to the Enlightenment and Kantian morality, but not his criticism of Christianity. Philosophical works are instrumentalised and sometimes read in contrast to their clearest doctrines. These neoconservatives do not hesitate to affirm that modern rationalism would have engendered fascism, Nazism and communism. According to them and from a philosophical point of view, “another Enlightenment”—a Christian one—could triumph over the Enlightenment and modern ideals and define the roots and identity of Europe through another Reason (which could be that of Maurrassism or neo-Thomistic rationalism). In this context, Scottish contributors to the Enlightenment are valued and studied within philosophy.

An outstanding example, among many, is provided by Pierre Manent, who recently expressed his anti-contractualism and direct opposition to democratic modernity. The positive, irreversible and decisive rupture of modernity is understood here as a loss, a subtraction, an error, a fortunately reversible break. The social contract, the natural law (in the modern sense) and human rights must be erased. A “new paradigm” regards religion and prejudice as something necessary for social life and favours “culture” and contextualisation over universal truths.

Neoconservatism therefore differs from traditionalism, conservatism, reactionism. Already a successful movement in the United States, neoconservatism has been transferred to Europe since the 2000s, initially through think tanks and some inconspicuous groups and by the “conversion” of intellectual elites, particularly those from philosophy and the humanities. In its attempts at seduction, it has resorted to topics such as the re-enchantment and the return to meaning, values and beliefs in established institutions (CNRS, ENS, EHESS as well as in external offices (IPC[41], IUP, Collège supérieur de Lyon[42], “Université” catholique de l’Oues“). It also spread in the press, magazines and shows of scientific dissemination and discussion, and on the street thanks to movements such as Le Printemps Français, Jour de Colère[43], Les Veilleurs or Sens Commun. After several attempts (François Fillon’s candidacy for the 2017 presidential elections), the movement is currently looking for a new political anchor in France, well aware that it would be better to operate by internal transformation, subversion of traditional political parties (the Republican Party in the United States is a good example), than by creating an ad hoc party. It should be noted, however, that while the nature and processes of neoconservatism are similar in Europe and across the Atlantic, the doctrinal content is different, among other things, because of French political history. The transposition is, therefore, a translation, a transformation.

The—carefully designed—pastel colour ideologies and demonstration materials of the LMPT after the Printemps français, the misleading headlines, the sites and organisations with kind façades, all those young dynamic activists of the “return to meaning”, the words of freedom, humanism, transdisciplinarity, spirituality, the seminars of logic or philosophy of science, they all hide a major ideological undertaking. The latest proposal for “human ecology” or “integral ecology” (Bès de Berc, Durano[44] and Roktvan, 2014)[45], a proposal that is barely ecological but entirely neo-conservative, is quite representative of the subject of our reflections.

Like right-wing extremism in general, neo-conservative thinking is, is controversial in all its expressions; garnished by a rhetoric of break: “anthropological” divorce is condemned by the “natural” law [46]. The “change of civilisation”[47] would require a “cultural struggle”. Neoconservatism then develops antitheses (the “loss of meaning” opposed to “true values”, the “culture of death” opposed to Christian faith) strategically arranged to define its perspective by means of opposition. Relativism and materialism (Delsol, 2011) (consumerism, communism) are indeed a threat to Europe and French society. To restore these “true values” would be to overcome a social and spiritual crisis. For neoconservatism, this restoration goes through the elites miraculously rediscovering the “common sense” of the “French people”.

“Restoration” is a desire to annihilate the emancipatory ideals of the Enlightenment, as reinterpreted during the Glorious Thirty. It transposes a scheme developed in the United States to France but expressed within a particular framework, previously defined by French right-wing extremism. The transposition has some distinct characteristics. Like its source of inspiration on the other side of the Atlantic, French neoconservatism advances in disguise, within the framework of a cultural war, hence the euphemisms. It proceeds in three stages: 1) evoking a “crisis of meaning” (o disguise the imposition of a return to religious dogmas), 2) alerting to the danger of a supposed “anthropological break” (thus denoting the extension of legal equality to sexuality), 3) proposing a “new paradigm” (to hide its intelligent design or pseudo-scientific apologetics). The Movement has denounced as naive the ideas of the “empire of good” or the “political correctness” (modern ideals of social justice, the beatitude according to P. Muray[48]). It is the Christian religion, with its emphasis on the importance of evil and the fall that could bestow a little density and complexity to the human condition.

E. Think tanks and the media, extremism 2.0

In France, as in the rest of the world, the far right is currently using alternative channels to those preferred by traditional organisations. Formatting opinion involves a large number of associations, think tanks, institutes with vague and apparently neutral names, that difficult to relate to right-wing extremism. The very name of the school opened by Marion Maréchal in Lyon, Institut de sciences sociales, économiques et politiques (ISSEP), is inexplicit, even if the stance of its founder does not leave room for doubt.

Publications, think tanks, institutes and associations, websites, blogs play an intermediate role between that of the University and simple militant media. The political question is only present in an indirect way and never immediately visible. They address taxes, ethics, education and, through these specific social concerns, the public is turned towards neoconservatism. This is also the case of certain think tanks or prayer circles (focused on conjugality, the relationship between the sexes, psychology, etc.). Methods proven by the new evangelisation or by Opus Dei recruiters are transposed here. Their websites and entertainers are personable and present well-chosen arguments, followed by requests for donations and then, invitations to make a more specific commitment.

Many examples can be mentioned: Institut de formation politique[49], SOS-Éducation, Espérance banlieue[50], Contribuables Associés, Sauvegarde des retraites or institut pour la Justice, IFRAP (Foundation for Research on Administration and Public Policy), Institut des recherches économiques et fiscales (IREF), Créer son école of Anne Coffinier[51] (near the LMPT), Foundation pour l’école turned Liberté pour l’école, Espérance banlieue, Santé, Nature, Innovation (SNI, where Professor Henri Joyeux has long been a scientific expert), etc. Invisible in the public domain, these organisations have a modus operandi and funding sources inspired by the American extreme right. They benefit from significant private donations (in 2014, SOS-Éducation received 1.5 million in donations), corporate funding and even commercial activities (file and email list rental, etc.).

French neoconservatism wants soft power and strives to persuade, to form opinion, to guide actions through ideology (Grange, 2017). Hence, the important presence of extremism in the media: CNews channel has just entrusted a daily programme to É. Zemmour. TV Libertés and PolonyTV, on their part, reflect extremist positions picturing them as innovative. LCI broadcast Eric Zemmour’s speech at the “Convention des Droites” in September 2019 and invited journalists of L’Incorrect (founded by Jacques de Guillebond[52], a close friend of Marion Maréchal). We may add Valeurs Actuelles, FigaroVox, Causeur[53], the Atlantico site (led by a close friend to P. Buisson), Le Comité des orwelliens[54]and many others.

