François Saltiel is a producer for France Culture and author of
La société du sans contact.
Selfie of a falling world
(Flammarion, 2020).
To discover
PODCAST - Listen to the club Le Club Le Figaro Idées with Eugénie Bastié
LE FIGARO. - A poster to announce a majority meeting on March 9 in Lille shows Prime Minister Gabriel Attal and MEP Valérie Hayer taking a selfie together. They don't look at the voter, they look at themselves in their phone. What does this translate?
François SALTIEL. -
First, the lack of notoriety of Valérie Hayer, almost unknown to the public.
The challenge for the executive is to succeed in “installing” this new face.
This lack of notoriety is reflected in this poster.
The objective, by placing her alongside the Prime Minister, Gabriel Attal, is that she can gain notoriety but by doing this, we above all show her lack of legitimacy.
Then, this poster is revealing because the gazes of Gabriel Attal and Valérie Hayer are not oriented towards the citizens - and therefore potential voters - but towards a screen.
The digital tool is highlighted more than the voter.
In this so-called “connected” campaign, which takes place on social networks, the camera intervenes between the politician and the citizen.
And then, it's about European elections... However, in the middle of the European debate on the regulation of Gafam, the French Prime Minister appears with an iPhone in the foreground, an American brand.
Furthermore, during the Agricultural Show, Emmanuel Macron was greeted with whistles unlike Jordan Bardella who took selfies with visitors.
Does Gabriel Attal want to make the event of March 9 a meeting where citizens will have the opportunity to take a selfie with the political figures of the majority?
If this is the case, it proves that political figures are no longer political figures but that they have become stars like the stars of the song.
We no longer transmit ideas but selfies.
Under the influence of a permanent connection, we paradoxically move away from each other, you write. With this type of communication, does the politician move away from the voter with this mode of communication or does he get closer to them?
This poster bears all the markers of a distance between the politician and the voter.
Firstly because the citizen is no longer looked in the eye, then because the politician is looking at a tool.
This form of distancing shows the intermediation played by technology to address the public, removing any direct link.
The selfie cultivates notoriety and the narcissistic impulse through social networks - to garner ephemeral and superficial support - without reflecting any political commitment.
François Saltiel
Then, the tone of the poster gives more credence to the selfie than to the message itself.
We are in the development of a channel and therefore in the distance through technology.
As if politics relied on a tool to have an impact.
But you should know that the selfie only has meaning if it is published.
Without publication, it is a self-portrait.
This says a lot about the narcissistic quest of politics and the desire to be approved.
We therefore prefer to talk about Europe behind a screen in order to disseminate the photos on social networks so that consumers, voters or users, can have a positive image of what the party is supposed to represent.
We are now in the language mediated - and more direct - by a technological tool.
Which is all the more paradoxical since the goal is to invite citizens to a physical meeting.
However, this poster is anything but a poster of meeting, of communion - in the sense of sharing ideas.
By making the selfie, with politics, a civic gesture, as if it were a purpose of political commitment, are we not also diverting voters from the polling station?
Like this poster, communication seems to be an end in itself.
The selfie is inherently an individualistic act;
we take a photo of ourselves, and we call on the voter to come and take photos to get “likes” on social networks.
Because make no mistake, these photos are taken to be posted on social networks.
Does a like result in the action of voting?
We can definitely want to take a photo of ourselves next to Gabriel Attal because he is young and well-known, without necessarily wanting to vote for him...
Read alsoEuropean elections: from left to right, young people attack the Parliament of Strasbourg
The selfie cultivates notoriety and the narcissistic impulse through social networks - to garner ephemeral and superficial support - without reflecting any political commitment.
This is symptomatic of the politics of our time: everything requires communication.
In your book, you talk about “ludictatorship” which could be summed up by the formula: “using the game to reign better”. Here we are ?
The term “ludictatorship” refers above all to the propaganda of authoritarian regimes.
However, there is a form of deification in our societies of the codes and practices of youth, through the selfie.
Although this practice is starting to date... And we can also see that Gabriel Attal is not up to date since he holds his phone horizontally while social networks have almost all imposed the vertical format.
Whatever happens, we resume the practices of youth by taking photos of ourselves.
But we talk about Europe by highlighting individualist practices.
Even from a communication point of view it is not well thought out, and this poster is counterproductive: we take a photo of ourselves instead of talking about a group, a unit, a continent.
Gabriel Attal is a political figure who constantly plays with digital technology.
He was one of the first to promote the role of influencers or to encourage teleworking for ministers.
He wants to get closer to young people and to do this, he uses digital channels such as selfies and is omnipresent on social networks.
However, I don't believe that taking selfies or encouraging the use of digital technology really makes it possible to address young people.
We borrow his codes without speaking directly to his eyes, or straight to his heart.
It remains to be seen what the purpose of this poster is...