Twilight of the Elites: Prosperity, the Periphery, and the Future of France

by Christophe Guilluy, Malcolm DeBevoise (Translator)

A passionate account of how the gulf between France’s metropolitan elites and its working classes are tearing the country apartChristophe Guilluy, a French geographer, makes the case that France has become an “American society”—one that is both increasingly multicultural and increasingly unequal. The divide between the global economy’s winners and losers in today’s France has replaced the old left-right split, leaving many on “the periphery.”As Guilluy shows, there is no unified French economy, and those cut off from the country’s new economic citadels suffer disproportionately on both economic and social fronts. In Guilluy’s analysis, the lip service paid to the idea of an “open society” in France is a smoke screen meant to hide the emergence of a closed society, walled off for the benefit of the upper classes. The ruling classes in France are reaching a dangerous stage, he argues; without the stability of a growing economy, the hope for those excluded from growth is extinguished, undermining the legitimacy of a multicultural nation.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, France, History, Economics, Sociology, Society

184 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2016

Reviews

[P.E. · Rating 4 out of 5]

States within the state

In this essay, the geographer C. Guilluy develops the following thesis: the metropolization of France that is, the process leading to the concentration of public investments, jobs pools and wealth in general serves as the kingpin of the ongoing process of globalization. It leads to certain recognizable effects, such as widespread tensions, social gregarism and communitarianism, the political shift from redistributive politics to identity politics, already described in detail by economist Thomas Piketty in Capital and Ideology. He also sheds light on the shaming campaign aiming the 'losers of globalization' or 'peripheral France', branding them as dullards [see: 'Gaulois réfractaires', 'fainéants', 'des gens qui décident d'être contre tout', and 'ceux qui ne sont rien', dixit E. Macron...], cryptofascists, and backward racists to boot. Making it all the more easy for administrations to implement changes, vaunted tautologically as innovative and progressive.


Using alternative scales and measuring methods - counterbalancing certain lacunae or biases in those published by the INSEE (National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies, French branch of Eurostat), the author underlines trends related to the marginalization and exclusion of increasing numbers of French citizens from these metropoleis. He also studies the causes and means to get to this current situation where more and more are stranded in what he calls 'peripheral France'. Finally, he observes that these growing number of demoted people are turning into 'marooned societies' not unlike those of runaway servile workforce in the colonies, forming their own 'marooned kingdoms', threatening the masters... This also accounts for the rise of certain sorts of solidarity, including nationalism and islamism. On this matter, I suggest this excellent essay by Albert Memmi, dealing with the role played by religion and tradition among threatened, persecuted minorities: Portrait of a Jew.

Finally, the author adresses the changes advocated in several contries against the current state of the electoral system, some championning a rule of cumulative votes for certain categories of the population [François Fillon], or pushing for the re-counting of votes or new ballot altogether [Brexit]. Meanwhile, parts of the population in many European countries are becoming increasingly disaffected with regard to their political representatives.


Excerpts:

'Le modèle mondialisé accouche d'une société banalement multiculturelle. Une société travaillée par ses tensions et ses paranoïas identitaires, ses logiques séparatistes, parfois ses émeutes ethniques, en quelque sorte une société « américaine » comme les autres. Mais pouvait-il en être autrement ?'

'L'erreur a été de croire que l'on pouvait choisir la mondialisation sans ses conséquences sociétales : la société « américaine », multiculturelle et communautariste. Dès l'origine, cela excluait le modèle républicain.'


'L'essentialisation et la manipulation de la question de la pauvreté, comme la focalisation sur les pauvres de la banlieue, ne relèvent pas d'une bienveillance particulière. Elles visent à circonscrire la question sociale aux seules banlieues. Cette représentation univoque et exclusive de la pauvreté permet aussi d'orienter les politiques publiques sur des populations et territoires cibles et, in fine, d'entamer le lent démantèlement de l'État-providence.'

'Évidemment, cette stratégie de classes provoque le ressentiment des populations non-ciblées ou s'estimant oubliées par rapport aux « banlieues » (lire : aux « immigrés »), ce qui permettra aux prescripteurs d'opinion de valider la représentation de la France périphérique, et singulièrement du monde rural, comme « repliée », « aigrie », « pétainiste », ou « raciste ».

On pourrait évidemment sortir de cette concurrence victimaire entre catégories populaires en acceptant le faire que ce sont l'ensemble des catégories populaires qui sont aujourd'hui touchées par les effets de la mondialisation.'


'Véritable arme de classe, l'antifascisme présente en effet un intérêt majeur. Il confère une supériorité morale à des élites délégitimées en réduisant toute critique des effets de la mondialisation à une dérive fasciste ou raciste. Mais, pour être durable, cette stratégie nécessite la promotion de l' « ennemi fasciste » et donc la surmédiatisation du Front national...'


