Frankrike lider av selvhat

Hans Rustad

På denne dag da den franske nasjo­nal­for­sam­lin­gen stem­mer over hijab-loven, er det beti­me­lig å lese inter­vjuet med Alain Finkiel­kraut i Haa­retz. Han sier Frank­rike er i en iden­ti­tets­krise, og at det multi­kul­tu­relle idea­let er en illusjon.

AF: With us the idea now domi­na­tes that the entire French nation is a per­verted result of a bygone rea­lity, a rea­lity that is obso­lete, that of Europe before the enlight­e­ned, post-nationalist period.”

Q: But this is not a French inven­tion. The apprecia­tion of mul­ti­cul­tura­lism and the dis­gust with natio­na­lism are a wave that is affec­ting all of the West.

Finkiel­kraut: “Yes, but mul­ti­cul­tura­lism is a chi­mera. This charm, of the various iden­tities, is not real. What, in fact, is replacing assi­mi­la­tion? Is there really such a thing, a carou­sel of iden­tities, as the elite is try­ing to con­vince us? Is there really a pos­si­bi­lity that all the cul­tu­res will be of equal worth and leave equal space for one anot­her? In fact the oppo­site is hap­pe­ning: Anyone who doesn’t want to assi­mi­late, anyone who doesn’t make an effort to learn the lan­guage and become part of French cul­ture and the French her­itage - French cul­ture assi­mi­la­tes into his iden­tity. And this is alre­ady evi­dent in the schools and on the street - that child­ren aren’t speak­ing French, but rat­her a jar­gon com­po­sed of Ara­bic words and mea­ger French. There is always a cul­ture that emer­ges vic­to­rious. In no society is there a vacuum. But this would not be grave were it not a part of this trend, which wants to obli­te­rate France and its values entirely.”

hele inter­vjuet: ‘What’s bad for the Jews is bad for France’

Per­haps the accu­sa­tions that you are a bit too con­ser­va­tive, a bit afraid, are correct?

Per­haps. But look at what is hap­pe­ning now with the law against the veil. True, there is panic, there is a kind of extre­mism in this law, but by now it is dif­fi­cult for me to discuss nuan­ces in con­nec­tion with this, because look at how Le Monde has come out against the law and why. A few days ago, it pub­lis­hed an article by Bruno Latour, a famous socio­lo­gist, who vehe­mently oppo­ses the law. Why? In the name of free­dom of expres­sion, of course, and of free­dom of reli­gion, and against the state medd­ling in the life of the indi­vi­dual and so on. It is pos­sible to argue with these points, but not with the end of the article, where Latour says that anyone who wants to assi­mi­late the Mus­lims into France should be made to wear a beret and walk down the street with a bagu­ette under his arm. So this is all of France? Is this all? Why does a nation have to deck itself in such a low, vul­gar image and throw away all of its spi­ri­tual and cul­tural achievements?”

Could it be that you are exag­ge­ra­ting? After all, Le Monde is not a poli­ti­cal party that swe­eps the mas­ses behind it.

No, but it defi­nitely does reflect the thin­king among the elite. And in France these things carry weight. I know that if France beco­mes mul­ti­cul­tural, it will be very bad for the Jews. And what is bad for the Jews, won­der of won­ders, is very bad for France. We are in the same boat. We are no lon­ger “the other.” We now repre­sent the total inte­gra­tion into the values of the Repub­lic, into the cul­ture. Of course it is clear that the pro­hi­bition of the veil is also the pro­hi­bition of the skull­cap, and I pre­fer that to the eth­nic and reli­gious mul­ti­cul­tural inun­da­tion that will shake eve­rything up and drain France of all its assets.”

Ny bok

His latest book was pub­lis­hed a few mon­ths ago: a flu­ent and sharp essay entit­led “In the Name of the Other.” It used to be that the Jews were “the other” of French society, he argues, and now that the Jews have alre­ady become inte­gra­ted and an inte­gral part of the Repub­lic, it is the Arabs who are the new “other.” And in the name of this “other,” in a self-righteous and one-dimensional way, the most enlight­e­ned, the most libe­ral and the most bene­vo­lent can­not but see the Jews - in the sha­dow of the one-dimensional inter­pre­ta­tion of the Israeli-Palestinian con­flict as a ter­ri­to­rial and colo­nial struggle - as the source of evil.

The elite that is nur­turing the new anti-Semitism, he argues in his book, also influ­en­ces the teachers in the school sys­tem, and there the cri­sis of the Repub­lic is shar­pest. Those who used to hate the Jews have become the elite of mediocrity, but the new anti-Semitism is cha­rac­te­rized by people who are not mediocre, and it deri­ves from the posi­tive atti­tude to Arabs, who­e­ver they may be. France, argues Finkiel­kraut, excels in good sen­ti­ments. Now it is inun­dated with such feelings not only toward the Pale­sti­ni­ans, but also toward the Iraqis or anyone who is attacked by the colo­nial, Ame­ri­can and Zio­nist for­ces. Instead of poli­ti­cal cri­ti­cism of Prime Minis­ter Ariel Sha­ron and his govern­ment, there is a total enlist­ment against “the Jews” and for “the Arabs.” (A.G.)


Om du ikke følger Document på sosiale media kan du følge oss på e-post.

Donere engangsbeløp?Kan du forplikte deg til fast betaling?

Penger kan også doneres til kontonummer 15030249981.

Leserkommentarer på Document er gjenstand for moderering, som ikke skjer kontinuerlig og under enhver omstendighet ikke om natten. Vi ønsker en respektfull tone uten personangrep, sleivete språk eller flammende retorikk. Vis særlig nøkternhet når temaet er følsomt. Begrenset redigering av skjemmende detaljer kan finne sted. Skriv til debatt@document.no dersom du ikke forstår hvorfor en kommentar uteblir. Se her for nybegynnerhjelp.