Cecile Alduy (Boulogne-Billancourt, 1974) is a prestigious analyst of the discourses of the French far right. This professor of American literature and civilization at Stanford University in California was published in February. Zemmour’s LanguageA famous article on the rhetoric of the xenophobic and ultra-nationalist polemicist who flowed rivers of ink throughout his (first round) presidential campaign in France this Sunday. In 2015, he also analyzed Marine Le Pen’s communications and strategy. demonization in (demonization) Marine Le Pen received at face value.
The leader of the Reconquista and the leader of the National Regrouping (RN) represent two different sides of the same ultra coin in these elections. While Zemmour monopolized media attention for months thanks to his discursive brutality, Le Pen went unnoticed and now perceived as moderate by a growing portion of the electorate. Le Pen will be second on Sunday (24-20%) and has options to beat Emmanuel Macron in a hypothetical runoff against the president, according to polls that should be taken with a grain of salt. Instead, Zemmour dropped to fourth place (10-8%)
Why did the leader of the RN stop scaring many Frenchmen? How did the polemicist contribute to this? These are some of the main questions looming over these presidential elections. There is no better expert to solve these problems than Alduy, the daughter of the former mayor of Perpignan, Jean-Paul Alduy.
How does Zemmour’s discursive violence reflect a climate of anxiety and violence in French society?
Their language is full of “war” vocabulary. The third word you use most often! He also constantly talks about conflict, fighting, death, survival and domination. This vocabulary reflects a worldview in which all relationships are based on one alternative: dominate or be dominated, conquer or be conquered. All this creates a universe of anxiety in which the idea of a “civil war” in France has settled.
It’s also about a discourse that trivializes racism. As are?
Basically, it is dedicated to reiterating that races exist and imposing a racialized vision of society and individuals. Any person is seen only by their skin color and origin. For Zemmour, “Untouchable” is a reflection of the “great substitute” – the conspiracy theory that white French will be replaced by foreigners. In short, it imposes this racist framework in its definition of reality and imposes racial categories instead of individuals.
An ideology diametrically opposed to the ideals of humanism and republicanism.
Yes definitely. The greatest contribution of the Enlightenment and the idea of the Republic was to establish the dignity and freedom of each individual to think for himself, instead of being locked in an essentialist determinism. In this sense, Zemmour is an anti-Republican.
One of the most common elements in Zemmour’s discourse is the investment discourse. What does it contain?
This rhetoric of the mirrors consists in completely reversing the existing order of things and thus reassuming the victim’s situation. For example, Zemmour opposes any “regret” regarding colonization, but at the same time claims that France was “colonized” by people from those colonies who have now become invaders. It also accepts men as dominated by a putative female order. In this way, it nullifies the progress made by women or minorities in terms of equality.
While he may seem like he has few options to qualify for the second round, overly argumentative may exceed 10% of the vote. How would you explain this considerable electoral support to someone who had just started his own party at the end of November?
His speech corresponds to some of the public opinion that has so far been in Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN), despite attempts to normalize the formation of its leader. When Jean-Marie Le Pen handed over the party to her daughter, these more radical voters were deprived of the same political proposition as “yesterday’s National Front (FN)” to channel their vision of the world. Zemmour now presents this political proposal, which corresponds to a demand that has existed in French society since the 1990s.
In the case of Marine Le Pen, how has her speech evolved between the previous presidential election and now?
He continued to work on normalizing his image. After destabilizing his opponents by adopting a republican and secular rhetoric that was the exact opposite of his father’s, he now allowed himself the luxury of appearing more moderate than the conservative François Fillon or current Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin (a disciple of Nicolas). Sarkozy). In fact, he took advantage of the “demonization” from abroad offered by the fact that all these right and centre-right leaders embraced and thus downplayed the RN’s ideological framework on Islam and immigration. He also tried to give people a more human and intimate image by talking about his feelings when his nephew Marion Maréchal announced that he would support Zemmour or by making candid confessions at his rallies.
Is Le Pen back? mainstream? Do you talk like other politicians?
Exactly. The media and political communication strategy consisted of modeling itself on what. mainstream, politically correct. Uses a non-rigid, often boring, uniform vocabulary. In his speech, economic arguments outweigh even immigration. He tries to give himself the image of a good head of state.
He also directed his program, for example, by giving up France’s exit from the eurozone.
Yes definitely. Since 2017, it has done a great job of removing some of the most controversial aspects from its program, such as France’s exit from the single currency or the ban on binationalism. But at the same time, when he came to power, efforts were made to solve these problems.
But the key to this normalization of Le Pen was Zemmour’s attack. Is that so?
Yes, first of all, his image was normalized thanks to the appearance of the polemic. Its violence and verbal brutality made Le Pen’s speech seem much calmer, more racially pragmatic. By contrast, Zemmour’s was obsessive, theoretical, and did not take into account the everyday life of the electorate.
Despite this more moderate image, Le Pen maintains the same electoral program of FN’s entire life, clearly committed to extreme nationalism and xenophobia.
The implementation of its program requires the abolition of the constitutional principles of the Fifth Republic, as this will create second-class categories of people who are deprived of numerous rights such as suitable housing (registered in the law), health or work. (Registered with Magna Carta). All this will create a society in which origin defines individuals. A religion (Muslim) is suppressed or controlled, treated as an ideology rather than a belief. This will create a general climate of stigma towards foreigners. All these elements have already been applied in France in the past, in the darkest moments of its history.