Tweets, sites, blogs, social media messages are effective ways for constant campaign, especially among the under-30s, the new target of the far right. The Veilleurs (now Les éveilleurs d’espérance) was created in 2013 by P. Nicolas and J. Sevillia[55] from the LMPT, like Padreblog (by Abbés Grosjean[56], with 30,000 followers on Facebook), they target a student elite (e.g., those from the Higher Normal Schools where F.X. Bellamy, M. de Jessey, M. Durano were trained, as well as many others who studied under the guidance of Father Armogathe, Paul Clavier[57], Pierre Manent, Rémi Brague[58], J.L. Marion[59] and others).

IV. Meetings, tensions and alliances

Some organisations from the classical extreme right or Catholic traditionalism have concluded with neoconservative movements and taken up their methods. Ichtus[60], for example, is one of the heirs of Jean Ousset‘s Cité catholique[61]. The Fondation Saint-Pie-X[62] has also evolved giving birth to Civitas[63]. The objective, however, is no longer the past monarchical restoration or theocracy. The Institut Ichtus clearly defines the present goal: “It is not the Church that imposes its power, but the State that responds to an invitation to order society in a way that promotes the salvation of souls”. State and church are not in the least confused with each other, but the former is supposed to implement the values of the latter. This political project of a non-denominational or non-theocratic State—but an indirect instrument of a Church that regains power over morals, intellectual life and society—is at the heart of French neoconservatism in its alliance with classical Catholic reactionism.

The alliance of the the Nouvelle Droite and Catholic fundamentalist traditionalism was made through the charismatic movement. This has given birth to the “tradismatics”, hyper-modern animators of La Manif pour Tous, who seek a union between classical-style extremism and neoconservatism.

Could we say, however, that in France in the extreme right identity and partisan (RN) and the neoconservative movements are willing to enter into an alliance? They seem to disagree on some points, even at the ideological level. For example, the RN supports secularism (it is certainly more prone to denounce Muslim street prayers than Civitas parades) as part of “identity republicanism”, while those surrounding Marion Maréchal despised this idea. There is also a great difference regarding the way of seizing power. The RN proclaims a degree of political voluntarism like no other party in France, while neoconservatism is linked to the “intellectual rearmament”, the cultural war, and wants to influence political life either by transforming right-wing parties from within or by becoming the “adviser of princes”. Both, however, want a return to a Christian or Catholic “French identity” within the framework of the “clash of civilisations”. The differences, therefore, concern their strategies to access power, their timetables and the persons who are supposed to incarnate such power.

Given their groupuscule operation, the flow of deserters among groups and their fluctuating alliances, it is difficult to map these movements.  Ideologies often merged.  The RN, whose political future largely depends on its ability to embody social unrest, frequently develops arguments that contradict its own social discourse (e.g., J. Bardella’s compliments to D. Trump for the tax cuts in favour of corporations and the wealthy in autumn 2019).  The populist extreme right (RN) and neoconservatism (Sens Commun, Marion Maréchal, F.X. Bellamy) agree on key points, even if one and the other advance in disguise. The “Convention de la droite” convened in Paris on 28 September 2019 was supposed to focus on the “alternative to progressivism” (a theme of neoconservative tone). Instead was opened by Eric Zemmour’s virulent anti-Islam speech, whose words were very close to the discourse of the RN (the “great replacement”, Islamisation of the streets, extermination of the white Catholic heterosexual male).

The 2013 demonstrations and failure of La Manif pour Tous are practically forgotten, as is the unfortunate incorporation of F. Fillon to Sens commun in the fall of 2016. Despite the disastrous candidacy of F.X. Bellamy in 2019 and the difficulties brought about by the infiltration of the LR, overall it seems that although with decreased street and media visibility, extremism, far from being extinguished, is a fundamental movement. It is a movement that, from now on, will have a considerable weight in French political life, even if it is impossible to know yet how it will achieve this, whether through a “bloc of rights” or through the Rassemblement National.

Behind the supporters and charismatic leaders of the two shades of brown that we have described and behind the Le Pen family saga hides the forest of national and international social networks, true vectors of neoconservative proselytism as well as digital nationalist populism. The elements alien to French political life have weight and will be critical in the future. Right-wing extremism exists all across Europe, in Austria, Hungary, Poland, and the alliances forged within this framework will be decisive.

* Translated by Jean-Marc Gaillard, Association CPCL (France).



Albertini, D. and Doucet, D., 2014. Histoire du Front national. Paris: Texto.

Algazy. J., 1984.  La tentation néofasciste en France, 1944-1965. Paris: Fayard.

Allitt, P., 1995. Catholics intellectuals and conservatives. Politics in America, 1950-1985. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Baverez, N., 2003. La France qui tombe. Paris: Tempus Perrin.

Barrès, M., 1897. Les Déracinés. Paris: Fasquelle

Barrès, M., 1902. Qu’est-ce que Monsieur Émile Zola ? Je le regarde à ses racines : cet homme n’est pas un Français. In: M. Barres, 1902. Scènes et doctrines du nationalisme. Paris: éd. du Trident. pp.12-41.

Bès de Berc, G., Durano, M. and Rokvam, A., 2014. Nos limites pour une écologie intégrale. Paris: Ed. Le Centurion.

Broudel, P., 1970. La Cagoule. Paris: Albin Michel.

Brustier G., 2014. Le Mai 68 conservateur. Paris: Les éditions du Cerf.

Brustier G. and Escalonga, F., 2015. La Gauche et la Droite face au Front national. In: S. Crépin, A. Dézé, and N. Meyer, eds. 2015. Les Faux-semblants du Front national. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po. pp. 505-528.

Buisson, P., 2016. La Cause du peuple. Paris: Éditions Perrin.

Burrier, Ph., 1992. Le fascisme. In J. F. Sirinelli, dir. 1992.  Histoire des droites en France, tome 1. Paris: Gallimard. pp. 603-652.

Camus, J.Y. and Lebourg, N., 2015. Les Droites extrêmes en Europe. Paris: Seuil.

de Jouvenel, B., 1941. Après la défaite. Paris: Plon.

Clavier, P., 2013. Quand un philosophe ose parler de Dieu. Le Figaro, [online] 11 December. Available at: [Accessed 12 December 2013].

Chatel, L., 2014. Civitas et les nouveaux fous de Dieu. Paris: Temps présents.

Chebel d’Appolonia, A., 1996. L’extrème droite en France. De Maurras à Le Pen, Paris: Complexe.

Delsol, Ch., 2002. La république, une question française. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.

Delsol, Ch. and Grimpret, M., 2008. Liquider Mai 68. Paris: Presses de la renaissance.

Delsol, Ch., 2011. l’Âge du renoncement. Paris: Cerf

Favard-Jirard, M., 2008. Vous avez dit : METAPOLITIQUE ? Entretien avec Jacques Marlaud. Novopress, [online] 9 December. Available at: [Accessed 8 August 2009].

Folscheid, D., 2012. Sexe mécanique. Paris: La table ronde.

Foruquet, J. and Gariazzo, M., 2013. F.N. et U.M.P., électorats en fusion. Fondation Jean Jaurès, [blog] 13 Septembre. Available at: [Accessed 12 May 2014].

George, S., 2007. La pensée enchaînée. Paris: Fayard.

Grange, J., 2017. Les Néoconservateurs. Paris: Agora Pocket.

