The real opposition is not the object of all the cares of city policy, all the outpourings of the heart ("Depart from me, close to my heart" politician) - cf. "Not touch my pal" etc. - Drifts and community - communitarians: no. The real divide is between the cities of France, incurred for their wealth, in globalization, and that, the majority in the territory and population of the periphery.
The France of the periphery is one that has accepted abroad, openness to the European Union, the Euro believer in the wisdom of our policies. It is that of the working and middle classes who, working in the industry, has paid and continues to pay the heaviest price for the crisis: deindustrialization (open borders, lack of protection) accelerated (I am professionally and personally scared of the number of French companies carrying more than 50 million sales, built over the decades for a year, go into liquidation) produced its share of redundancies (cynically called at first, "social plans" and "Recovery plans for employment"), social vulnerability, territorial loss, suicide.
This France who suffers more than the cities is one that increasingly vote for the National Front. The PS has deserted the camp of the workers in 1981, as recalled Jean-Pierre Le Goff (Left to the test and the Socialist director Laurent Bouvet Cevipof The sense of the people: The left, democracy, populism) and took hate what is involved in its nobility: the "common decency" Orwellian concept developed by philosopher Jean-Claude Michea Mysteries of the Left: From the Enlightenment ideal of absolute triumph capitalism. The UMP has popular that the third letter of its name. The National Front which, however, in the era of Jean-Marie Le Pen, was ultra-liberal, has sided with Marine Le Pen, on a protectionist rhetoric, listening to the left of economists such as my friend Jacques Sapir. The author explains correctly that it is the electorate that the party is not the opposite - that seems to understand belatedly oligarchs. Terra Nova, the think tank of the PS, close to DSK, had drawn the same conclusion to invite the PS to capture the electorate BAC + 5, bobos living in cities. This was achieved, in part, but only in the metropolises.
More generally, all parties (States), about the ruling classes:
"(...) Blinded by their civilizing mission or a strong social racism, they remain convinced that ignorance is the cause of cultural skid popular categories. It is at this very significant title after several decades of pop FN vote among the more modest, low level of education is always highlighted as one cause of the rejection of the other. The dominant classes, particularly on the left, continue doing so the idea of uncultivated classes handled by dark forces of populism. At no time, it recognizes that the cultural level of the small classes has been increasing, nor that many young graduates from working classes share the same analysis. In reality, it is Strikingly, the new bourgeoisie, often from left, is in line with the traditional bourgeoisie right which could not perceive that the popular classes as dangerous classes, uneducated and child he had to educate urgently. On this point, nothing has changed. "(P.156-157)
The problem is that the electorate UMP and PS is also composed of elderly. These two parties, opposed to the lower classes, youth intersect one hand, the middle class on the other.
Globalization is experienced for what it is - where "competition is free and undistorted" - double lie TEC mostly rejected by the French people and applied by force, by political oligarchy under Sarkozy - Holland with Lisbon Treaty.
The face of a France rancid, so disparaged by the éditocrates, feathers servile oligarchy, already challenged by the above economic realities briefly described, is false, totally on both the restriction of the field to France that in the bottom. Christophe Guilluy us to understand the interplay of relative majorities in the communities: integration or rejection of foreign population.
"The issue of migration dynamics and the report minority / majority is driving the rise of so-called populist parties across Europe It contradicts the simplistic analysis of elites protected around." Fear of the other "; above all, it requires to treat the effects of immigration and the emergence of a multicultural society. A reality where the other does not necessarily fear, but to which the popular classes must meet only at the risk of being a minority. " (P.150)
A racist France would explain the voting National Front? False.
"In 2013, the National Consultative Commission on Human Rights (CNCDH), which annually publishes the balance of racist, anti-Muslim acts indicated that did not exceed fifty. This is obviously fifty too, but compared to the importance of the Muslim population, this report is far from indicating a surge in racist violence. He emphasized, not a country on the path of war, but rather a profound rejection of tensions.
But the ruling classes, those who can afford the invisible border with another [not living close to each other, putting their children in private school, elitist public school, etc.] do not want this separation . They are the ones who ask the name of the property, more and more "diversity." This will to impose the "mix" with other risk problematic today at a time when loosening, given the logical land, will no longer be possible. It is as if the elites wanted to create conditions of tension.
The gap between the perception of the elites and those of the people reads in this multicultural management. The ruling classes, who live "multiculturalism 5,000 euros per month," and that the solution lies in more diversity, the popular classes, "those living multiculturalism 1,000 euros per month" meet separatism.
The Byzantine debates on immigration, identity, the right soil, the blood are in vain, since they have already been decided in the real. Just look at how to manage the relationship with the other home and abroad. The process is identical everywhere, to each other and the "village" is the same of La Courneuve in Picardy, Hénin-Beaumont in Marseille, Breton villages than in Kabylia, the Xinjang in Oregon: the Categories modest wish to preserve their capital and ensure the transmission of their heritage and their "village" to their children. This is a protective approach, no closure, so it does not prohibit the acceptance of others nor fraternity but requires between self-majority "(p.151-152)
Or "cultural domination of a majority group, regardless of whether it consists of Muslims, Christians or animists, is the engine of cultural insecurity. A rule that avoid the higher classes, including spaces very mixed as are eg boboïsés neighborhoods of large cities, erecting "invisible borders". (p.154-155)
When a relative majority of a population is at risk of becoming minority; these are all the social cues jittery. The minority is is imposed negotiation and / or domination. "Contrary to popular belief that only" little white "in search of an" imaginary Frenchness "(John Paul Kaufman National Front: concrete ascent and illusory identities') is tempted by separatism and cultural hinterland these dynamic (that of relative majorities / minorities) concern all individuals.
The fundamental error is to assign categories Popular dechristianized, uprooted decultured sometimes, the will to reactivate France Pétain Maurrassian or they do not even suspect the existence! In reality, we are talking about the report modest categories and territories and otherness in a globalized and multicultural society. It is therefore not a DIY "imaginary Frenchness" but a rational response - and universally to social and cultural issue "(p.156)
Christophe Guilluy definitely brings a relevant social reading grid that enriches our understanding of France.