'Ce sont le chômage, la précarisation sociale, la baisse des revenus, l'affaissement de l'État-providence qui rendent possible la préservation des solidarités en milieu populaire, pas les idéologies. De même, c'est l'émergence d'une société multiculturelle qui explique le retour de la question identitaire dans les milieux modestes, pas l'adhésion à un projet nationaliste ou islamiste.'


'Le vote souverainiste des Britanniques a permis de constater que les classes dominantes et supérieures ne reconnaissent désormais les résultats électoraux que lorsqu'ils valident leur modèle. Comme lors du référendum de 2005, ces démocrates à géométrie variable sont prêts à restreindre le champ démocratique sous prétexte que les les classes populaires, mal éduquées, ne comprennent pas les véritables enjeux et qu'elles sont naturellement portées par des instincts primaires.'

'En France, certains proposaient même une démocratie à points. François Fillon déclarait ainsi que les jeunes devraient disposer de deux voix [Europe 1, 26 juin 2016].'

'Outre le fait que les jeunes [Britanniques] ont au contraire montré leur désintérêt pour l'Europe (ils se sont majoritairement abstenus), ces postures jeunistes et anti-vieux masquent la volonté de mettre en place une démocratie restreinte dont seraient exclues les catégories les plus modestes.'

'La France d'en haut n'a qu'une alternative. Soit elle opère un aggiornamento sur un modèle qui ne fait pas société (et qui reste sous la menace d'un effondrement d'un système qui repose sur une dette impossible à rembourser), soit elle choisit la fuite en avant. Il est à craindre qu'elle ne privilégie le court terme en cherchant à maintenir une position de classe malgré le chaos social et culturel qu'elle génère - ou grâce à lui.'

Complementary reading:

The ideology of globalization:
Capital and Ideology
Essais

Immigration policies:
Le Temps des immigrés : essai sur le destin de la population française
L'immigration en France

Social mobility and social reproduction:
The Red and the Black
The Inheritors: French Students and Their Relation to Culture

The manufacture of consent:
Propaganda
La Langue des medias : Destruction du langage et fabrication du consentement

A glimpse of peripheral France:
Sur les chemins noirs
Le tour de la France par deux enfants d'aujourd'hui
The Map and the Territory
À la ligne

Bourgeoisie & moralism:
The Kill
Money
Exégèse Des Lieux Communs
The Tears of the White Man: Compassion As Contempt


To me, the observations made by the geographer about the exclusion of former middle-class populations from metropoleis and its effects on the relationship between huge cities and rural areas are reminiscent of this experiment about posible long-term effects of 'Anarcho Capitalism, be it accurate or not...

[David Wineberg · Rating 5 out of 5]

France is losing its soul, and the majority – the working class – is paying for it. Twilight of the Elites examines the differences between the cities and peripheral France. The cities are booming and buoyant and privileged – and totally out of reach of the majority. Christophe Guilluy says “A globalized society is a closed society in which the combined effects of class inbreeding, residential separatism, educational apartheid and a selfish determination to accumulate wealth and property have never been so powerful.” Twilight of the Elites is far more than a polemic. Guilluy uses the latest figures available from the OECD, INSEE and election results to back his claims and project trends. Globalization is killing traditional France.

Guilluy complains that the new so-called openness to multiculturalism is simple hypocrisy. The rich city dwellers praise it. They like seeing different races and nationalities in restaurants. But that’s about as far as integration goes. Meanwhile, poor immigrants don’t see any of the French Dream. They don’t get to go to the schools that result in jobs, they don’t get to live in apartments in town, and most will go no higher than minimum wage all their lives, assuming they can find work. If they do, it probably won’t be full time. They are not big consumers like white-collar city workers, so neoliberalism can just dispense with them.

This thinking led to leaders approving the free movement of workers throughout Europe, while allowing their employers to pay them at their home countries’ rates. So rather than pay a worker the 1300 euros a month minimum that France mandates, a Romanian worker in France gets 218. This callous, total abandonment of the working class does not sit well with French workers, and has caused them to vote massively for the National Rally (formerly National Front), despite, or perhaps because of its Trump-like simplicity and superficiality. The two centrist parties only offer more of the same – ie. nothing. As so-called socialist President Francois Hollande showed, they are simply two sides of the same coin.

The timing of the book is impeccable. The gilets jaunes (yellow vests) are in the news every day in France. They are a completely leaderless movement of the working class and working poor, who are fed up with all the new and improved taxes the government of Emmanuel Macron foists on them. They are so poor they can’t afford days or even hours off work. They can only come to Paris to demonstrate on Saturdays. They have had as much as 80% support throughout the country. So Guilluy’s prognosis (the original French edition was published in 2016) is beginning to play out.

This gilets jaunes movement plays directly to my own feelings. I had predicted that Emmanuel Macron was fooling everyone. He was not a man of the left, as everyone classified him, but someone who would simply create a new USA in France.