Grange, J., 2020. Le vicomte, Jeanne d’Arc et le Président. Mediapart, [online] Available at: [Accessed 2 January 2020].

Guaino, A., 2016. La Sottise des modernes. Paris: Plon

Guilly, Ch., 2014. La France périphérique. Paris: Flammarion.

Janin, J., 2009. L’Imaginaire du complot. Discours d’extrême droite en France et aux États-Unis. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Leloup, D, Battaglia, M. and Laurent, S., 2019. De SOS Education à la « santé naturelle », voyage dans la galaxie conservatrice des Laarman. Le Monde, [online] 19 October. Available at: [Accessed 20 October 2019].

Manent, P., 2006. La Raison des nations : réflexions sur la démocratie en Europe. Paris: Gallimard.

Maricourt, T., 1993. Les nouvelles passerelles de l’extrême droite. Paris: Manya.

Mendès-France, T. and Praz, M. 1998. Une tradition de la haine. Paris: Méditerranée.

Michéa, J.C., 2011. Le complexe d’Orphée. Paris: Flammarion.

Nef, F. and Livet, P., 2009 Les Objets sociaux. Paris: Hermann.

Nemo, P. 2002. Quatre thèses au sujet des rapports entre Libéralisme et christianisme. In: J. Hülsmann and M. Laine, eds. 2002. L’Homme libre. Mélanges en l’honneur de Pascal Salin, Éditions. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. pp. 452-474.

Nora, P., 1964. Les deux apogées de l’Action française. Annales Économies, Sociétés, Civilisation, 19, pp. 129-139.

Ollivier, Ch., 2018. Le Républicain Thierry Mariani marche presque seul vers le FN. Le journal du dimanche, [online] 24 April. Available at: [Accessed 1 March 2019].

Ousset, J., 2012. Pour qu’Il règne. Poitiers: Editions Dominique Martin Morin.

Paxton, R., 1973. La France de Vichy, 1940-1944. Paris: Seuil.

Poulat, E., 1969. Intégrisme et catholicisme intégral. Paris: Casterman.

Ratzinger, J., 1994. La religion chrétienne au secours de la démocratie. Communio, 115, XIX, pp. 50-62.

Rémond, R., 1982.  Les Droites en France. Paris: Aubier Montaigne.

Rogger, H. and Weber, E., 1965. The European Right: A historical Profile. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Roucaute, Y., 2005.  Le Néo-conservatisme est un humanisme. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.

Sirinelli, J.F., Histoire des droites en France, t. I. Paris: Gallimard.

Sternhell, Z., 1999. Maurice Barrès et le nationalisme français. Paris: Pluriel Fayard.

Tettamanzi, R., 1999. Esthétique de l’outrance. Idéologie et stylistique dans les Pamphlets de L.F. Céline. Tusson: Éditions du Lérot.

Weber, E., 1990. L’action française. Paris: Pluriel.

Zemmour, E., 2014. Le Suicide français. Paris: Albin Michel.



[1] La Manif pour Tous (LMPT): founded in 2012, it is a collective of Catholic and conservative associations, supported by the French episcopate although they are officially non-denominational. It has organized large protests against same-sex marriage and adoption. Its best-known spokesperson was Frigide Barjot that later would break with the movement as a consequence of the increasingly reactionary and far-right drift of it. It became a political party in 2015.

[2] Sens commun: movement created in 2013 within the protests against same-sex marriage. This movement, which emerged from La Manif pour Tous, has joined Les Républicains party, supporting the most reactionary and neo-conservative candidates (François Fillon in 2017).

[3] Wauquiez, Laurent (born in 1975): politician, deputy and several times minister in right-wing governments. Ephemeral president of Les Républicains between 2017 and 2019. He represents the most right-wing line of the party, very close to traditionalist Catholic movements.

[4] Bishop Marcel Lefebvre opposed the Vatican II Council (1962/1965). He advocated the continuum of Latin office, was against any progress within the Church, as well as any relationship with any other religion thus creating a dissident movement (Fraternité sacerdotale Saint-Pie-X). He was excommunicated in 1988. Today, his movement and the Curia seem to be getting close again.

[5] Bellamy, François-Xavier (born in 1985): essayist and politician, former student of the École normale supérieure of Paris. Member of European Parliament four Les Républicains. Ideologically close to the radical right-wing and the Catholic fundamentalist tendencies (La Manif pour Tous, Les Veilleurs, etc.).

[6] Ciotti, Éric (born in 1965): politician of Les Républicains, member of the National Assembly for Alpes Maritimes. He represents the far right wing of the party.

[7] Buisson, Patrick (born in 1949): political scientist and journalist, influenced by the ideology of Maurras. He has been campaigning for a very long time for the Union des droites. He has been an advisor to many politicians, in particular Nicolas Sarkozy.

[8] Mariani, Thierry (born in 1958): politician, deputy and minister, moved from the Right to the Rassemblement national for which he is currently a European deputy. He militates for the Union des droites.

[9] In l’Heure de Vérité, on French TV, in 1984, Jean-Marie Le Pen said, “Pétain was unfairly overwhelmed”.

[10] GUD: Groupe Union Défense, an extreme right-wing student organization created in 1968. Has drawn attention to its violent actions against left-wing parties. Was very active in Jean-Marie Le Pen’s Front national.

[11] Occident: Extreme right-wing group founded in 1964 under the influence of Pierre Sidos. Nationalist, racist, counterrevolutionary and anti-republican, this group celebrated collaboration with the Nazis between 1940 and 1944 in the name of defending the West. It was rebuilt under the name Ordre nouveau, although some of its members have migrated to the GUD.

[12] Ordre nouveau: Far-right nationalist political movement, which replaced Occident in 1969. Future ministers Gérard Longuet and Alain Madelin were among the leaders of the movement. The movement participated in the founding of the FN in 1972. After a violent confrontation with the Ligue Communiste, the movement was dissolved in 1973. Most of the members left the F.N. in 1974.

[13] Jeune Nation: Nationalist group created in 1948 and dissolved in 1958, which frequently participated in violent demonstrations.

[14] Doriot, Jacques (1898-1945): journalist and politician, after passing through communism, he joins fascism. He was a staunch supporter of collaboration with Nazi Germany, he fought on the Eastern Front as a volunteer in the SS. In 1944 he took refuge in Germany and a year later he was killed by the allied air force.

[15] Duprat, François (1940-1978): politician and essayist, defender of the negationist theses, influential member of the FN. He has published in far-right newspapers and magazines. He died in the explosion of his car, a case that has never been clarified.

[16] Duprat was the first one to use the term “national populism” (Camus and Lebourg, 2015, p. 211).

[17] Barthélemy, Victor (1906-1985): politician who went from communism to fascism and collaborated in the Parti Populaire Français of J. Doriot. He was a Supporter of French Algeria in the 1950-60s. He participated in the creation of the FN with J.-M. Le Pen in 1972.

[18] Institut Turgot: Ultra liberal think tank that disseminates information online. Opposed to any form of state regulation in economy or education. Spread skeptical arguments about climate change.

