During the UCL Summer Days in August, Félicien Faury came to present his
book Des élus ordinaires. Enquête sur la normalisation de l'extrêmedroite. This was an opportunity to learn more about the RN vote. ----
UCL: To begin, Félicien Faury, who are you and what is the subject of
your book? ---- Félicien Faury: I define myself as a sociologist of
politics. I wrote a thesis on the electorate of the National Rally (RN)
in the south-east of France and I subsequently wrote a book from it. Des
élus ordinaires. Enquête sur la normalisation de l'extrême droite
consists of a field survey that lasted from 2016 to 2022[1]. I am
interested in ordinary RN voters: non-activists, not very politicized,
who are neither supporters nor elected officials.
What is the typical profile of an RN voter? Their age, their activity,
their place of residence?
It is always a little difficult to determine a typical profile of what
an RN voter would be, but I think we can distinguish two types of
electorates. On the one hand, a more popular, precarious electorate; on
the other hand, another working class electorate that we call
"established" in sociology. These are people who often own their homes:
lower middle classes, shopkeepers, self-employed people. In my fieldwork
in the south-east, I was more interested in this part of the electorate.
I had the impression that it was being neglected in order to focus on
the working-class RN electorate, which is a reality. But sometimes, it
seems to me that we over-focus on this and on the equation "RN vote =
working class vote", which is false. On the one hand, because there are
a lot of workers who vote left, and on the other hand, there is a very
high abstention rate among the working class electorate.
This focus leaves out the middle classes of the population who represent
a very important electorate for the RN. This is also a very important
issue for the RN itself, which is trying to go beyond the strictly
working class electorate to attract the lower middle classes. So I was
interested in this type of electorate and what is specific about it. The
people I interviewed do not feel insecure on the job market, which is a
difference from the working class electorate. Their insecurity concerns
other socio-economic issues, very material issues such as the question
of housing, the question of purchasing power, and also a whole set of
issues of social reproduction: the place where one lives, the future of
one's children, the relationship with school, the question of taxes,
social assistance, family allowances. This will create forms of
competition between poverty with ethno-racial minorities, immigrants. It
is this type of social interest that I address as a priority with, in
the south-east and the Paca region in particular, an issue which is
tourism, which creates very strong inequalities, particularly territorial.
What are the social and psychological mechanisms that lead to voting RN?
On the left, we hear things like: "it is a division of classes to set
the proletarians against each other", "it is an electorate that is
fighting the wrong battle". This discourse is quite naive; Can you give
us your vision?
There are two elements. First, RN voters who would vote against their
interests would be mistaken. A basic sociological issue is to take
people seriously: there is a kind of presumption of sincerity. At the
end of the survey, I cannot say that they are mistaken, while they spend
their time talking about immigration, insecurity, and linking these
issues with economic issues, purchasing power, housing, heritage. They
know what they are doing when they vote for the RN, in any case on
certain very well-identified themes, what we call in political science
the three "I's": immigration, insecurity, Islam. On these themes, there
is no misunderstanding. There can be misunderstandings on social issues,
on the defense of the working classes by the RN. There I think we could
say that there are forms of deception.
Second, what do we call "social interests"? There are class interests on
the one hand, but there are also racialized social interests on the
other, which refer to another plane in which these voters are situated:
the racial plane and the division between majority groups and minority
groups. The vast majority of RN voters belong to what Colette
Guillaumin[2]called the majority group, the racially dominant group in a
given configuration. From this point of view, they also know what they
are doing: there is a defense of this position that must be taken
seriously. In addition to the issue of racism that comes from above
through capitalism to divide the working classes, there is also an issue
in trying to think about how the working classes or the middle classes
also participate, in the name of defending certain local interests, in
the division between majority and minority.
In addition to racism, there is another common theme in what unites the
extreme right in general, it is the questions of patriarchy, family,
opposition to the emancipation of women, to the rights of LGBTI people.
Are these things that came up during the interviews you conducted?
Quite a bit in the sense that the questions of gender, feminist
emancipation, the rights of LGBTI people did not emerge much. There is a
kind of indifference. I think that on this, Marine Le Pen's strategy
shows that the RN is in a sort of status quo, it does not fight much on
these issues, does not engage, which is different from countries like
Italy or Brazil for example, where the extreme right has seized on these
issues.
Even if I call upon this dimension, in particular to understand part of
the female vote for the RN, the social interests that emerge in the
discussions that I have been able to have are around the question of
school and are played out in two ways. Often, these are people who have
short and also complicated, clashing educational trajectories, the level
of diploma being the most decisive variable to explain the RN vote.
Behind this low level of diploma, we find these educational trajectories
and a relationship with the school order that is a little defiant. I
also see in the way in which parents find themselves faced with the
education of their children: like many, they want to participate in a
form of social reproduction.
Often, these are people who started by sending their children to public
school, who felt its deterioration and who, unlike other groups with
more cultural capital, feel helpless in relation to this: they have
fewer social means to do homework, to be good at school guidance issues,
etc. They feel helpless, hence a feeling of injustice: many send their
children to private school, for example.
You worked in an area where the RN vote, and FN before, has been
anchored for quite a long time. Given its progression in recent years,
you must have seen voters come to vote RN. Politically, where does this
new electorate come from? Did they vote before? If so, for whom?
