« Myth, ideology and french national identity »
For this congress “Europe of nations. Myths of Origin: Modern and Postmodern
Discourses”, I've choose to study the relations between mythical discourses, especially the myths of
origin, and the french national identification. We can first ask if there is a French myth of origin and
if it's the case, what is this myth? What is its influence on national identification? On national
image? On political actions?
We will begin with an historical reminder. There are some variations over France's origins
according to times, to the social and historical contexts, to the image that the country wants to give.
After the Roman conquest, Gaul juxtaposed some Roman gods and myths to Celtic myths. In the
Middle-Age, the origin of the kingdom is Franc and Christian. In the 16th century Troyen origins are
mentioned, then Gallic origins were rehabilitated. If there was an origin homogenization attempt for
western civilization with the propagation of Christianity, we have to note the variations of France's
myths of origin.
But this instability shows the importance of myths and makes us think about the necessity of
mythical way of thinking in the foundation of the nations.
In order to clarify the relations between myth and nation, I will first define the terms of my
paper's subject. I have chosen to entitle my paper “Myth, Ideology and French National Identity”.
What are the relations between these three notions?
Take first an interest in the idea of nation. We have to differentiate two meanings in the idea
of nation. The first meaning, that we will call ancient meaning, refers to group of origin. This
meaning is close to the nation's etymology coming from the latin word natio which means “birth”.
This meaning is close to an ethnical sense of nation and refers to a group without idea of political
organization. In this particular case, the myth of origin tells the story of an heroic ancestor.
The second meaning, or modern meaning, presuppose individualism's advent and a social
cohesion revolved around the idea of self. Nation is so more an aggregation of equal people than an
organic totality as it was in the ancient meaning. This modern idea of nation is a part of an
“ideological revolution”. This revolution is defined by the primacy of individuals against the group.
The individual is the only owner of reason. There is a concordance between modern idea of nation
and individualism. These two ideas historically correspond, and the nation is the type of society
which corresponds to the individual as a value.
The modern idea of nation is to be a society composed of individuals, to be the ambition to
create a political society which transcends the particular specificities by citizenship. The modern
nation is determined by individual and territorial sovereignty.
What is the place of the myth in this modern, individualist and rational idea of nation? It
seems to be contradictory with myth which concerns a whole community.
But we can observe that some nations, even nations which seem to be very close to modern
and civic type of nation, conserve important holistic and mythical elements. In France, the question
of myth of origin continues to have an importance when individualist ideology and modern idea of
nation are strongly represented in political and social life (by example the debates on Gallic or
Franc origin in the 18th and 19th centuries). Some nations set up some symbolical practices at that
moment: national anthems (the first example being the british anthem in 1740), a national flag (the
french flag established between 1790 and 1794), nation personification (Marianne for France or
Germania for Germany). Holistic traditions, like ritual and commemorative ceremonies, were
imagined (the celebration of french national day at 14th of July was made official in 1880). Many
memorials were build during the third Republic in France to celebrate the republican model and
national heroic personalities.
Even if they are organized around the idea of self the modern nations have symbolic
elements to found a collective life. And the myth is the vehicle for these symbolic elements to
generate the social cohesion.
In order to clarify the relations between myth and modern idea of nation, we have to study
the notion of myth and especially its political dimension.
I will develop three meanings of political myths (in reference to Raoul Girardet's works1).
In the first meaning, the myth can be considered as a mystification which contradicts the
rules of logical reasoning. It seems to be a depreciation of the myth which is considered as “false”
with regard to the “true” reality. In the first state theories of antic philosophy “mythos” and “logos”
are distinguished to give preference to “logos”. So the methodology is based on rational thinking
against fabulous which is considered as a nuisance to reality's discovery. This method has to help us
to fight against sensibility. Then the political philosophy of Enlightenment separates every
mysterious or mythical thinking of the political theory. The myth ends where philosophy begins.
The doctrine of social contract is the axiom of political thinking. Political and social orders are
subjected to the citizens' submission. The myth is a superstition and an aberration which hides the
real social relationships.
But this first meaning of myth leaves out important elements to characterize the relations
between myth, ideology and collective identity.
Indeed we have to comprehend myth as a narration. If it refers to the past, especially for the
myths of origin, it can have a legitimate dimension for the present social organization and influence
contemporary political realities.
1 Raoul Girardet, Mythes et mythologies politiques, Paris, Seuil, 1986.
First, the myth is a narration (composed of dynamical symbols). It tells a story. This
narrative dimension can be a connection between myth and national identity. National identity can
be comprehended as a narrative too. We can comprehend identity as a “self hermeneutics2”, a
narrative work to give sense composed by several narrations which are building up, breaking down,
and building up again. The national identity is not composed by one commemorative memory. It is
not the reproduction of one founding archetype. History makes changes. These narrations have a
holistic dimension which concerns a community in general and contributes to create the “imagined
communities3” that are the nations: a common membership consciousness which doesn't depend of
face-to-face interaction between community's members. Mythical narration meets collective
identity narration in a holistic gesture which plays a part in the formation of national social
cohesion.