Guilluy says the mobility of the working class has been all but cut off. The ability to move to find a new job no longer applies to the lower classes (nearly 60% of the population). They cling to their areas of birth, because that is where they find support of family and friends in times of need and no money. They cannot chance a move. This is exactly what has happened in the USA, where mobility is now only for the well-off. It is capital that is mobile now, not labor.

The working class has been shut out of the (15) major cities in France. The closest they can get is the immigrant banlieues (subsidized suburbs) where they are unwelcome, not to mention fearful. The cost of living in French cities has become so unattainable that only the managerial class can afford it. Instead, laborers must remain in village and rural France, where jobs are few and closures many. In the vicious circle this has produced, government removes its local offices and services because of lower populations, leaving even fewer jobs, or hope for a middle class life.

Meanwhile, cities like Paris have contorted into totally unnatural places. They are filled with the empty apartments of rich foreigners, the private schools of the well off, and the lack of mixture that used to make great cities great. The produce markets are white middle class affairs, and tradespeople are impossible to find, because they can’t live there any more. The top universities are filled by favors and connections, Guilluy says, keeping them white and well-off. Their graduates go straight into lifetime career jobs, making the circle even tighter.

The things that make France France are going away. Liberty, Equality and Fraternity are just nice sentiments now. Solidarity has been split by the cities vs the periphery dichotomy. The country is as unequal as the USA, Guilluy says. The services that local communes provided have gone away because the central government has simply withheld funding. And given it to the cities. The concept of a job for life, the main employment contract used in France, is being shunted aside for an American-style right to work regime, where workers can be fired at will. The French are finding themselves forced into the ugly gig economy, pioneered by the USA. People have trouble putting aside even a hundred euros a month, making them insecure. The very fabric of France is simply becoming American. It is not an improvement.

David Wineberg

[Yves Gounin · Rating 2 out of 5]

Dans son dernier opus, le géographe Christophe Guilluy reprend la thèse provocatrice qui avait fait le succès de ses deux précédents essais : "Fractures françaises" (2013) et "La France périphérique" (2015).
Cette thèse a le mérite de la simplicité : deux France s'opposent, la France des métropoles, connectée, hypermobile, multiculturelle, et la France périphérique des villes petites et moyennes et des territoires ruraux, condamnée à la sédentarité et en voie de désaffiliation des structures traditionnelles (partis, syndicats...).

Je me souviens de l'intérêt qu'avait provoqué chez moi, l'an passé, la découverte de cette thèse. Cet intérêt est à l'origine de la curiosité suscitée par "le Crépuscule de la France d'en haut" et le désir de le lire. Las ! dans son nouveau livre, Christophe Guilluy se borne à surfer sur la vague d'émotion causée par sa thèse et à la nourrir. Il le fait dans le style, pas vraiment sympathique, qui est le sien, procédant non par démonstration mais par affirmation, utilisant quelques formules (la "fanfare républicaine", les métropoles-nouvelles citadelles, la "métropolisation" visage géographique de la mondialisation, le brouillage des classes, la ville ségrégée, l'évitement social, etc.) censées valoir par la seule force de leur répétition.

Contrairement à ce qu'on son titre annonce, le sujet du livre est moins le crépuscule que le procès de la France d'en haut. Sans doute Christophe Guilluy ne porte-t-il pas dans son cœur les élites qui peuplent les quinze plus grandes métropoles françaises. Il leur reproche leur hypocrisie : elles prônent une "société ouverte" et multiculturelle, mais pratiquent de fait, dans le choix de leur résidence et de l'école de leur enfant, l'entre-soi. La charge contre la gauche hashtag et contre tous les bobos – qui se voient bohêmes mais n’en demeurent pas moins avant tout bourgeois – n’est pas toujours habile ; elle n’en est pas pour autant dénué de pertinence : « quand un bobo achète les services d’une nounou africaine, cette « exploitation traditionnelle du prolétariat » sera habillée d’ « interculturalité ». Mais si Fatoumata garde les enfants de la petite bourgeoisie, qui gardera les enfants de Fatoumata ? » (p. 76)

Pour autant, la détestation qu'il leur voue ne suffit pas à annoncer leur inexorable déclin. Car face à elles, les populations défavorisées qui peuplent la France périphérique ne préparent aucun « grand soir ». Le mouvement des Bonnets rouges, que Christophe Guilluy évoque mais qu'il n'étudie pas, aurait pu nourrir la thèse d'une France au bord de l'explosion sociale. C'est moins de révolte que de désaffiliation - ou de "marronnage" pour reprendre le titre du quatrième et dernier chapitre du livre - dont il est question : ces populations qui ne se sentant plus écoutées, plus comprises, plus représentées, abandonnent lentement le navire.

Notons l’intéressante conclusion à laquelle arrive Christophe Guilluy. Elle concerne moins, répétons-le, la France d’en haut et son soi-disant déclin que la France d’en bas. Remarquant non sans motif que « le multiculturalisme à 1000 euros par mois » (p. 203) n’est pas facile à vivre [comprendre : des revenus aisés permettent de tenir un discours multiculturaliste en évitant de devoir en payer le prix quotidien alors que les populations des banlieues de métropoles ou des zones abandonnées de la périphérie n’ont pas cette option-là], l’auteur prédit que : « l’affrontement communautaire à redouter n’est pas prioritairement celui qui opposera les « petits Blancs » aux « musulmans », mais celui des minorités entre elles sur des territoires qu’elles sont contraintes de partager. » (p. 216). Il en donne pour exemple, non pas la Seine Saint Denis ou les quartiers nord de Marseille mais … la Corse qui a, en effet connu en décembre 2015 à Ajaccio et en août 2016 à Sisco d’inquiétantes poussées de violence.

[Brandon Istenes · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is an attack on me personally, me, Brandon Istenes, a Very Serious Leftist who is also a salaried professional. It leaves no ambiguity about that. Regardless of how good or bad this book actually is, I don’t think any book has ever left me so completely unrooted, so deeply unsettled. It is going to take me a long time to process. For that, five stars.

[Leif · Rating 4 out of 5]

Here's the thing: former mining families across the Midlands and South Wales helped to trigger the collapse of confidence that David Cameron foolishly initiated, and that was a predictable collusion after the Scargill-led strikers were defeated by Margaret Thatcher. The onset of a world in which capital has globalized while inequality has left people stranded - and where those at the lowest end of the income spectrum find themselves excluded from politics, media, and brazen consumerism - has produced the extraordinary scenes in Canada, France, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Faith in politics is low, while centrists are going down to self-inflicted wounds and right-leaning moderates have been consumed by those intent on the destruction of the state in various forms. As Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak announced almost forever ago, "Globalization takes place only in capital and data. Everything else is damage control." Well, damage control is over.

What to make of Jeremy Corbyn's intransigence in the face of much of Labour's desire to return to the technocracy of the European Union? While I do not want to simplify the question, one thread that I have been thinking about recently is the disappearance of the once-respectable theory of protectionism, which has been entirely lost to free-market neoliberalism, save for the occasional spectre of doppelganger version in Trumpian musings on America. Corbyn may be thinking some of the same things that leftist politicians once believed, which is simply that globalization and free trade harm the working class most of all. In North America, the fierce opposition over NAFTA, and even the faint protests of CETA were barely heard recently in its renegotiation, but I think I hear some of these anti-globalization perspectives in the pregnant silences of Corbyn. Of course, I am not a savant; these matters have been frequently discussed. And, underneath that barely mentionable conversation about the leftwing opposition to globalism - a failed gambit - there remain the passionate lives of those on the sharp end of inequality, the working classes whose disengagement from electoral politics (and the occasional foray into nationalism).

It is here that Christophe Guilluy enters, hostile to the broad centre that in France encompasses all centre-leftists and centre-rightists, and that takes as a particular target the urban centres that Guilluy describes as "citadels" and the intellectuals who Guilluy disdains as an out-of-touch bourgeoisie whose fascination with the language of liberation serves only to mask their affiliation with the wealthy extractions of globalizing forces. I part from Guilluy on many fronts, and cannot stress how strongly I feel that his racialized vision of the working class is flawed; however, his central focus on the working classes is powerful and necessary, and cannot be left to the right or to nationalist poliiticans and intellectuals. Demonstrations of solidarity and mobilization outside of the ambit of politics as practised (as in the guilet jaunes) can only grow more common - the alternative, of a turn toward totalitarianism among oligarchic shadows - hardly bears contemplation. For all his faults, Guilluy is asking probing questions, and in that sense does readers a necessary service. And as my above musings indicate, for all that his immediate focus is the France of Macron and the guilet jaunes, I believe with much modification, but without total difference, the outlines hem other countries too, from the UK to North America.

[Seligmann · Rating 3 out of 5]

2016 auf französisch erschienen, antizipiert Guilluy die "gilets jaunes" und ihren Protest in diesem Buch. Eine Art antimonopolistische Koalition von unten mit proletarischem Charakter. Das Buch ist insofern interessant, als dass es sich mit der geographischen Spaltung beschäftigt, die von der sozialen hervorgebracht wird durch Mechanismen wie Gentrifizerung und Metropolisation. Ein Moment, dass wir auch im deutschsprachigen Raum kennen, z.B. in Berlin, aber auch in Wien wo es eine Spaltung zwischen den Innenstadt-Bobos und dem Proletariat der Flächenbezirke gibt. Gerade im Zusammenhang mit ersteren, die mittlerweile das Wählerpotential linker Parteien stellen und laut Guilluy so etwas wie die Mauer für die Eliten machen, macht der Autor einige interessante und bedenkenswerte Punkte unter Zuhilfenahme von Christopher Lasch und Pier Paolo Pasolini.