In the south-east, it is very much a right-wing electorate that is
becoming radicalized, that is starting to vote for the extreme right. Or
people who are usually abstainers and who, when they start voting, "vote
for Marine" as has been often said in my area. There are two
characteristics: firstly, abstainers are not necessarily left-wing
people. When there is an increase in participation - as was the case in
the legislative elections - in certain territories, this increase refers
to a massive left-wing vote. Conversely, there is a whole set of areas
where people, when they come out of abstention, vote for the Le Pen party.
In the major trends, the fact that people on the left would suddenly
start voting for the RN is statistically false, it is very much a
minority. What we notice instead is a right-wing electorate that,
gradually, starts voting for the far right and more and more,
particularly with the Macron/Le Pen second rounds. Let's take the case
of this first-time voter who is voting for the RN in 2022. She comes
from a right-wing family. She works in the restaurant business: the
customers she talks to, her colleagues, her new partner, everyone around
her votes RN. We vote a bit like we are socially, like our peers. She
voted for Valérie Pécresse in the first round. In the second round,
Macron/Le Pen, she hesitates but finally she says why not and she votes
for Marine Le Pen.
There are also other profiles of voters who may have voted left a long
time ago. Often elderly people who say: "I was disgusted by François
Mitterrand and so I started voting for Le Pen". But when we look in
detail, these are people who have very gradual trajectories of
right-wing movement, that is to say who started voting first for the
right and then increasingly for the far right.
Have you had any experience with people who have gone beyond simply
voting for the RN and who are involved a little further? Either in the
RN or in other far-right groups?
There are many studies in sociology that focus on activists or
sympathizers, people who are very politicized, very politically
educated. What I wanted were people who are far removed from these
issues and who would not at all think of going to campaign, who can even
be quite critical of certain so-called radical groups because there is
the question of violence which is often perceived negatively.
With the downside of a normalization of the RN because "they, at least,
are not skinheads, they are not Nazis". These are people who have very
little activist background. Which does not mean that it is not a
political gesture, but they are not people who are politically engaged.
For these voters, what is the relationship with the left, social
movements and unions? Is it part of their universe?
Yes, from my point of view, it is perhaps a characteristic of this lower
middle class electorate. There is a perception of the left, of what it
represents and of those it represents that is very negative. There is
the idea that it is a political camp that is pro-immigration in general.
We are talking about a left in the very broad sense. Even Emmanuel
Macron, in 2022, can be described as being "left", particularly on
migration issues. The left is also perceived as the camp of
intellectual, media, and cultural elites. Here too, we find the
importance of the level of education. There is a certain distrust of
this type of elite.
We also find many unions or associations that are considered very
politicized. That being said, there are certain left-wing themes that
can affect them. The question of inequalities for example, because there
is a lot of fatalism around this question. In Paca, there are ultra-rich
people who sometimes arouse envy, but also bitterness, resentment. This
is an issue that can really be invested by the left, like the issue of
public services and schools. When voters send their children to private
schools, it is not with a light heart and it is not an anti-state
feeling that is behind it. It is the idea that "we could not do
otherwise and it is still unfortunate".
At UCL, we have a strong anti-fascist commitment, we seek to push back,
to stop this dynamic of the rise of the RN. We belong to the world of
direct social movements, particularly unions or associations. From this
point of view, in your opinion, what should we do and also perhaps what
should we absolutely not do to try to oppose this dynamic?
I do not always feel that I am best placed to give advice on this
matter. It is not a position, often I think that activists know better
what can be important. It still seems to me that there is something to
be said on the issue of racism. I insist a lot on the fact that what
struck me, at the end of my investigation, is to what extent there are
social circles or territories where there is a form of consensus on what
is problematic and in particular a whole set of negative prejudices
about what we call welfare recipients or immigrants. This is part of the
evidence that is shared and which is very little contested.
Here, I think that there is still something to be played: the problem of
social sanctions against racism is when it comes from above, in
particular from cultural elites, it can replay forms of class contempt,
the impression that we are being lectured, it can be ineffective and
above all replay class domination. It seems to me very important to try
to have a kind of everyday anti-racism that must be played out in
relatively egalitarian relationships. These relationships can be made in
peer groups, family groups, but also neighborhood groups, within
associations or work collectives for example. It is a whole set of
places - the territory, the association, the union - where there can be
forms of protest, within relatively egalitarian relationships to contest
these ideas.
The normalization of the extreme right, it happens through there, it is
not only the media. It is also the fact that when insults against Arabs
come out in a daily conversation, no one reacts. It seems to me that it
is an issue to invest in and which also involves social sanctions of
people: for example, in a union, who does not vote for the extreme right
but who would let it pass. There is a whole set of reflexes to spread
within the left and then from close to close to be able to spread this
common nonsense.
Interview conducted by Nicolas (UCL Grenoble), recording Aimée (UCL
Grenoble), transcription Hugo (UCL Bordeaux), formatting and
proofreading Céline (UCL Lyon) and N. Bartosek (UCL Alsace)
Félicien Faury, Des élus ordinaire. Enquête sur la normalisation de
l'extrême droite, Seuil, May 2024, 240 pages 21.50 euros.
Validate
[1]See the book review in Alternative libertaire, July 2024.
[2]Colette Guillaumin (1934-2017) was a sociologist and an anti-racist
and feminist activist. A theorist of the mechanisms of racism, sexism
and power relations, she was also an important figure in materialist
feminism. See her biography on Wikipedia.
https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Felicien-Faury-Je-m-interesse-aux-electeurs-et-aux-electrices-ordinaires-du-RN
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten