Read moreFrançois Burgat (former Director of Research at the CNRS) and Souhail Chichah (Visiting Lecturer, Williams College, USA) The paranoid over-politicization of social dynamics of a small section of the French population (“the veil is the emblem of internationalist political Islam” according to Caroline Fourest) as well as the demonization of political Islam appear as a profound denial of the democratic ideal. And a criminalization, for illegal exercise of politics, (or even of the sole freedom of expression) of entire segments of this small minority of the French population who consider Islam as a more or less important component of their identity. The philosopher Balibar is not mistaken, who observes that “culture can also function like nature”, and who concludes that “from a formal point of view”, Islamophobia stems from a “generalized anti-Semitism”. American scientific literature, for its part, refers to the concept of “Racial Muslim” to signify that Muslims are considered a racial group; they are indeed assigned an essentialized, exclusive, pejorative, and fantasized identity. Less than a century later, France would therefore be “threatened” again: by the Jew yesterday, by the Muslim today, or perhaps even worse, by the Muslim woman. In contemporary racist mythology, the Muslim Brotherhood's "networks" are seen as a continuation of "international Jewry": a sneaky fifth column is at work, working against France. This racist refrain is asserting itself again today, adorned with the trappings of science. The anthropologist Vacher de Lapouge, a French figure of scientific racism at the turn of the 20th century and a source of inspiration for Nazi ideology, is now being followed by other voices using anthropology as a basis to denounce “national impurity”. One of them, as well-publicized as it is marginal on the academic scene, has just committed a scathing attack that fits into the delusional paradigm of the “great replacement”: the Muslim Brotherhood would “infiltrate” the Republic to replace it with a “caliphate”. No more, no less. It is appropriate to name this anthropologist. Not through intellectual terrorism, as it practices in numerous public statements, instructing a witchcraft trial of hypothetical “Islamo-leftists”. She believes that there are indeed many of these “political alliances: Islamists and red and green leftists”. However, she is disavowed by her institution, the CNRS, which categorically rejects this assertion: “Islamo-leftism”, a political slogan used in public debate, does not correspond to any scientific reality.” This political activist should be named because, as Bourdieu reminds us on the shoulders of Marx, “In a universe where social positions are often identified with “names”, scientific criticism must sometimes take the form of an ad hominem criticism. "Indeed, scientific criticism is necessary in the face of the dangerous breach opened by the researcher in question. Certainly, others before her have been misled by this revival of scientific racism. But the appearance of new television channels provides the activist in question with an unparalleled platform. Florence Bergeaud-Blackler, in Le Frérisme et ses réseaux, une enquête (Odile Jacob, 2023), actually brings nothing new to the American paradigm of the so-called “clash of civilizations”, recycled in France as an ideological device in the service of the repression of the social and political ambitions of some 10%, at most, of the French population, according to a regular statistical count of “Muslims in France” which of course testifies to an exacerbation of racism. These “Muslims in France” most often come from working-class neighborhoods, much to the chagrin of the left who ignore this fact. Racism produces a tremendous disintegration of class consciousness. Racism is indeed “the socialism of imbeciles”, as a former leader of the historical German left once said during the dark years of that country. The right is obviously not left out. Zemmour only had to bend down to reap the harvest of hatred, with the success that must be recognized. In the 2022 presidential election, just a few months after the creation of Reconquête, he won 7% of the vote. In pre-genocidal Germany, it took the most racist party of the time almost a decade to get less than half that score. Of course, comparison is not reason. But by repeating oneself, Marx emphasizes, tragedy becomes farce. Thus, concepts stitched together with brown threads, invoked by Gilles Kepel, preface writer of Bergeaud-Blacker's indictment, from these "suburbs of Islam" to the "atmosphere" of this "jihadism... which has become ambient". If Florence Bergeaud-Blackler does not shine with her theory of action — "They are theocrats and so what they want is the end of democracy... I don't understand... why there are so many complicit parties" — it is on the field of doxa that she operates more spectacularly. His thesis borrows from the most uninhibited anti-Semitic rhetoric: "They want to bring together all the components of Islam to guide them