Fehlende Verankerung in der Arbeiterklasse liegt einerseits an den "Kämpfen" der Linken, die sich kaum mehr um ökonomische Fragen drehen, sondern rein kulturelle Fragen betreffen - ein 68er Erbe, dessen man sich nicht entledigen will. Andererseits an der Globalisierung und Amerikanisierung der Gesellschaft, deren Kritik von linker Seite gerne unter Rassismus-Verdacht gestellt wird, unter Applaus der herrschenden Klasse. Wähler linker Parteien profitieren von der Globalisierung und machen sichs in der Welt ohne Grenzen (vulgo: Absatzmarkt für Deutschland) bequem, während Arbeiter unter ihr leiden (z.B. dem outsourcing der industriellen Basis und ihrer Jobs, Lohndumping etc.). Die einzigen, die sich damit auseinandersetzen und nicht als Teil des Systems begriffen werden ist der Front National, damit steigen auch die Stimmenanteile im proletarischen Milieu. Wobei ein Löwenanteil überhaupt durch Enthaltung protestiert. Der Brexit und die Wahl Donald Trumps sind ein erster Aufzeigen des Proletariats und Formen eines sich formierenden Klassenbewusstseins. Die gilets jaunes das französische Äquivalent dazu. Nichts davon wird von Links zur Kenntnis genommen, sondern meist diffamiert und sich von den ungewaschenen und ungebildeten Horden gefürchtet. Das verhilft dem (rechten) Populismus zu Zulauf. Aktuell sind wir in einer Phase in der rechte Populisten quasi diskreditiert sind (Italien, Österreich etc.). Die Wahlen in den USA sind dementsprechend richtungsweisend.

Guilluys Buch gehört den französischen Verhältnissen an, aber viele der französischen Probleme finden wir in abgeschwächter oder ähnlicher Form im deutschsprachigen Raum wieder. Wenn nach Karl Kraus die Welt in Wien 100 Jahre später untergeht, hätte man jetzt genügend Zeit sich die Erkenntnisse aus der untergegangen Welt anzueignen. Besonders als Linker.

[Jonathon McKenney · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 but rounded down. He has some excellent points about the hallowing out of the economy, the negative effects of globalization, and the problems with the neo-lib consensus. Overwhelmingly repetitive, and his arguments against multiculturalism didn't hold up. I found myself skimming near the end.

A lot of the arguments were outside my geographic context and my subject area knowledge, so there were multiple grains of salt consumed. Will need to do further reading.

[Mahin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Twilight of the Elites tries to elucidate the growing discontent of the French working class toward the status quo, i.e. globalisation and its corollary 'metropolisation'. Guilluy argues that globalisation has fundamentally changed France, turning it into an 'American' or 'Anglo-Saxon' society, which is to say an unequal one. Not only has globalisation changed the fortunes of France's working class, but metropolisation, a concomitant phenomenon, has led to a more vibrant job market in cities, not in small towns or rural areas. Guilluy believes that France's major political parties - whether left- or right-wing - are effectively the same in terms of policy. Per Guilluy, the ruling class (yes, even the supposed Socialists like Hollande) are all in favour of globalisation, because they reap the rewards. Furthermore, he extensively discusses immigration in relation to globalisation and states that it is a tool to suppress the wages of the locals (the 'white' French in peripheral France and long-standing immigrants). The ruling class, in denying the dispossession of the working classes, is fomenting discontent and anger in peripheral France. This pushes the people of peripheral France to vote for the National Front, which is the only party championing an end to immigration (which is viewed as a solution to declining wages).

It is indisputable that globalisation has had a negative impact on workers whose jobs have been exported to Asia and Eastern Europe, but the horse is now out of the barn. It is a waste of time to debate the validity of globalisation when gov'ts ought to find ways to mitigate the negative impacts it has on the working/lower classes. To his credit, Guilluy does mention the flawed methodology used by INSEAD to classify economic regions and how this reductive analysis can lead to ineffective policy-making. However, I think that Guilluy tries too hard to apply the 'Anglo-Saxon' paradigm on France. In many ways, the French working-class is better off than their counterparts in the U..S and U.K. and this comes across as more of a polemic. The metropolisation phenomenon decried as a product of globalisation has always existed in France, a centralised country. It's important to divorce (if possible) centralisation from metropolisation. The former may have exacerbated the latter, but they shouldn't be conflated in order to make an argument against globalisation. If there is no existing infrastructure, development or jobs in a particular region, it makes perfect sense that people would relocate to a centre.

I initially found Twilight of the Elites tough to read, but I pushed myself to finish it in order to make sure that it wasn't my centrist and pro-globalisation views that made me recoil. Moreover, this book, while originally published in 2016, captures the zeitgeist of France today. It is worth reading to understand the rise of the 'gilets jaunes' and increasingly unpopular President Macron (who is viewed as a corporatist shill by many). In addition, this pattern has been seen in the U.K. (Brexit) and the U..S (Trump, to some extent). Though I don't share Guilluy's views, I did better understand the rise of fascist and anti-immigrant political movements buttressed by the 'native' working class who see their fortunes diminished in a changing world.