[19]Atlantico: online news site created in 2011. Representative of a neoconservative movement inspired by the United States.

[20] Condemned in the Present journal, a forum of fundamentalist Catholicism within the FN.

[21] SOS Racisme: association created in 1984 to confront the rise of racism promoted by the FN of Jean-Marie Le Pen. The slogan is “Don’t touch my buddy”. The objective of the association is to build a “mixed republic” which ensures equality for all.

[22] MRAP: Created in 1949 by former deportees to concentration camps. Currently close to many organizations of the left and extreme left without ever appealing to violence, very active in the reception and regularization of undocumented immigrants.

[23] LICRA: founded in 1928. Association combating racist and anti-Semitic acts and statements, in particular by bringing cases systematically to court.

[24] Alain Soral (born 1958): extreme right-wing essayist and ideologue who maintains a very popular blog “Égalité et réconciliation”. Several times he was condemned for racist and anti-Semitic remarks, negationism and apology for war crimes or against humanity. Close to the FN of Jean-Marie Le Pen.

[25] The two kinds of xenophobia are sometimes juxtaposed within the same organisations but the stigmatisation of Muslim immigrants normally prevails, despite the survival of an anti-Semitic rhetoric. We have also observed some connections between different fundamentalist movements (Muslims and Catholics, also Jewish traditionalists) in the movement against same-sex marriage.

[26] In September 2016, L. Wauquiez, member of Les Républicains, launched a petition against “Cazeneuve’s plan to distribute Calais immigrants in our regions”, just after FN’s Steve Briois founded an association of mayors called Ma commune sans migrants (My city without migrants).

[27] GRECE: Created in 1969 among others by Alain de Benoist. Group elitist and technocratic, Europeanist but politically anti-liberal, which has had an influence on many political figures and journalism until today.

[28] Club de l’Horloge:  Political club created in 1974 (Carrefour de l’Horloge in 2015) that brings together theorists of a very technocratic extreme right (many important public officials), economically liberal and non-Catholic. It served as a study center for many right-wing politicians and for the FN.

[29] De Lesquen, Henry (b.1949): important public official and then a far-right journalist, president of the Club de l’Horloge. He was convicted several times for his racist and hate speech and for denial of crimes against humanity.

[30] Blot, Yvan (1948-2018): important public official and politician, member of GRECE, then co-founder of the Club de l’Horloge. In 1989 he passed from the Gaullist party (RPR) to the FN. When Nicolas Sarkozy assumes the direction he returns to the UMP.

[31] Le Gallou, Jean-Yves (1986-2004): important public official and politician, member of GRECE and co-founder of the Club de l’Horloge. He has gone from the centrist right to the FN. He developed the concept of “national preference”, he is in favor of the “remigration” of families of foreign origin, defends the thesis of the “great replacement” and approaches the negationist circles.

[32] Club 89: think tank founded by Alain Juppé in 1981 to bring together right-wing thinkers and politicians. In 1989, the Club 89 published a joint report with the Club de l’Horloge, with which he has maintained links since 1982.

[33] T.N.: The French expression is kept to differentiate it from the Anglo-Saxon “New Right”.

[34] Expression used by Maurras on 9 February 1941, in a reference to the defeat of 1940 and the “National Revolution”.

[35] Printemps français: political movement resulting from the Manif pour Tous founded in 2013 by Béatrice Bourges, advocating peaceful civil disobedience in the name of the preeminence of religious morality over republican law. Collaborates with various far-right or traditionalist associations.

[36] “The Christian fundamentalist is convinced that, being the word of God, every word in the Bible is literally true, and that they are on Earth to act as guardian and propagator of this truth” (George, 2007, p. 135).

[37] Les Veilleurs: youth movement derived from the Manif pour Tous, whose mode of action is to occupy public space permanently by reading texts from literature or philosophy. They seek a visible militancy against the evolution of modern society (marriage for all, abortion, contraception, “atheistic” capitalism, etc.). The Veilleurs have dissolved into Les Éveilleurs d’Espérance, more politically organized.

[38] Die Entzauberung der Welt is an expression that Max Weber borrows from Schiller. Within the Weberian framework, Christian monotheism, and particularly Protestantism (this being its accomplishment) is responsible for emptying the world of magical powers and supernatural forces.

[39] Guaino, Henri (born 1957): important public official and right-wing politician (Les Républicains). Adviser to President Sarkozy, he defends a line of sovereignty in the economy and nationnalist in the ideological plane, not without shades of racism.

[40] Houellebecq and Chantal Delsol are called the rioters to the rescue (Michea, 2011).

[41] IPC: Free Faculty of Philosophy and Psychology founded in 1969 (with the name of Institute of Comparative Philosophy). Institution of higher education that claims “Christian values”, closely linked to traditionalist groups and openly creationist academics.

[42] Collège supérieur de Lyon: Philosophy teaching institution for advanced students. The teachers are mostly right-wing Catholics, close to traditionalist circles (F.-X. Bellamy, T. Anatrella, J.-L. Marion, etc.). Its objective is a re-Christianization of the student elites in order to prepare them for the main competences of the public function.

[43] Jour de colère: Demonstration organized on January 26, 2014 by a group of far-right organizations, anti-tax, Catholics and traditionalists (Civitas, Alain Soral, Collectif Famille Marriage, etc.). The protest that began demanding the resignation of President Hollande then continued with anti-Semitic slogans and violent clashes with the forces of order.

[44] Durano, Marianne (born in 1991): philosopher, co-founder of Limite journal. She denounces contraception (“putting the woman’s body under chemical control”) in the name of integral ecology and “natural feminism”. Committed to the creation of Les Veilleurs, she defends a conservative vision of “Catholic natural law” and a communitarian approach to society.

[45] See Limite journal.

[46] The supposed “anthropological break” of same-sex marriage. Instead of calling attention to the fact that an extended definition of marriage is contrary to dogma, the church disguises its reasoning by removing it from the religious sphere.

[47] In Le Mai 68 conservateur (2014), the work that finally justifies the movement, Gaël Brutier gives credit to the idea of the church leading the defence of Western civilisation.

[48] Muray, Philippe (1945-2006): novelist and essayist, he is a critic of the moral principles that prevail in the modern world, such as anti-racism, the rejection of homophobia or sexism. An argument that the extreme right uses to denounce what is “politically correct”

[49] See Leloup, Battaglia and Laurent, 2019.

[50] Espérance Banlieues: a network of schools without a contract with the State, financed by Fondation pour l’École, which claims “traditional” values (salute to the flag, sometimes single-sex lessons, etc.). Many observers have pointed to the links of this network with right-wing parties and traditionalist Catholic movements.

[51] Coffinier, Anne (born 1974): educated at ENS, Sciences Po and ENA, she is an activist for an education outside of state control. Founder and president in 2004 of Fondation pour l’École and Créer son école. Foundation that was recognized as of public utility by F. Fillon, then Prime Minister. Close to the traditionalist circles of the Catholic Church (Famille chrétienne).

[52] De Guillebon, Jacques (born 1978): (b. 1978): journalist who writes for the right and far right press. Linked to Marion Maréchal since 2013, co-founder of Limite journal at the time of L’Incorrect.

[53] Causeur: online magazine created in 2007. The title is a parody of the feminist magazine Causette, with an extremely reactionary editorial line. Causeur was noted for a petition in defense of prostitution parodying the slogan of SOS Racisme (“Don’t touch my bitch”).

[54] Comité des Orwelliens:  Collective of “sovereignist” journalists founded in 2016 who, under the pretext of defending “freedom of expression”, promote the ideas of the neoconservative ultra-right in the media.

[55] Sévillia, Benoît: son of Jean Sévillia, he founded with his brother Nicolas the “Éveilleurs d’Espérance” of Versailles in 2015, a neo-conservative political movement that propagates reactionary ideas through digital media. Near Marion Maréchal.

[56] Grosjean, Abbé Pierre-Hervé (born in 1978): Catholic priest known for his blogging activity (Padreblog). He spreads a traditionalist and ultra-reactionary Catholic message to the younger generations through the use of modern media.

[57] Clavier, Paul (born in 1963): scholar, philosopher, long teacher at ENS. Specialist in “rational theology”. Defender of modernized creationism, a position that under the pretext of separating science and religion gives the last word to the latter.

[58] Brague, Rémi (born in 1947): scholar, philosopher, member of the Catholic Academy of France. Defender of a theological-political conception of society with an anti-secular and anti-republican vision.

[59] Marion, Jean-Luc (born in 1946): philosopher, scholar, academician, he defends the conception of a philosophy that is at the service of faith. He insists on the importance of religion in politics and on the fact that only the communion of believers is the foundation of society. He supported F. Fillon in 2017.

[60] ICHTUS (Cité catholique): organization founded in 1946 by Jean Ousset to spread a Catholic vision of society. He defends a traditionalist and anti-republican conception of Catholicism. Many political leaders attend their trainings (F.X. Bellamy, L. de la Rochère, Ch. Beigbeder). It is a very influential organization in the spheres of political power.

[61] Ousset, Jean (1914-1994): Maurrasian-leaning essayist and activist, Under the Vichy regime during World War II, Ousset became the chief of the research bureau of Jeune légion,. In 1946 he became one of the leaders of Cité catholique, a group that seeks to establish a Christian social and political order following the model of Salazar in Portugal or Franco in Spain. He approaches Opus Dei in the 1960s. When he died, two movements shared the ideological heritage: Ichtus and Civitas.

[62] Fraternité sacerdotale (Fondation) Saint-Pie X: founded by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1970, a society of traditionalist priests opposed to the Second Vatican Council. In 1975 it lost its recognition by the Vatican after the suspension of the bishop. La Fraternité has built a network of “counter-Church” with places of worship, priests, and specific schools. It defends an ultra-traditionalist vision of Catholicism, rejects interreligious dialogue and defends counterrevolutionary positions in politics.

[63] Civitas: Association created in 1999. Led by Alain Escada, a Belgian Catholic national politician. The movement had its heyday in protests against same-sex marriage. It is a traditionalist far-right, petainist and anti-immigrant Catholic lobby that has had very close ties with la Fraternité Saint-Pie-X until 2014. Since 2016, it is a political party that militates for the re-Christianization of France and Europe. It created the Coalition pour la vie et la famille, a far-right European anti-abortion and contraception group.


A Reasoned Feeling, beyond the Contrast between Reason and Emotion

Juliette Grange

University of Tours

A reasoned feeling, beyond the contrast between reason and emotion.


The aims of this paper are 1) to quickly describe and analyze the criticims of rationalism in The Affective Sciences and above all, to formulate the hypothesis of an indirect but undeniable link with populist and neoconservative movements. 2) To clarify the status of republican rationalism. 3) To make a philosophical offer that goes beyond the emotion/reason dualism in the political field. Thus, attention will be paid to define a “reasoned feeling”. Passion towards certain political ideals can, in our opinion, be coupled with the coldness of rationalism, the informed consideration of legal needs or institutional complexities.

“Emotions”,“Populism”,“Illiberal democracy”, “Public reason”, “Republican debate”, “French Republicanism”, “Affective Sciences”, “Philosophy and political capacity”, “Freedom of Opinion”

Our time is marked by two important innovation. The first one concerns the spreading of illiberal democracies which, in many formerly democrat or republican countries (in a continental sense), set up populist leaderships as the United States, Poland, Brazil and Hungary.  United Kingdom and France aren’t definitively spared. In fact, in those countries, democracy is drained of its inner self, without military takeover or electoral manipulation. Political feelings such as virulent hatred for foreigners, enthusiasm for egocrats, rejection of elected representatives, academics and journalists, which characterized extremist or inconspicuous groups, are openly and violently expressed: these feelings are well established. As a result, Public Reason (Habermas), republican debate seems impossible in front of emotional rhetoric.

The second innovation is the enthusiasm for affective science supposed to be initiated in biology and neurology of emotions. A proliferation of philosophical or human sciences books or texts, describing the richness of beliefs and the impossibility to distinguish them from exact knowledge, goes together with direct or indirect questioning of rationalism and modernity. Cognitivism makes a clean sweep of the most classical philosophical references (Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Comte) and this, in part, within the universities themselves.

The affective and emotional Turn

The Director of the “Institute for the Neurological Study of Emotion and Creativity” (California) proclaims the “Descartes’Error”[1]. According to this brain specialist called Damasio, reasoning or thinking are not necessary for an effective action. On the contrary, “it is as if there were a passion founding reason, an impulse that originates from the depths of the brain, creeps into the other levels of the nervous system which finally translates itself into the perception of an emotion or an unconscious influence that is guiding decision making. [2]

Long neglected by Sciences and Philosophy, the new field of Affective Science includes Psychology of Emotions, Social Cognition, Computer Science (which would mould the emotional phenomena). These specialties can be found in many universities, for example in Geneva. “To do quickly, in the current studies, everything seems to begin with the improvement of a thematic field based on wide-ranging institutional and financial investments, as Damien Boquet points out when he contextualizes his EMMA project on its dedicated blog. These investments are based on the notion of “emotion” and not on those of “sensibility”, “affect” or “feelings”. And it is certainly not only a matter of a dominant English language, but also an epistemological matter that deserves attention. Because these enormous investments don’t testify to a new, disinterested taste, but also to a new political will that revives the aim to be able to deal with human subjects. Emotions constitute a strategic applied research field which benefits from war sector resources. Once again, psychological war looks for tools that would allow it’s unravelling the mysteries of “human nature”, in the sense of a human functioning that would not be restricted by cultural and historical determinations, but by anthropological and psychological invariants, a physiology. Thus understanding how human matter is constituted and how it works, in order to understand how to act on it. Actually, the major international institutes work with psychology that is rather close to cognitivism, neuroscience and history of science. There are certainly some means left for some other knowledges, but they are the margins of this renewed curiosity. Heavy investments are on the sides of the sciences that are the least suspected of literary lightness. [3]

It is not about giving a scientific basis to the modern transformation described by Hirschmann in The passions and the Interests[4]. From the 18th century onwards, for Hirschmann, the violence of passions was restricted by soft trade and the utilitarian search of interest. It is not a matter for the political scientist to affirm the existence of natural emotions base, which would be the basis of any action or decision, even in politics. Damasio[5] distinguishes passions, emotions and feelings. Emotions are close to the biological basis of behaviors, they escape from consciousness. Feelings would be subject to socio-historical variations. If it exists, the reasoned choice is always built on an emotional base, there can be choices and opinions that are opaque to any objective approach of legitimization.

