Eulogia Merle
Has Emmanuel Macron understood that the yellow vest movement was just the prelude? Have you noticed that the popular protest has not been interrupted? That it does not stop mutating, transforming, evolving, both in France and in other Western countries, as the middle class becomes more fragile? Are you aware of the importance of the cultural divide between the popular classes and the ruling classes? Is the elimination of the ENA a sign of an epiphany or, on the contrary, the confirmation that, after four years in power, the divorce of Jupiter and ordinary people seems to have been consummated?
As France surpasses the symbolic barrier of 100,000 deaths from covid, two years after the revolt of the yellow vests, power faces an unprecedented economic, social and cultural crisis.
The economy is collapsed and it is no longer a minority of the excluded that suffers from the neoliberal model, but the majority of the population.
Faced with these realities, the French hope for a political solution that is up to the task.
More information
Editorial |
The end of the ENA and the search for a new model in France
Now, Emmanuel Macron's response to this crisis of civilization consists of a ridiculous measure: the abolition of the National School of Administration (ENA). Once again, he prefers showmanship to politics. If the French have a problem with their elites, let's burn the symbol of elitism. With his sights set on the polls, especially on the intention to vote in favor of Marine Le Pen, which reaches an unequaled level (48%), the President of the Republic refers to the communication. In other words, Jupiter, at the head of an advertising agency, reveals his impotence and his inability to understand society.
In this operation, everything sounds false. To begin with, the chosen moment: as in any advertising campaign worthy of respect, the elimination of the ENA was announced by surprise. Second, the wrapper. The ENA is going to be replaced by the Institute of Public Services, a name without content in which the disappearance of the word "national" is symbolic. This new structure, typical of the times, will be faithful to the specifications that appear in Netflix productions, that is, it will be more inclusive and more open to diversity. The emphasis on communication gives the feeling of activity and allows attention to the failures of the Government to be disengaged for a time but, above all, it reveals the extent to which Emmanuel Macron is disconnected and, even worse, that he misses the point.
By suppressing the totem of French elitism, power is also attacking a symbol of the State and the Republic.
The Elysee seems to have forgotten that the school's founding charter is not only signed by General de Gaulle, but also by the general secretary of the French Communist party, Maurice Thorez.
The ENA, the result of a political consensus, sought to select its members regardless of social origin.
That is the paradox: while it is true that the ENA has ceased to fulfill its original purpose, it was created as a symbol of the republican meritocracy.
But what is most worrying is another aspect, the fact that this measure does not address the obstacle that blocks French society: the process of selecting the elites.
Social reproduction is, above all, a consequence of the abandonment of the common good and the conformity of the ruling classes. Therefore, the reason for inbreeding is not the ENA, but adherence to a neoliberal model that exacerbates inequalities. Although the principle of equality appears on the facades of all educational centers, the reality is that we are in a country where social mobility has ceased to exist. In France, it takes six generations for the descendants of a poor family to become middle class, one of the worst performers among OECD countries.
But there are things even more worrying.
This decision reveals a profound ignorance of ordinary people.
Conceived as a campaign to make people forget the image of a Macron “president of the rich”, it reveals the importance of the cultural divide between the people and their representatives.
The Elysee has presented the dissolution of the ENA as a response to the yellow vest movement.
Two years after the largest social movement the country has known since 1968, it does not seem that Emmanuel Macron has yet understood the underlying reasons for this revolt or the French who originated it.
The disappearance of the ENA has never been a fundamental request of the middle and popular classes that took to the streets in November 2018. The mobilization, which began with the decline in purchasing power, was above all a movement of cultural recognition. Reacting to this protest with the elimination of a symbol of elitism is equivalent to reducing an existential revolt to the sad passions of some "deplorable" who reject the elites on principle. This image of a people who oppose meritocracy, elitism and intelligence conceals a deep class contempt. The ENA is eliminated just as bread and circuses were given to the populace.
However, contrary to what Macron thinks, the popular classes are very sensitive to the cultural level of the elites and have always been attracted to political figures who dominate the language, not to publicists who manipulate the new jargon. Careful language was what made the communist leaders, from Maurice Thorez to Georges Marchais, through Jacques Duclos, to capture the attention of the workers. The Elíseo's communication advisers are wrong when they explain the degree of distrust of the popular media with the famous expression “all corrupt”. This analysis equates ordinary people with a brutish mass and allows one to look away from the mediocre at the top. It prevents us from seeing the correlation between the intellectual collapse of the ruling classes and the aversion they inspire.
It is common to speak of anti-elitism as an example of the cultural closure of ordinary people. The thesis is that, by rejecting intellectuals and therefore intelligence, ordinary people demonstrate that they are unable to evolve. This explanation is very comfortable for the ruling class and the technological structure, which thus frees itself from any responsibility. But what the popular classes reject is not the beginning or the existence of an elite, but rather a ruling class that does not shine either for its intelligence or for its cultural level. What they call anti-elitism is really nothing but criticism of a mediocre ruling class that shows its incompetence on a daily basis. That small upper world whose horizon is limited to the market,who no longer feels any interest in the common good and whose morality is limited to a papier-mâché progressivism, can it continue to serve as a model? Sensibly, ordinary people say no.
But that does not mean that they reject the good or that they are incapable of recognizing and drawing inspiration from it. What they criticize is the small oligarchic technostructure that considers itself an elite. It must be remembered that the popular classes have never opposed excellence, quite the contrary. It was not so long ago that the left - especially the Communist Party - tried to use popular education to create elites from modest origins. Culture, education and a certain transcendence have always accompanied popular society. What worries him is not the existence of elites, but what they are for today. Instead of holding ENA accountable, Macron should consider the incompetence of the ruling classes and their cultural estrangement from ordinary people; and, above all, respond to specific requests,that is, dedicate more to politics and less to communication.
Christophe Guilluy
is a geographer, and the author of
No Society: The End of the Western Middle Class
(Taurus).
Translation by
María Luisa Rodríguez Tapia