EDITO 27
French Patriotism,
1/3 Understanding
Trilogy, by Louis Perez y Cid
A foreigner and still a student, I had been in France for barely a year when May 1968 erupted. In Paris and then Strasbourg, I discovered an intensely politicized country, where the words "left" and "right" recurred like an enigma to which I had no key.
I watched this upheaval with quiet irony. It was only later that I understood that here, even the dispute reveals something about attachment to the country.
A foreigner and still a student, I had been in France for barely a year when May 1968 erupted. In Paris and then Strasbourg, I discovered an intensely politicized country, where the words "left" and "right" recurred like an enigma to which I had no key.
I watched this upheaval with quiet irony. It was only later that I understood that here, even the dispute reveals something about attachment to the country.
The Rupture
May '68 transcended France, but it was not limited to it. Everywhere, a larger and better-educated generation challenged forms of authority: the State, the university, the family. And, in a subtle paradox, it was also prosperity that made this challenge possible; one doubts more when one is better off.
In France, however, the crisis took on a particular intensity. Overcrowded universities, a still rigid society, deep social tensions—the stage was set. And above all, a rare event occurred: the encounter between students and workers, which paralyzed the country.
Nothing was directed, nothing was centralized. May '68 was neither a contagion nor an imitation; it was a convergence.
In France, however, the crisis took on a particular intensity. Overcrowded universities, a still rigid society, deep social tensions—the stage was set. And above all, a rare event occurred: the encounter between students and workers, which paralyzed the country.
Nothing was directed, nothing was centralized. May '68 was neither a contagion nor an imitation; it was a convergence.
A Transformed Patriotism
French patriotism did not disappear after 1968. It changed form.
Long framed by schools, language, and conscription, it had been almost taken for granted. It became more discreet, more critical, sometimes uncomfortable.
Because in France, attachment to the country also involves questioning it. Distrust of the state, a taste for debate, a sometimes divided memory—patriotism is no longer expressed solely through unity, but also through discussion.
A French paradox: this country, which has made patriotism a unifying force, is also the one that questions it most, not out of weakness, but out of fidelity to a long-standing principle: never to adhere without examining.
Long framed by schools, language, and conscription, it had been almost taken for granted. It became more discreet, more critical, sometimes uncomfortable.
Because in France, attachment to the country also involves questioning it. Distrust of the state, a taste for debate, a sometimes divided memory—patriotism is no longer expressed solely through unity, but also through discussion.
A French paradox: this country, which has made patriotism a unifying force, is also the one that questions it most, not out of weakness, but out of fidelity to a long-standing principle: never to adhere without examining.
A long history
This shift did not begin in 1968. It is part of a history in which patriotism is based less on emotion than on an idea.
Since the Revolution, loving one's country has meant first and foremost adhering to principles: liberty, equality, sovereignty. The Third Republic established these as a common framework, promoted by schools and reinforced by wars.
But this model rested on accepted authority. It is this foundation that May '68 shattered.
From then on, patriotism shifted. It is no longer transmitted, it is constructed. It is no longer taken for granted, it becomes a matter of reflection.
Since the Revolution, loving one's country has meant first and foremost adhering to principles: liberty, equality, sovereignty. The Third Republic established these as a common framework, promoted by schools and reinforced by wars.
But this model rested on accepted authority. It is this foundation that May '68 shattered.
From then on, patriotism shifted. It is no longer transmitted, it is constructed. It is no longer taken for granted, it becomes a matter of reflection.
What kind of patriotism for tomorrow?
Today, its transmission is less certain. The shared narrative is fading, and the points of reference are being questioned.
At the same time, the world is reminding us of its presence: war in Europe, international tensions, questions about sovereignty, borders, and integration. The same question keeps recurring, more direct: what still binds us together?
Fragility, undoubtedly. But also possibility, the possibility of rebuilding a patriotism less inherited than chosen, provided we rediscover a clear narrative and a shared desire.
A country that no longer knows what it is can still endure,
but it no longer knows where it's going.
At the same time, the world is reminding us of its presence: war in Europe, international tensions, questions about sovereignty, borders, and integration. The same question keeps recurring, more direct: what still binds us together?
Fragility, undoubtedly. But also possibility, the possibility of rebuilding a patriotism less inherited than chosen, provided we rediscover a clear narrative and a shared desire.
A country that no longer knows what it is can still endure,
but it no longer knows where it's going.