Reason and emotions in French republicanism

Republicanism is a rare case in history; a concrete political practice that give way to philosophy[6]. This is not philosophy that would grant itself a political role. There is a role for philosophical ideas, individual reason of each citizen is claimed to be an instrument of decision. Because normative theory can’t establish a republican policy, it is not a question of finding an ultimate political foundation, a truth, nor is it a question of justifying practices (by an ideology), nor of breaking up the contradictions of reality. The role of ideas is specific.

The debate through the expression of opposition from two antagonistic points of view or political model is characteristic of modern political life. If the republic is a parti-pris (Alain), it is a constructed but revisable norm. Revisable because constructed and therefore questionable. Republic is the call for voluntarism through the discussion of an ideal.  If then, the “protest of the intellectual” [7] amplifies the “reign of criticism” inherited from the Enlightenment no longer exists, then consensualism and “emotionalism” testify that we are in the process of forgetting this form of politics that requires sharp divisions, public opposition of points of view, a dynamic emerging from the differences of opinion between citizens and the reasoned political debate that follows. Fear of conflict or the search for unanimity bring populism and violence internally[8], it is undoubtedly appropriate today to repoliticize the public debate and expose divergences and oppositions.

The aim of this debate will be precisely to « […] critically determine the definition and implementation of an idea[9]”. Because republicanism is not a doctrine, it can only find in itself, without transcendence, assumption of a natural right or its founding principles. It is based upon an incessant reasoning concerning the various aporias that it is made of (revolution/institutions, majority/minority, individualism/unitalism). This need for reasoned reflection is precisely due to the fact that the Idea of Republic is never completely and definitively constituted, and as a result is the subject of constant questioning.

Philosophy therefore does not provide a theory for republican practice. It is just one of his instruments. “This circumstance, so new in history, of all the political education of a great people entirely made by literary people was perhaps the most important contribution to the French Revolution, its own genius and to making it what we see […]. When we study the history of our Revolution, we see that it was conducted precisely in the same spirit that led to so many abstract books on government being written. Same attraction for general theories, complete systems of legislation and exact symmetry of laws; same disregard for existing facts, same confidence in theory […][10] ”.

It is therefore necessary to define a form of rationalism that allows a plurality of axiological and social choices, as well as the common space of their confrontation. The reason we are talking about is essentially the one that has the will to judge. “Using reason is always doing the same simple and individual act that we call judging[11]”. Doubt, confrontation, reflexion, dialogue, trial and error are the processes of political, individual and collective (but individual before being collective) reasonableness.

Reason is at the centre of a public space where the various conceptions of Good are not juxtaposed, but where the search for criterion of reasoned decision is staged. Without this rationalism, the idea of an indivisible and secular republic engraved in the 1958 Constitution makes no sense. Republican public opinion will therefore be the one in which public reasoning is engaged. It is mixed with ordinary reason (the one of any educated and autonomous subject in his choices – the one of any citizen) and more specific or learned knowledge. Republicanism is therefore optimistic about the ability of all citizens to make public use of their reason. It is conditioned on the work of instruction that will realize this capacity in everyone. This republican optimism is measured and is not confused with the belief in the spontaneous ability of the people for reasoning or of society to be democratic, nor to express their natural freedom through universal suffrage[12]. There is a tension between political rationalism and the idea of the sovereign will of the people. This tension is irreducible.

Historians of thought see French 19th century republicanism as a mixture of neo-kantism and positivism[13], but what really matter here is less the doctrinal content than the very role of philosophy. A rationalist philosophy, breaking with religion and its philosophical avatars, played an essential role in 1880s France. In the continuity of the philosophies of Condorcet, the “Ideologues”, Auguste Comte, Renouvier’s reading of Kant detached from the metaphysics kantism still contains, the reading of positive philosophy by the republican disciples of Comte, the claim for “reason as foundation of the Republic” (Alain), will serve as philosophical guarantee[14].

It should be noted that there are theories of knowledge and not political philosophies that most often serve as a basis for the indirect political role of philosophy. At that time in France, it was a question of “being a society” other than through Catholic rites and rhythms. If religions are accepted as individual beliefs, public space (the symbolic places of social and political identity) and knowledge in general can no longer proceed from them. Philosophies are therefore called upon as theories of knowledge or philosophy of science, less in their own content than as a vehicle for a possible social rupture, that of mentalities.

“French Republic ensures freedom of conscience. It guarantees the free exercise of worship under the sole restrictions set out below in the interest of public order[15]“. Pluralism of beliefs, religious or not, is thus legally guaranteed. Neither society nor institutions can refer to a single value system without debate. Reasoning and dissent require a specific use of convictions, (religious ones included) a use that relativizes them because they require confrontation on a background of neutrality. Neuter: ” Neither one nor the other “.

Public space is not the place where points of view are juxtaposed, nor is it the place of the absolute convictions clashing, but the place where individual points of view are confronted in order to reach a temporary agreement. Strictly speaking, this is a question of laicity (french version for secularism). Laos in Greek means “undivided population”. “Is secular, in this sense, what concerns all the people, regardless of the various beliefs that divide them” reminds us opportunely Henri Pena-Ruiz[16]. “Human diversity and the unity of the political and legal community, which makes it possible to ensure their coexistence, must be reconciled[17]“. Laicity concerns the very definition of public life, this balance between unitism and the expression of divergences. It should therefore not be considered only as just freedom of conscience or the separation between public and private.

It is important to consider that it is not a question of tolerance, in the sense of allowing private convictions to be expressed, but rather ensuring public confrontation of points of view, whether religious or not (there are idolatries other than religious). The despotism that republicanism fights is due to the absence of public relativization of convictions (whether they are theocracies or neo-liberalism, for instance). Therefore, strictly speaking, a secular education doesn’t promise any conviction, it exercises the necessary reasoning practices to confront points of view. Secular neutrality will therefore be the political guarantee for this space of confrontation of absolute convictions, which are thus obliged to change, to tend to relativize their positions. It can deal with the expression of convictions of any kind, because it is the acceptance of this public confrontation, the exercise of relativization of values and beliefs that constitutes laicity. This space must be politically and legally guaranteed even if it also has a social meaning.