Then, if the myth refers to the past and can tell the birth of an institution, a people, how a
reality has become an existence, in the modernity, the myth integrates modern discourses and
especially the typical modern discourses that are ideologies.
According to Jean-Pierre Sironneau's analysis4, we can see in history and ideology the
modern ground of the myth. So mythical-ideological narrations tell the origins, rebuild the past
from a foundation and show a program for the future. These narrations define the sense of the
community in a double meaning: the sense as legitimization of present situation thanks to a
conceptual foundation, and the sense as a way to go in the future. The fusion between myth and
ideology can make some “political religions”. Jean-François Lyotard talks about the modern
ideologies as “narrations5”. It is not surprising that these modern ideologies are a favorable ground
for the mythical narrations. The political ideologies, which are scientific and rational explanation
systems of the social reality, have mythical dimensions.
The last meaning of the myth defines it as energy stimulation and creative animation. The
myth has a potential of social change thanks to imagination. Ideologies are just vehicles made of
abstract languages. That's why the myth can take an abstract and conceptual form in the modern
discourses. We can see the myth as a symbolic expression of human emotions, an objectification of
emotions. It makes us sensitive to collective feelings, imaginary and symbols' importance in
political organization.
Having seen the relationships between my subject's terms (myth, ideology and collective
identity), I will now give examples of french mythical-ideological discourses. I will be focusing on
“french national character regeneration” being at the origin of a “new people” in the french
2 Paul Ricoeur, Soi-même comme un autre, Paris, Seuil, 1990.
3 Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities, Verso, London, 1983.
4 Jean-Pierre Sironneau, Métamorphoses du mythe et de la croyance, Paris, L'Harmattan, 2000, et Sécularisation et
religions politiques, Paris, Mouton, 1982.
5 Jean-François Lyotard, La condition postmoderne: rapport sur le savoir, Paris, Minuit, 1979.
revolutionary ideology. Thanks to this, I will enter into the content of the mythical-ideological
narrations and not only be interested in their functions.
“National character” is a central notion of the analyses developed in the 18th century,
especially during the 50 years before french revolution. At this time, some people tried to develop a
science of national character. The central idea of this period was that the national character is not a
natural fact but it is subjected to political influences.
Authors thought about spirit of nations, what distinguish a nation from an other. At this time
the authors used to think that the main criteria which influenced on national character were the
climate, politic (the capacity of political actions, especially legislation, to model the national
character), and historical evolution (either a negative evolution undermining the past national
virtues or a positive evolution leading from barbarism to civilization). The french revolution was an
opportunity to criticize the french character. The french nation was related to a political program of
“new people” formation.
In the revolutionary vocabulary, the notion of “new people” is more present than the notion
of “new man”. The central idea is the change of national character. It is illustrating this period's
tension between individual and collective. After the valuation of the individual a strong collective
consciousness has to be formed to surpass the idea of self. All in all a holistic social cohesion has to
be found.
This critic of national character appeared when the idea of nation was on the top of political
thinking. But the monarchical references have to be forgotten. A new nation has to be created. Its
central characteristic will be unity. Unify the separate people of Ancien Regime, give a common
language, common habits and so be able to know who is french and who is a foreigner. This unity's
wish is illustrated by a republican slogan adopted in 1792, four days after the abolition of
monarchy: “France is an single and indivisible Republic”. It is a secular slogan which will be
sacralized. During this period, republican cults and symbols were set up to celebrate the idea of
nation. Some projects of “civil religion” were established. This civil religion was supposed to be a
factor of social integration which had to develop sociability and to inspire a civic moral by laws'
obedience and devotion to the collectivity which can be a self-sacrifice.
This republican slogan is a myth in the first meaning of the word. It is not corresponding to
this period's realities. France had a lot of administrative, linguistic or political regional differences
(there were counter-revolutionary movements inside national territory). This slogan is a myth
because it wants to create a new form of collective life too: the Republic breaking with the ancient
times of monarchy. This slogan had to mark a historical rupture. Symbols were set up. For example
a new calendar was set up (the first year of the Republic is the first year of the new nation). This
slogan is a holistic slogan which has to create a new form of sacred society. Lastly this slogan is an
image which gives a reason to political actions to realize national unity and indivisibility: abolition
of administrative or institutional regional differences, abolition of Ancien Regime's divisions,
implementation of a rationally-managed and centrally-managed administration...
The other important element of the “new people” is the dichotomy between man and citizen.