towards the caliphate... They proceed by influence, infiltration... the infiltration of entire sectors... the university, education, the media, the army, the justice system, prisons, etc. They are present everywhere. » With concepts built to give racist expression the alibi of scientific research, it unfortunately has the formidable force of conviction of those “media intellectuals” who embrace the contours of television sensationalism and its phobic construction of an “imaginary Islam”. A half-learned surety, she claims to have a knowledge of Islamic thought that turns out to be terribly vague and superficial. “It is less a question of understanding a series of phenomena than of making an evaluative judgment on them, to declare them incompatible with the Republic,” notes the specialist in Muslim law, Mohammed Hocine Benkheira. For example, the “Sharia” (Law in Arabic), which the person concerned poses as absolute in Islam, from a normative perspective instead of an interpretation of this concept in practice, as cultural anthropology would have it. Jurisprudence, however, is one of the sources of Islamic law, a relativization of Sharia. Bourdieu clearly demonstrates the intellectual blindness produced by this research practice which, in order to understand the mind of the other, is content to impose its own. This blindness prohibits any form of relativization, this consideration of all, which is nevertheless at the heart of the democratic project, which even subjects the Law to a Parliament supposed to carry, in principle, the entire citizen voice. For it is precisely the full and complete citizenship of a segment of the French population that Bergeaud-Blackler denies, echoing Zemmour, Fourest, and Damien Rieu, at the head of a procession of “Native Informants,” a coterie ranging from Imam Chalghoumi, a rare Muslim whose public expression of faith is permitted, to Zineb El Rhazoui, who calls on the police to “shoot the barbarians” of the Parisian suburbs with live ammunition, to Mohamed Sifaoui, who declared he would rather “be a dog than an Islamist.” It is indeed a complete citizenship, one that does not require “politeness,” one that authorizes, even in an oppositional register if necessary, full participation in the production of societal norms and in political subjectivity, that the “organic intellectuals” of racism fear. As Bourdieu points out, the Republic is a “theological entity”; “it exists only through belief”. Can “Muslims in France” believe it?
François Burgat (former Director of Research at the CNRS) and Souhail Chichah (Visiting Lecturer, Williams College, USA)
The paranoid over-politicization of social dynamics of a small fringe of the French population (“the veil is the emblem of internationalist political Islam” according to Caroline Fourest) as well as the demonization of political Islam appear as a profound denial of the democratic ideal. And a criminalization, for illegal exercise of politics, (or even of the sole freedom of expression) of entire sections of this small minority of the French population who consider Islam as a more or less important component of their identity.
The philosopher Balibar is not mistaken, who notes that “culture can also function as nature”, and who concludes that “from a formal point of view”, Islamophobia results from a “generalized anti-Semitism”. The American scientific literature refers to the concept of “Racial Muslim” to signify that Muslims are considered as a racial group, they are in fact assigned an essentialized, exclusive, pejorative and fantasized identity.
Less than a century later, barely, France would therefore be “threatened” again: by the Jew yesterday, by the Muslim today, or perhaps even worse, by the Muslim woman. In contemporary racist mythology, the “networks” of the Muslim Brotherhood are part of the continuation of “international Jewry”: a sneaky fifth column would be at work, which would work on France.
This racist refrain is asserting itself again today, adorned with the finery of science. The anthropologist Vacher de Lapouge, a French figure of scientific racism at the turn of the 20th century and a nurturer of Nazi ideology, is now being followed by other voices using anthropology as a basis to denounce “national impurity”. One of them, as well-publicized as he is marginal on the academic scene, has just committed a scathing attack that fits into the delusional paradigm of the “great replacement”: the Muslim Brotherhood is “infiltrating” the Republic to replace it with a “caliphate”. No more, no less.
It is appropriate to name this anthropologist. Not by intellectual terrorism, as she practices in her public statements, instructing a witchcraft trial of hypothetical “Islamo-leftists”. She believes that there are indeed many of these “political alliances: Islamists and red and green leftists”. However, she is disavowed by her institution, the CNRS, which categorically rejects this assertion: ““Islamo-leftism”, a political slogan used in public debate, does not correspond to any scientific reality.”