This space of reasoned confrontation of opinions and convictions is an ideal, it is impossible because we are not a people of gods. It is possible as the ideal of reason, the political and spiritual ideal of peaceful intersubjectivity. It is an everyday plebiscite, a controlled conviction, a spiritual principle that leans on knowledge. “On what principles, especially since the Revolution, modern political societies have been founded, on what principles France rely on in particular rests, whose peril, as has often been said, but whose greatness it is to have, by its logical and intrepid spirit, pushed the very idea of Revolution to the extreme consequences? The idea, the principle of life which can be seen at work in modern societies, and in all institutions, is the act of faith in the moral and social efficiency of reason, in the value of the reasonable and teachable human person. [18]

Secularism therefore has to do with science, but in a particular way: “I do not want to speak of science as an institution, not only because it has public laboratories, but because it has such a profound impact on the children to whom it provides common data, and on the very course of social life, that it has indeed the value of an institution, an autonomous institution, an independent institution[19]“.

Neutrality (neither one nor the other), the recognition of diversity of convictions and dissensus do not lead to relativism (tolerance in the weak sense of the term). At the same time, secular Republic affirms the unity of the people despite the diversity of beliefs and convictions: the public space of their conciliation/confrontation. The existence of a regulator who is not attached to any conviction is also asserted: Sciences. While there are many convictions and beliefs, personal points of view and critical arguments, there is also a different kind of knowledge: scientific knowledge. By their questionable and collective nature, these don’t offer dogmas but verifiable certainties, although they are limited and temporary.

Republicanism is also linked to Human Sciences because it requires a renouncement of the absolute, not building castles in the air, avoiding partisan rhetoric, taking reality into account (and not from natural or divine norms or laws), an external referent, a social order already there which is somehow the material of politics: a system of opinion, an organization of production, techniques and a state of morals. This does not mean changing politics into a physics-style science, but simply involves giving up utopia and metaphysical idealism in order to confront ideas and social realities. It is not about giving power to scientists, but about basing political actions on precise knowledges. Scientists and philosophers exercise spiritual power in the manner in which, in the name of knowledge, they guarantee that plurality and complexity of social and political reality are taken into account. It is clearly about considering basic and applied research policy as an instrument for political decision-making.

The idea of founding a new city, according to a rational plan, is therefore not republican. Only utopians, revolutionaries, dreamers, philosophers, metaphysicians who despise or neglect the complexity of reality, especially in politics, could have this illusion. Everyone cannot in some way “rebuild the political world”, offer the fancy of his dreams to his fellow citizens. Republicanism, which is based on history and Human Sciences, provides the opportunity to draw on knowledge of the reality of the elements of political decision-making. But it is philosophy, not science, that is essential for republicanism: it is about will and judgment rather than knowledge, as said before. It is the bet of the possibility of individual autonomy, it is the bet of public freedom.

Republicanism therefore does not give on philosophy the leading role: it does not inform the political field. Its role is therefore more indirect and more essential: it creates the ability for autonomous judgment, it moulds the public mind. It does not transmit knowledge, therefore, it does not provide references, it does nor enlightens by the content of its proposals of its warnings. It makes the space for confrontations: between individual beliefs, between political ideals, between human sciences and hard sciences. Autonomy, the will to judge, the discipline of questioning, the consideration of divergent points of view, the courage to use one’s understanding essentially results from this.

An individual exercise towards the universal: is it therefore the discernment of individuals in facing error of the masses and crowds that is at stake? The role of intellectuals[20]? Republicanism stands on the following ground, which can be said to be both nuanced and precise: Democracy, which implies the search for collective judgment emerging from the addition of individual wills, is blinded by optimism. The tension mentioned above between the expectation of the gradual establishment of enlightened public opinion and the recognition of the population’s weak autonomy is specific to republicanism, which is both pessimistic about the people’s ability for discernment and optimistic on this point on principle. This tension leads to caution. Hope measured in the possibility of establishing peaceful relationships between men, ordered by greater equity, based on hope, which is also measured in fear and political capacity.

Freedom of opinion is the major political good, but the instrument for the existence of reasonable public opinion lays in the formation of individual judgments, a task that is never definitively accomplished. “In tendency, the republic allows the free game of reason. As a foundation, it feeds on it: it therefore produces its own basis in a virtuous circularity. Because it is the rule of reason, it allows reasons to be expressed, because it allows reasons to be expressed, it can be the rule of reason. From this point of view, the republic is justified less as a political “in itself”, than as a meeting place for a reasonable “in itself[21] ”

Social order can be changed by the will of the people and not by the one of the State. Secular neutrality is the common space of autonomous wills on which they depend in order to have the use of this autonomy of judgment. It is based on the desire to effectively consolidate political modernity which has seen the end of “the terrible absolute domination that man was able to exercise upon man during the childhood of humanity, in the name of unlimited power, applied to interests whose preponderance tended to prohibit any deliberation, is fortunately forever extinguished […][22] ”.

The power of public opinion itself will not be unlimited. Freed from traditions, modern opinion has a relative authority over individuals. “Public opinion generates itself. Individuals agree by noting the agreement of their inclinations[23]”. A civil religion of free examination and the critical use of knowledge does not leave individuals in the loneliness of a free will or judgment.

Is it a form of rationality developed in a « communicative” way? Nothing could be less certain. Rational deliberation is certainly particularly required in the republican system. “Wondering why I’m myself a Republican, isn’t it already being one yourself? Isn’t it in fact admitting that the form of power can be the object of a deliberate choice on the part of the citizen, that the community is therefore not imposed on man […][24] .”. However, information empowerment technologies, in their current dematerialized and global version, are transforming what can be called communication in its relationship to civic deliberation to such an extent that it requires consideration. The emotional aspect passions and instant representation seem more present than the courage to know and the individual exercise of reason towards the universal.

Political reason will therefore be the one which is slowly being formed through instruction and teaching (and more specifically through philosophy – which should be renewed and extended to all upper secondary school cycles – but also history, Human Sciences as a whole and the courses in popular universities). Civic behaviour can’t be prescribed, we can hope for its strengthening by the diffusion of knowledge, of a culture, in the classical acceptation of the definition of culture[25].

Republic is an Idea, an ability to propose and bring about, a secular faith. Marc Bloch, once again, puts it brilliantly: reality, not intellectual nuances (which inevitably lead to a questioning of one’s abilities) leads us to this bet, this bias for reason. “Deliberately – read Mein Kampf and the conversations with Rauschung – Hitlerism denies its crowds any access to the truth. It replaces persuasion by emotional suggestion. For us, a choice has to be made: on one hand, turn our people into a blindly vibrating keyboard with the magnetism of a few leaders (but which ones? Those of the present time lack waves), on the other hand, train them to be the conscious collaborator of the representatives they have chosen themselves. In the current disorder of our civilizations this dilemma no longer bears medium term plans. The masses no longer obey. They follow, because they have been put in a trance, or because they know[26].”

However, two forms of renouncement of knowledge and rationality can be identified. The one Marc Bloch refers to (single mass party, ethnic state, leader’s plebiscite, theocracy) seems to be replaced or synthesized with another more insidious form of despotism (the one of renouncement to reason through peaceful indifference to politics, that of conformist attachment to private happiness and consumer comfort). This synthesis takes place in the field of mass communication. It is this synthesis that the republican challenge must be confronted to by an active policy of education and culture.

