Bogdan Dobosz: Is there inactive a nation in France?

Bogdan Doboshhttps://pch24.pl/bogdan-dobosz-we-France-exists-yet-nation/

What is the French people in 2025? The writers Charles Rojzman and Christophe Boutin tried to answer that question. In July, erstwhile the Republic celebrated its birth, these 2 thinkers warned "before the silent erosion of the French people: consumerist globalisation, cultural egalitism, which erases past and political Islamism undermining the foundations of common national ties". The disastrous imagination of France is besides "Fluish boundaries, failure of common memory and sovereignty".

Both see the elites of the country, which are cut off from average people. In their opinion, present there is simply a deficiency of national communicative and forms of its transmission, in which the school, language and traditions usually play the primary role. The imagination of these elites is "a fragmented France, without a joint project". The reflections of both authors are worth presenting because A large part of their proposals relate to another EU countries, including, unfortunately, Poland.

Gobalization, Neocommunism and Islamism\

The authors presented their thoughts in "Atlantico". Charles Rojzman claims that the French people are “stuck in a trap today, and 3 main forces contribute to its symbolic decay.” It lists the processes of marketplace globalisation that bring people to the function of the consumer, "cultural neo-communism", which seeks to erase the tradition and awareness of the historical past in the name of abstract progress, ideas of egalitarianism, and besides political Islamism, which seeks to replace the national belongings of a global "umma", without local roots. In his opinion, these trends "have 1 common feature: they dissolve what is common, weaken our heritage, make any attachment to historical continuity almost suspicious".

This involves a crisis of blurring the cultural, symbolic and territorial boundaries that constituted the nation. The author adds that it will not be the abrupt disappearance of the French, due to the fact that the French people did not die, although they no longer think of themselves in these categories. ‘France exists but no longer recognizes itself, and broken down into social and cultural segments, it is no longer able to produce a political form capable of uniting it."

The Reality of pseudo-elity

The origin of this situation is to be a "deep divide: between a rootless elite that has turned distant from the past and planet of average people, and a silent majority that no longer identifies with the authoritative pro-European communicative of elites". There is no common project, memory or common institutions, and there is simply a slow breakdown of subsequent social ties. The elites despise patriotism and “people's identity”, the everyday culture of average people, specified as gestures, holidays, customs, language, fairs, conventional customs. “The sausage becomes suspicious, the agrarian festival is seen as an exclusionary, street aperitif is an escape into identity (...), we no longer value heritage, we celebrate breakup, we deconstruct”. Christophe Boutin adds that "within what he would call a pseudo-elite, there has always been a strong tendency to despise folk culture," but now it has become ideological. The Left inactive believes that it will make a "perfect system", and their plan is "only right".

Boutin explains that “historically speaking, the nation has always been rooted in a number of elements.” For example, “the people have territory, they establish boundaries, they presume a clear distinction” between their own and strangers. It is now a top-down erasure of the nation, which is the “European construction” and the very concept of borders becomes fleeting. The nation besides creates its rights. However, “under the burden of case law, specified as the European Court of Human Rights”, national law becomes secondary to cross-border construction.

The problem of leadership and sovereignty

Boutin besides pays attention to the deficiency of leadership, "essential for the vitality of all nation." This does not even should be the head of state, as is illustrated by Joanna d’Arc, who at 1 point “personalized the national stave”. Also, General Charles de Gaulle, at the time erstwhile he embodyed the national stave in 1940, was not the head of state.” However, Gaullism has given this function to the President, and Boutin notes that "in the current situation we cannot say that Emmanuel Macron embodies the nation, in any area and form."

The key component of the nation's life is besides its sovereignty, and "being sovereign means being able to decide freely about its actions." Here we are dealing with a transfer of competences within the European Union that "has undermined this thought of free decision-making in many areas." Boutin believes that Emmanuel Macron's thesis, who believes that at the same time it is possible to have European sovereignty and national sovereignty, is simply a "obvious heresy".

“We are at a crossroads”

Another problem is the "disposal of heritage". The interior past discourse that has prevailed in fresh years "was intended to present French national past as a series of massacres, a series of absolutely catastrophic events for which the French should regret today, bear the consequences and apologize all day." The past of the nation is intended to replace the imagination of an unwavering future. This is the modern imagination of European integration, which is an effort to destruct nations as sources of war, feud, violence. However, conflicts have always existed and exist, they can decision from national level to wars of empires, blocks, social, class, intranational feuds. Boutin states unequivocally – "the nation itself is not the origin of war, and very frequently can be the subject of dialogue, negotiations and talks", much more effective than transnational structures.

Charles Rojzman, describing France, says "we are at a crossroads." Immigration besides plays a destructive function here. "In this crisis, we must have the courage to say 1 thing: the mass immigration we have experienced in fresh decades is not neutral. We believed that everyone would integrate naturally, but in order to integrate, there must be a common narrative, a memory that can be shared," he adds, "We request boundaries, not out of hostility, but due to the fact that we cannot require the full population that came with another references to join a nation that no longer tells its communicative (...). Mass immigration present brings a population that cannot or does not want to assimilate, but which is frequently hostile to the national communicative and past of this country." The author adds that France " lacks courage for the common good, courage to defend what we have inherited: not as a fortress, but as a surviving heritage." The authors of “Atlantico” see the anticipation of strong leadership, the improbable integration of the French around the thought of “a common enemy” or rebuilding and defining common myths, which, after years of deconstruction, “seems peculiarly difficult”.... So there are no prospects.

Bogdan Dobosh