I am fluent in French and have been to France - and not just Paris - over five times in the past few years. I am an 'Anglo-Saxon' albeit one who is familiar with France and French people, so I like to think my understanding of this book is not far off the mark. Given France's current political climate, I would highly recommend Twilight of the Elites to better understand its most recent protests against immigration, globalisation and the increased cost of living.

Thank you to NetGalley, Yale University Press and Christophe Guilluy for allowing me to read an advance copy of this title.

[Andrew Figueiredo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Guilluy is known as one of the better authors on populism in Europe and this book very much supports that position.

His argument centers around the idea that an elite and their educated metropolitan cohort (like Auberon Waugh's chattering classes/Brooks’ bobos/Irving Kristol’s new class) close themselves off in islands of opportunity while promoting policies that contribute to the sedentarization and segregation of "France Populaire", or the working class who lost out on the benefits of globalization. The elite discourses (on left and right) of openness and diversity are but facades for Guilluy, masquerading as wokeness but actually promoting anti-working class policies. This in turn leads to a rejection of the globalized model foisted on the working class as they seek to maintain their institutions and social capital. And yet, the elites continuously accuse them of fascism, reactionism, etc. In so doing, they divide the working class and distract from class issues. A Marxian take on things, but one with a good degree of support here.

To his credit, France Populaire is not just the rural white working-class but also immigrants in banlieues, or poor suburbs around French cities. He convincingly shows that voting FN isn't the only reaction to the globalized model. So too is rising abstention among immigrant suburban youth. This finds support outside the text; Justin Gest's The New Minority: White Working Class Politics in an Age of Immigration and Inequality describes how withdrawing from the system is a plausible channel for disillusionment, as is fighting back. And Guilluy delves into how mobility doesn't exist for the working classes, even though it's seen as the marker of success today, a good response to folks who say "oh why not move where the jobs are?".

I have two issues with this work. First, Guilluy doesn’t ascribe enough agency to peripheral France. In discussing identitarianism, he dismisses ideology and opinion leaders too much. I agree that globalization and its forces are largely at fault, but there needs to be more investigation of the role demagogues play. Certainly, political science demonstrates how media and politicians can activate certain issues. Maybe this could support his argument in France, but it merits more coverage.
Second, I take issue with his description of the populist uprising as a “marronage” or slave revolt. I understand the point being made, and maybe this is an American reading of it, but I don't think the pernicious effects of globalization can be equated to chattel slavery. It's hyperbolic in an inaccurate way.

Overall, Guilluy has put together a great book about globalization, populism, and class structure. It's well worth a read even if the argument has a couple of flaws. Not sure if the English translation is out yet (I read it in French), but I recommend it to you when it does come out.

[Southy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Unfortunately being both repetitive and unstructured, to be rendered almost unreadable. However, the thrust of the argument makes sense and captures the drawbacks of decades of neoliberal dogma.

Cities like New York, Paris and London now represent elitist citadels who have raised the draw bridge via the gentrification process and control of economic opportunities. The rhetoric of openness and multiculturalism is in juxtaposition to the rarefied atmospheres of the dominant class who have ‘looted the private housing stock’ and profited from elite education and ‘class-inbreeding’.

This is a pertinent line;

“In singing the praises of diversity, while at the same time establishing a system marked by deep social and economic inequalities, the dominant classes are able to conceal the bonds of fellowship that unite the beneficiaries of globalisation, the roots of a class conflict that nobody dares mention.”

So what then of the future of France?

Frustratingly in unstructured chapters and paragraphs the author grippes on and shares nothing proactive in terms of solutions. The analysis could be critiqued for its myopia, simplifying all phenomena terms of the class struggle of the ‘winners and losers’ of globalization. Whilst pertinent points are made using Marxist theory, a less polemic and more nuanced outlook would have been more unique and in my opinion, this ‘book’ would be better adapted as a series of articles.

[Jarno Mehtiö · Rating 4 out of 5]

Luin kyllä englanniksi.

Kirja Ranskan jakaantumisesta maantieteellisesti ja taloudellisesti eri luokkiin. Guilluyllä metropolit asettuvat muuta Ranskaa vastaan. Tästä hänen ideana La France Périphérique. Kaupungeissa asuu yläluokkaa ja ylempää keskiluokkaa. Erotuksena aikaisempaan nämä kaupunkilaiset eivät kuitenkaa enää välttämättä identifioidu ylempään luokkaan vaan osa kokee edustavansa vasemmistolaisia arvoja. Kirjoittajan mukaan tämä arvojen kannatus ei kuitenkaan näy käytännön politiikassa eikä vaadittavissa muutoksissa. Kaupungeissa kyllä puhutaan monimuotoisuuden puolesta, samalla kun piilotetaan näkyvistä globaalien hyötyjien ja häviäjien sekä luokkien vastakohdat.