In the republican context, ideas finally seem more likely to create dissensus than to aim for or foresee consensus. Social and political life remains unsteady, inalienable, oscillating from caution to criticism. This double regime (of questioning and/or approval) expresses the institutionalizing and revolutionary nature of the republican regime. The exercise of philosophy, if we understand it as the implementation of critical intelligence, therefore seems central and necessary. “French democracy has lost its luggage. She needs to rethink her whole set of ideas. [27] “. There Republicanism finds its revolutionary aim again and struggles to come will be difficult.

Sovereignty and political will do not depend on circumstances, organizations or incitements: they are acts. They are guided by an idea, but are not its strict and simple application. Sovereignty and political will overthrow the state of affairs, the state of fact, they are resistance to the facts, to the supposed naturalness, to the ineluctability of the state of affairs, to the constituted authorities, to the most anchored traditions.

What is a political idea? “Reason harbours in itself the principle of Ideas: by this I mean necessary concepts even though the object cannot be given in any experience[28] ”. Any idea thus understood is not immanent in any reality but is a pure possibility, it moves in an unconditioned field that does not refer to any fact or experience. Republic is a simple idea, it is not applicable in itself, it is a norm of action, an indication of a direction, a condition of possibility.

We cannot help but notice the convergence of antirationalism (and “affective sciences”), the philosophical focus on “Emotions”, with populisms. In this setting, citizens can vote and act against their interests, contest or ignore the most proven facts or knowledge. Authorities (lawyers, journalists, intellectuals), likely to provide elements of reasoning, obedient to the law of proof or contradictory debate, are delegitimized. Emotion, moral panic, real or supposed insecurity overwhelm all reasoning.

Illiberal democracy implies that leaders are elected by universal suffrage, but that individuals no longer benefit from fundamental civil rights (mainly freedom of speech, opinion, association, and privacy). The media and independent judges who are supposed to be the vectors of “political correctness” are excluded. Traditional values or national identity are emotionally promoted as the norms of a single fate, that disregards according to higher law, or pluralism of opinion. A substantial conception of the Political Good is promoted in a form that Claude Lefort describes as opposed to democracy: “the phantasm of the People as One, the quest for a substantial identity, a social body united by an embodiment of power, a state delivered from division. [29] »

Jozsef Szajer, Hungarian MEP, explains Fidesz’s strategy as such: “We are developing emotional politics. Politics goes hand in hand with the emotions that keep members of society together. It is in this prospect that we must understand our return to religion. In Europe as in Hungary, today, political parties are becoming too rational. They put emotions aside. They no longer talk about the nationality of their voters. However, it is not a policy of social redistribution that people identify with, but with the history of their country! »


[1] L’Erreur de Descartes, trad. Fr de Descartes’ error. Emotion, reason and the human brain, 1994.

[2] Op cit, 2010, p. 331.

[3] Sophie Wahnich, “Émotions et ambition démocratique : la contribution de l’approche historique”, in La politique à l’épreuve des émotions, s/d Alain Faure et Emmanuel Négrier, Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2017, p. 251-252.Our translation.

[4] A. O. Hirschman, Princeton University Press, 1st ed., 1977.

[5] Looking for Spinoza:Joy,Sorrow and the feeling brain. 2003.

[6] The teaching of philosophy in French high schools is a survival of republicanism and the current crisis in this teaching expresses the lack of republican voluntarism in political institutions. The opponents of republicanism perceived this well. The character of the professor of philosophy, a Kantian rationalist in Maurice Barrès’ novel Roman de l’énergie nationale, (published in 1900), a professor who diverts young Lorrains from their family traditions and regional roots, is an anti-republican charge.

[7] The term is the one of Maurice Barrès and refers to the list of the first signatories who, on 14 January 1898, requested a review of the trial of Captain Dreyfus in the newspaper L’Aurore.

[8] Alain-Gérard Slama, “La peur du conflit” in Le Siècle de Monsieur Pétain, Perrin, 2005 about unrealistic procedures (concealment of reality).

[9] Umberto Eco, Cinq leçons de morale. Grasset, 2002.

[10] Tocqueville, L’Ancien Régime et la Révolution, , livre III, chap. 1.

[11] Alain, « Le culte de la Raison comme fondement de la République », Revue de métaphysique et de morale, 1901, pp. 111-118.

[12] This point is insufficiently established in Pierre Rosanvalon’s work, as for example in the conclusion “Un universalisme singulier” of  the Sacre du citoyen, Gallimard, 1992, pp. 447 et seq., a text in which he is surprised: “There is in France a problem of epistemology of democracy. Since good government can only proceed on the basis of reason, it is indeed difficult to make the sovereignty of numbers a condition for political progress.” (p. 449).

[13] Sudhir Hazareesingh, Intellectual Founders of the Republic. Oxford Un. Press, 2002.

[14] Marie-Claude Blais, Au Principe de la République. Gallimard, 2001 pp. 395ff.

[15] Loi de 1905.

[16] H. Pena-Ruiz, Histoire de la laïcité, genèse d’un idéal. Gallimard, 2005, pp.16-17. “The secular school will therefore be for all the people, through its audience but also through the content of the teaching.”

[17] Ibid.

[18] J. Jaurès, “Pour la laïque”, in L’esprit du socialisme. Denoël, 1964, pp. 127-128.

[19]  J. Jaurès, Pour la laïque, op. cit., pp. 130-131.

[20] The neologism of “intellectual” that emerged in the context of the Dreyfus Affair has since been misused: it is less a question of calling for universal principles in the face of the established order and accepting the consequences of this commitment, than of showing off one’s personal capacity to have an opinion on everything. The right denunciation of the media swelling of supposed intellectuals is unfortunately mixed with the desire to put an end to the public space and the reign of criticism, an obstacle to neo-liberal omnipotence.

[21] Thierry Leterne, La Raison politique, Alain et la démocratie. PUF, 2000, p. 156.

[22] Auguste Comte, Cours de philosophie positive, VI, p. 505.

[23] Stoetzel, Théorie des opinions. PUF, 1943, p.155.

[24] Marc Bloch, “Pourquoi je suis républicain”, Les cahiers politiques, Comité général d’études de la Résistance, n°2, juillet 1943. En exergue de L’Étrange défaite, ed. folio. Gallimard, 1990.

[25] “Culture, taken as a whole, can be seen as the process of man’s progressive liberation of himself. Language, art, religion, science are the various moments of trial. In each of them, man discovers and possesses a new power – the power to build his own world, an ‘ideal’ world”. Cassirer, Essai sur l’homme. Trad. Fr. Minuit, 1975, p. 317.

[26] Marc Bloch, L’Étrange défaite, op. cit., p.178. Author’s translation.

[27] Edgar Quinet, La Révolution, tome 1, p. 11, ed. 1868.

[28] Kant, Prolégomènes à toute métaphysique future qui pourra se présenter comme science, Vrin, 1986, p. 102.  “It is”[…] the State in general, that is, a State according to the Idea, as it is conceived to be, according to the pure principles of right, and it is this Idea which serves as a directive for any real association aimed at forming a State.”Our translation. Kant, Doctrine du droit, Vrin, p. 195. Author’s translation.

[29]“La question de la démocratie”, in Essai sur le politique. Seuil 1986, p. 31.