Robert Redeker is an associate of philosophy, author of around twenty books. Last book published:
The Sentinels of Humanity.
Philosophy of heroism and holiness
(Desclée de Brouwer, 2020).
Thus, in addition to “he” and “she”, the French language is enriched, according to the
Le Robert
dictionary
, with a new pronoun, “iel”. It is all at once, with a wave of a magic wand, that the French language is augmented by this word, which hardly anyone has yet heard pronounced. It is therefore by a kind of putsch that he introduced himself into a reference work, wresting its officialization within the French language. By this coup de force, he goes from virtual non-existence to overexposed visibility. Make no mistake: the affair of the pronoun "iel" is by no means a simple affair of words.
Schoolchildren and teachers, citizens, writers, often forget it: a dictionary is a political work. Or better: a spiritual power that triggers temporal effects. Bifide turns out to be the politics of the dictionary: instituting, or subversive. It is instituting when it is exercised on the side of the power in place, to regulate the language, to unify the imaginaries from this regulation, it is subversive when it is exercised from the counter-powers, the aspirants to power, who desire to take hold of the language to impose on it new ways of saying, of seeing the world and of moving in it. Like the entire Wokism galaxy, the “iel” lobbyists align themselves with these checks and balances, as adept at subversion as they are thirsty for domination.
In reality, the promoters of "iel" wish to subvert the logic of our language by destabilizing it at its most decisive point, that of the dualism of the sexes.
Robert redeker
The business of formalizing this new pronoun is to acquire political and anthropological influence on reality outside of language. On human reality. Since Richelieu, the dictionary has always been an authority for legitimation. Richelieu thought of the French Academy, responsible for putting together the dictionary, as a political device. Claiming to reflect reality, the dictionary aims on the contrary to model it. The installation of "iel" in the authorized pronouns proposes to allow an incredibly minority sexual reality, almost non-existent, to upset reality as it is ordinarily perceived.
Apparently, lexicographers who have fallen under the spell of LGBT wokism wish to enrich the French language, to add something to it. Bring a new gem to the treasure of the French language. If it were only that, this modification would remain harmless. One could consider her sympathetic. In reality, the promoters of "iel" wish to subvert the logic of our language by destabilizing it at its most decisive point, that of the dualism of the sexes. For them, it is a question of attacking the touchstone, the keystone, of the French language, this building similar to a cathedral or a castle, this heritage building, in order to provoke the collapse of logic. human - the sharing of reality according to the two sexes - which it supports. In particular: speak it according to the sexes. Speak it according to both sexes.Speak it according to sexual duality.
To read also Jean-Marie Rouart: "The artificial pronoun“ iel ”in Robert, or the virus of the deconstruction of our language"
Until the 2022 edition of
Robert
, personal pronouns remained shared while respecting biology. Grammatical logic crossed biological logic. These pronouns articulated a close relationship between biology, grammar, the social, and the symbolic. They riveted together the three levels of being: the biological, the social, and the psychological. Riveting is not the same as mirroring. Nothing is more obvious: the forces which push for the legitimation of the pronoun iel, which fell lately, do not cease to break the biological order of the human, to break the riveting between the orders biological, psychic, symbolic, and social. The activism at work in this lexical putsch aspires to extend the substitution of gender for sex, which is already well advanced,to amplify the debiologization of human reality in its determination by sex.
To touch the logic of pronouns, as this putsch of "iel" does, to shake it up, amounts to imposing anthropological changes.
Robert redeker
Declination of the subject, a personal pronoun is by no means a word like any other. It is a mode of existence of the human being. Reality and language are, in this type of pronoun, deeply in fusion. When I say "I", this pronoun is not just a word - it is: me. It is inseparable from the reality that I am. He does not reflect this reality, he carries it. It is the garment of this reality which wears it in the world, in the eyes of others. Without this pronoun, "I", I would not understand the reality that I am. In a way this reality would not exist. What we say about “I” is also true of “us”: groups, communities, nations, self-apprehend from the pronoun “we”. Thus, touching the logic of pronouns, as this putsch of "iel" does, shake it up,comes down to imposing anthropological changes. It is to touch the symbolic constitution of the human being. It is touching the idea that human beings are formed from their place in the cosmos - what Pascal called their dignity.
The supporters of the pronoun "iel" are rightly convinced that language is the creator of reality, human, symbolic, political. In their eyes "He" will be subversive tomorrow as the proletariat was revolutionary yesterday. Time and again in his work, Karl Marx suggests that the proletariat does not exist as a class apart from the very existence of this word. The propagation of the word will make exist in society the thing it names, the proletariat as a revolutionary class. The Marxian lesson has been well learned. Coup de force, the entry of "iel" - in truth that of wokism of which LGBT ideology is only a chapter - in
Robert
, to which all middle and high school students have to refer to as a bible of the language - constitutes, in the linguistic field, an analogue of what was the capture of the Winter Palace by the partisans of Lenin: the beginning of a reconfiguration, based on language, of reality.
Avant-garde, like Lenin's party, LGBT wokism is a neo-Bolshevism which, like its historical predecessor, dreams of making a new man of which "he" would be the embryo.