Kaupungeista voidaan puhua hyvien asioiden ja suvaitsevaisuuden puolesta, mutta siellä ei jouduta elämään puheiden konkretisoitumisen kanssa. Metropolien keskustojen koulut voivat hyvin, asuinalueet ovat turvallisia ja asujat ovat hyvin samanmielisiä. Lisäksi kaupungeissa taloudellinen nousu on tutkitusti helpompaa kuin niiden ulkopuolella. Ongelma vain on, että kaupunkeihin pääseminen on vaikeaa ellei mahdotonta.

Lisäksi kirjoittaja esittää, että puhe suvaitsevista arvoista (vaikka taloudellisia uhrauksia niiden eteen ei tehdä [riittävästi]), piilottaa ja ohittaa huolet sekä mahdolliset konfliktit eri arvojen välillä. Erityisenä huolena nousee esiin, että puhe monikulttuurisuudesta ohittaa tasavaltalaisen ideaaliin assimiloitumisesta. Onko tämä ideaali hyvä, onko se toiminut koskaan ja millä ehdoin, se on eri asia.

Väitettä metropolien ja muun maan välillä Guilluy käsittelee lukujen valossa. Perinteisesti Ranskassa on puhuttu lähiöiden (banlieu) ongelmista ja niihin haluttu keskittyä. Kirjoittaja kuitenkin esittää, että tämä vääristää tulkintaa, koska näissä asuu suurelta osin köyhiä maahanmuuttajia. Näin ero on tehty köyhien maahanmuuttajien ja muiden ranskalaisten välille. Oikeasti maassa yli 60 % kuuluu periferian työväenluokkaan. He ovat köyhiä tai nippa nappa köyhyysrajan yläpuolella, mutta heitä on enemmistö. Tämä enemmistö on keltaliivien luokka.

Liiallisen varovaisuuden ja leimaamisen pelon sekä ongelman ohittamisen takana Guilluy näkee todellisuuden välttämäisen: mikäli todellisuus kohdattaisiin ja siihen haluttaisiin puuttua, pitäisi tunnustaa ajetun talous- ja sosiaalipolitiikan tekevän pahaa jälkeä työväenluokassa. Samalla kun puhutaan solidaarisuudesta ja samaistetaan itsensä kansan enemmistöön, ovat ongelmat poissa silmistä ja tuhoa ei huomata. Vastavoimana kuitenkin vahvistuu kokoa ajan, koska heitähän tosiaan oli enemmistö. Sitä mukaa kun vanha kangastus solidaarisesta Ranskasta lipuu kauemmas ja sen kokeneet vanhemmat ihmiset kuolevat, seuraavat sukupolvet ovat vastakkain nykyisen todellisuuden kanssa.

Yllä siis kuvaus kirjan teeseistä. Vähemmän kirjasta löytyi pohdintaa olisiko tälle kehitykselle voinut tehdä mitä ja milloin? Olisiko globaalia taloutta vastaan voinut kamppailla millaisin keinoin? Suomalainen tutkija olisi varmasti tässä kohtaa kaivanut esiin Pikettyn, Stiglitzin tai muun vastaavan auktoriteetin. Ranskassahan vasemmistolla on pitkät perinteet, mutta se on aina ollut hyvin hajanainen. Samaan aikaan kun heidän koululaitoksensa on varsin hierarkinen. Mitterand yritti repäistä kautensa aluksi, mutta täyskäännös tuli nopeasti. Taloudelliset realiteetit tai sellaiseksi väitetyt on tunnustettu, samaan aikaan kun muut teemat ovat nousseet rinnalle ja ohi.

Kirja olisi varmasti hyötynyt myös siitä, että väitteitä olisi perusteltu vankemmin tutkimuksin, nyt osittain luotettiin retoriikaan voimaan.

[Jakub Dovcik · Rating 3 out of 5]

The core argument of this book is that the economic and social divides between what Guilluy calls 'metropolitan' and 'peripheral' Frances - more precisely, the new bourgeoisie classes and those 'left behind' - are creating social tensions that will result in a severe socio-political conflict. The book details how these rifts are created and perpetuated, but also how they are maintained by the cultural dominance of the elites in the media (there is a lot of quasi-Marxist thinking here).

Guilluy rages against the elites and blames the 'bobos' - bohemian bourgeoisie (what I would call the globalised middle class) for paying only lip service to the ideals of the French state, like equality, fraternity, or opportunity - and in effect leaving the inhabitants of the banlieues, the often multicultural suburbs, as well as the inhabitants of small cities and rural areas, to the whims of the globalised financialised capitalism.