This is the corollary to unity. On one side natural man is determined by instincts, passions, focused
on his individual interests and on the other side citizen determined by his homeland, the legislation,
respecting civil duties and general interest. A progressive radicalization of republican criticism
opposed these categories. Man and nature have to be subjected to the homeland. National unity and
indivisibility are realized in the “community of citizens”. Revolutionaries, especially during that
radical period, gave a special importance to political actions to influence the national character.
They thought that legislation can transform the national character and found a new nation. This new
nation foundation was typified in the word “regeneration”.
This term is at the centre of french revolutionary aspirations. At the beginning of the
revolution this term is associated with others which reduce its meaning. We talk about
administrative regeneration, state regeneration....Then we only talk about the regeneration which
includes all parts of existence (politic, moral, social, economic...) and has to create a “new people”.
The regeneration is the rupture aiming at a global reform and a perfect society. This ideological
discourse contains mythical elements and can be comprehended as a secularized millenarianism.
The revolutionary ideology of regeneration is based on two elements of a millenarianism
mythical discourse: the violent rupture (secularization of apocalypse in the course of which
revolutionary minority has the role of a Messiah who will realize the future perfect society), and the
second idea is the becoming perfect society which is a secularization of the millenary kingdom and
a restoration of an idealized origin.
Indeed, as it can be suggested by the revolutionary vocabulary with words like “recovery”,
“revival”, there are some elements of the past which were perverted and which could be revived in
the coming of a new society. But if there is an image of a golden age to build the next perfect
society, what is it made of? During the revolutionary period, the golden age is composed of Gallic
images or idealizations of ancient republics (especially Rome and Sparta which are considered as
models of perfect republics). These images can be used to imagine the perfect society resulting of
the regeneration.
We will now see how the mythical elements we have seen before are embedded in
contemporary political and administrative realities, and the importance they stand for in
contemporary national imaginary through symbolical politics in the french national identity.
First, the idea of national unity and indivisibility is entered into institutional, administrative
and political practices. The slogan “France is a single and indivisible Republic” is mentioned in the
successive french Republics Constitutions. It was modified to become in the actual Fifth Republic
Constitution: “France is an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic”. These different
terms added to the slogan show its labile dimension and its rooting in social and historical realities.
Moreover, this myth of national unity and indivisibility has influenced political reactions to
the evolutions of supra-national forces of opposition (for example the european construction) or
infra-national forces of opposition (for example decentralization or regionalization). I don't have to
say here if these political orientations are positive or negative but to observe that political reactions
to these evolutions are oriented by the sacrality of national unity and indivisibility (with practical
administrative and institutional implementations giving primacy to a centralized state unity). Some
contemporary debates on french national identity are dominated by the problem of tendency to
group by community (ethnic, religious...) as opposed to national unity. Once again I don't have to
make a value judgment to this but to observe how political reactions are determined in these debates
by a possible questioning of national unity's sacrality.
At last I will focus on a contemporary symbolical politic in national identity: “Welcoming
ceremonies in french Republic”. These ceremonies can be organized in french prefectures since
1993 and in french town halls since 2004. Over the last years these ceremonies have known a
characteristic evolution to become a condition to french nationality for people who want to be
naturalized. These ceremonies represent an opportunity to celebrate the naturalization of new
incomers in national community and an opportunity to observe the contemporary french national
imaginary. In these ceremonies will we find the categories of national unity and partition between
man and citizen.
The unity of the nation is presented with the union between national culture and the historic
destiny of the nation. This idea is exemplified by a slogan which is used during the ceremonies:
“France, one country, one history, one culture”. The assimilation between a territory, a history and a
culture presents the french nation as an individualized collective. The convergence between an
individualist ideology and a holistic ideology presents the nation as an individualized collective.
The principles of individualism are transposed to a collective entity. In this way the national unity is
symbolically objectified by some emblems and official representations (one language: French, one
anthem: la Marseillaise, one emblem: the french flag). The unity is personified by the “national
community” composed of all citizens which are in keeping with the french values, integrated in the
single and indivisible whole and rejecting those who don't fit the mould.
These ceremonies present an ethic individual implement of national values too: the citizens'
rights and duties. The citizen determined by republican rules, his homeland and concerned about
general interest is valued facing with the individual self-interested, obsessed by his personal
passions (especially religious), which can be a communitarian or ghettoization danger.
I tried to analyze the importance of the mythical narration in national identification. By its
adding-up dimension, the mythical narration contributes to create national social cohesion in the
modern nation organized around the idea of self. We have seen that the mythical narration
integrates modern discourses like political ideologies and is a vehicle for the sacralized symbols of
french national identity: national unity and indivisibility and partition between man and citizen.
These mythical elements are embedded in political and administrative realities, and in
contemporary national imaginary thought contemporary political actions or reactions.