This political activist should be named because, as Bourdieu reminds us on the shoulders of Marx, "In a universe where social positions are often identified with 'names', scientific criticism must sometimes take the form of an ad hominem criticism." Indeed, a scientific critique is necessary in the face of the dangerous breach opened by the researcher in question. Certainly, others before her have been lost in this renewal of scientific racism. But the appearance of new television channels provides the activist in question with an unrivaled sounding board.
Florence Bergeaud-Blackler, in Le Frérisme et ses réseaux, une enquête (Odile Jacob, 2023), does not in reality bring anything new to the American paradigm of the so-called “clash of civilizations”, recycled in France as an ideological device in the service of the repression of the social and political ambitions of some 10%, at most, of the French population, according to a regular statistical count of “Muslims in France” which of course testifies to an exacerbation of racism.
These “Muslims in France” most often come from working-class neighborhoods, despite what the left ignores. Racism produces a formidable disintegration of class consciousness. Racism is indeed “the socialism of imbeciles,” as a former leader of the German historical left already said, during the dark years of this country.
The right is obviously not left behind. Zemmour only had to bend down to reap the harvest of hatred, with the success that must be recognized. In the 2022 presidential election, just a few months after the constitution of Reconquête, he obtained 7% of the votes. In Germany before the genocidal madness, it took almost a decade for the most racist party of the time to obtain less than half of this score. Of course, comparison is not reason.
But by repeating itself, Marx emphasizes, tragedy becomes farce. Thus the concepts sewn with brown threads summoned by Gilles Kepel, prefacer of Bergeaud-Blacker's indictment, from these "suburbs of Islam" to the "atmosphere" of this "jihadism ... become ambient".
If Florence Bergeaud-Blackler does not shine with her theory of action — "They are theocrats and therefore what they want is the end of democracy ... I do not understand ... why there are so many parties ... accomplices" —, it is on the terrain of doxa that she operates more spectacularly. Her thesis borrows in fact from the most uninhibited anti-Semitic rhetoric: "They want to gather all the components of Islam to guide them towards the caliphate ... They proceed by influence, infiltration ... the infiltration of entire sectors ... the university, education, the media, the army, the justice system, prisons, etc. They are present everywhere."
With concepts built to give racist expression the alibi of scientific research, it unfortunately has the formidable force of conviction of those "media intellectuals" who embrace the contours of television sensationalism and its phobic construction of an "imaginary Islam". A half-learned surety, it claims to have a knowledge of Islamic thought that turns out to be terribly vague and superficial. "It is less a question of understanding a series of phenomena than of making an evaluative judgment on them, to declare them incompatible with the Republic", notes the specialist in Muslim law, Mohammed Hocine Benkheira. Such as, for example, "Sharia" (Law in Arabic), which the person concerned poses as absolute in Islam, in a normative perspective instead of an interpretation of this concept in practice, as cultural anthropology would have it. Jurisprudence is nevertheless one of the sources of Islamic law, a relativization of Sharia.
Bourdieu clearly shows the intellectual blindness produced by this practice of research which, in order to think the head of the other, is content to impose its own. This blindness prohibits any form of relativization, this consideration of all, yet at the heart of the democratic project, which even subjects the Law to a Parliament supposed to carry, in principle, the entire citizen's voice.
Because it is indeed the full and complete citizenship of a part of the French population that Bergeaud-Blackler denies, in unison with Zemmour, Fourest and others like Damien Rieu, at the head of the procession of a host of “Native Informants”, a clique that goes from Imam Chalghoumi, a rare Muslim whose public expression of faith is permitted, to Zineb El Rhazoui, the one who calls on the police to “shoot live ammunition at the barbarians” of the Parisian suburbs, to Mohamed Sifaoui, the one who declared that he preferred “to be a dog rather than an Islamist”.
It is indeed a complete citizenship, one that does not require “politeness”, one that authorizes, on an oppositional register if necessary, full participation in the production of societal norms and in political subjectivity, which the “organic intellectuals” of racism fear.
As Bourdieu points out, the Republic is a “theological entity”; “it exists only through belief.” Can “Muslims in France” believe in it?
"This post is a summary of information from our information monitoring"
