Does France suffer from the same disease as other democratic nations which have existed at peace with one another for the last half century? "Inventing the Enemy" is an essay written buy Umberto Eco in which he describes a conversation with the Pakistani cab driver who was taking Eco to an appointment in New York City. "Who is your enemy?" was the cab driver's question. The question was posed with regard to Italy, Eco's home country. "Well . . . we don't have any" was Eco's response. "Nonsense. Every country needs an enemy" opined the Pakistani philosopher. Eco reflected on the violent past of Italy's city states waging war on one another. In order to work in concert to achieve a larger goal, communities require an external threat that will animate and unify the members. Concepts like The War on Poverty, or The War on Drugs are not unifying. Trump's concept "The Enemy Within" is a unifying concept for a certain segment of American society. Perhaps France suffers from the same disease.
An interesting idea. It would be a shame if a nation had to defined itself AGAINST another. But it’s true that England has historically often served as the arch-enemy. In the 20th century the US replaced it as the hegemonic bogeyman - even though the Americans saved Europe from itself twice. As a French Anglophile, I hope we’re better than that, but I’m not sure. Eco may have a point.
The Pakistani philosopher cab driver did reveal a question to Eco which probably has a great deal of merit. Tribes, city-states, nation-states all have histories of conflict with one another. Telling the story of the threatening adversary is an age old psychological trick and technique for motivating a population. This trick of the mind works as well on a single individual as it does on entire armies. It does not require fact or truth but rather a personality with a style of interaction and the ability to convince the easily persuadable. Ofttimes, the action taken by the unified populace is not in its best interests but the ill-advised goal is pursued anyway. The story teller is usually on a quest to claim absolute personal power and this recurrent psychological manipulation succeeds again and again. Delusion, greed and injustice seem to motivate much of humanity. As you said, I hope we're better than that, but I too, am not sure.
It seems that many if not most commentators bith inside and outside of France agree that the Fifth Republic, with its de facto elective monarchy rooted in a bespoke constitution written by and for General De Gaulle, has long outlasted its usefulness. It's almost a miracle it has survived the General by so long. I believe even Le Pen and Melanchon have both mused about replacing it with a parliamentary system. Is there any possibility of this actually happening in the foreseeable future?
Indeed, criticism of the 1958 Constitution is as old as the Cinquième République itself. Mélenchon has been calling for power to the assembly to sound revolutionary, but his real model is Chavism not Westminster-style parliamentarianism. I don't think Le Pen has mused openly about a sixth republic: anyway she and Jordan Bardella have no interest in changing a system that could give the RN a free rein soon. The constitution has survived because it benefits those in power at any given time. I think the best we can hope for is reform that clips the wings of the presidency more effectively than previous amendments have done.
Does France suffer from the same disease as other democratic nations which have existed at peace with one another for the last half century? "Inventing the Enemy" is an essay written buy Umberto Eco in which he describes a conversation with the Pakistani cab driver who was taking Eco to an appointment in New York City. "Who is your enemy?" was the cab driver's question. The question was posed with regard to Italy, Eco's home country. "Well . . . we don't have any" was Eco's response. "Nonsense. Every country needs an enemy" opined the Pakistani philosopher. Eco reflected on the violent past of Italy's city states waging war on one another. In order to work in concert to achieve a larger goal, communities require an external threat that will animate and unify the members. Concepts like The War on Poverty, or The War on Drugs are not unifying. Trump's concept "The Enemy Within" is a unifying concept for a certain segment of American society. Perhaps France suffers from the same disease.
An interesting idea. It would be a shame if a nation had to defined itself AGAINST another. But it’s true that England has historically often served as the arch-enemy. In the 20th century the US replaced it as the hegemonic bogeyman - even though the Americans saved Europe from itself twice. As a French Anglophile, I hope we’re better than that, but I’m not sure. Eco may have a point.
The Pakistani philosopher cab driver did reveal a question to Eco which probably has a great deal of merit. Tribes, city-states, nation-states all have histories of conflict with one another. Telling the story of the threatening adversary is an age old psychological trick and technique for motivating a population. This trick of the mind works as well on a single individual as it does on entire armies. It does not require fact or truth but rather a personality with a style of interaction and the ability to convince the easily persuadable. Ofttimes, the action taken by the unified populace is not in its best interests but the ill-advised goal is pursued anyway. The story teller is usually on a quest to claim absolute personal power and this recurrent psychological manipulation succeeds again and again. Delusion, greed and injustice seem to motivate much of humanity. As you said, I hope we're better than that, but I too, am not sure.
It seems that many if not most commentators bith inside and outside of France agree that the Fifth Republic, with its de facto elective monarchy rooted in a bespoke constitution written by and for General De Gaulle, has long outlasted its usefulness. It's almost a miracle it has survived the General by so long. I believe even Le Pen and Melanchon have both mused about replacing it with a parliamentary system. Is there any possibility of this actually happening in the foreseeable future?
Indeed, criticism of the 1958 Constitution is as old as the Cinquième République itself. Mélenchon has been calling for power to the assembly to sound revolutionary, but his real model is Chavism not Westminster-style parliamentarianism. I don't think Le Pen has mused openly about a sixth republic: anyway she and Jordan Bardella have no interest in changing a system that could give the RN a free rein soon. The constitution has survived because it benefits those in power at any given time. I think the best we can hope for is reform that clips the wings of the presidency more effectively than previous amendments have done.