First published in French in 2016, the book in effect predicts the accumulation of social tension within France that was on full display in the fall 2024 elections, where both the National Rally and the New Popular Front surged ahead. The author is absolutely uncritical towards the National Front (now National Rally), calling them at one point 'what began as a working class party in the 1990s' and constantly critiquing, labelling them as fascists. This conflation of the critiques of the adoption of neoliberalism or financialised capitalism by self-serving elites with the genuine xenophobia and authoritarianism - not to say any lack of real policy solutions - from the side of the National Rally is at best naive, at worst dangerous.

This book is about France and the French elites, but it could very well be about the British, American, Australian, or even Polish elites. The dynamics the author rants against are a global phenomenon - although the antipathy towards ‘Americanised society is a durable theme of the French political culture - and a result of the way that global capitalism has been functioning in the past half century - one can explain it through the theories of Piketty, but there is also a social capital and prestige accumulation element. But the author does not propose much of a solution.

The book is surprisingly un-academic for something published by Yale University Press. Large parts of it feel very activist and more like a political pamphlet than an academic book. What it nevertheless does well is to highlight the lack of self-awareness on the side of the globalised middle classes, who attach moral and ethical judgements to their assessments about the negative perception of globalisation on the side of the working classes, without recognising the underlying economic and power interests.

[Muromets · Rating 4 out of 5]

An angry critique of the current political system and its impact on the whole of French society.

The author's frustration with the current state of affairs, particularly for the working class and in the face of neoliberalism and globalism can be heard on every page. It tells a story from the perspective of those most disadvantaged by the system, supported by trends in social mobility, education, income, unemployment/underemployment, and trends in social geography.

As someone not residing in France or in any way affiliated to the French, I found the book interesting and applicable to some of the same issues we see in the US, UK, Canada, and Australia. Similar tensions and friction between the working class continuously being closed off from access to an increasingly isolated middle-class, major cities becoming unaffordable exacerbating the issue even further.

The helplessness of the situation seems to be underscored by the author's lack of recommendations to address issues I felt were very strongly illustrated. I would have liked to see more of a call to action than a hope and a prayer that politicians will somehow come to their senses and make it right. Understandably, proposing solutions to problems that are complex, interrelated, and evolving isn't easy.

Definitely a worthwhile read, albeit infuriating.

[Amber Nicole · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don't feel like I'm in a strong position to adequately critique the ideas put forward in this book, as it's focused on the problems facing contemporary France. I'm honestly not as in-the-know about international relations these days, you know? (This is why I'm reading this particular book! 😂😂😂)
As to the writing, I thought the author was fairly engaging throughout, although he was a bit repetitive at times. I appreciate how the book is broken up into sections and chapters that are more easily digestible for people who aren't as caught up on contemporary French politics as they should be.. 😅
This book is highly partisan and perhaps could have done a better job of tackling the issues from a more objective point of view. The author takes an antagonistic stance against the modern, global bourgeoisie, which, while engaging (and honestly extremely refreshing), wasn't necessary when the premises presented are based in so much evidence.
On a more personal, perhaps partisan note, I had a hard time accepting his arguments around culture. Again, I find it hard to speak to them as I'm not the most knowledgeable on French culture, so perhaps read them for yourself and come tell me what you think.

3/5. Solidly entertaining and educational, and from a refreshing POV. Could have done with a bit less repetitiveness and partisanship.

[Carmen von Rohr · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a stunning achievement, one of those few books that I am convinced could *actually* make a material positive impact on society if only everyone would read it. His analysis of the consequences of globalization and metropolization for the working class and the hypocritical ideological embrace of multiculturalism by a self-segregating, educated, urban elite are entirely consistent with my lived experiences as one of those unicorns who found my way out of a poor family in a deprived rural area and now live the life of a cosy and comfortable member of that educated, urban elite (albeit very low on the totem pole, in my case). #HashtagLeft, indeed.

I would love to have a post-pandemic chat with Guilluy - it seems to me that the pandemic and the opportunities it opens up for some degree of de-metropolization could have important implications for beginning to address economic inequalities (in concert with other changes such as reform of access to higher education); my fear is that these opportunities will not be harnessed, and instead we may speed ourselves down the path of 'totalitarianism light'.

[Etienne OMNES · Rating 2 out of 5]

J'ai beaucoup aimé lire ce livre, il glisse tout seul. Mais au final, j'en ai peu retiré: c'est ce qu'il a déjà écrit dans son premier livre sur la France Périphérique, et il a même copié plusieurs paragraphes de son livre précédent "Fractures Françaises". Pour celui qui est déjà de la France Périphérique (comme moi) il est assez jouissif de voir (enfin) une critique des élites métropolitaines, et de voir enfin mettre des mots sur la réalité que je vis. Cependant, je n'ai strictement rien appris de nouveau, tout au plus ais je été mobilisé un peu plus sur le sujet des inégalités et de la fracture de notre pays. Dernier défaut: le livre parle du crépuscule de la France d'en Haut, mais au final passe la moitié du temps et surtout sa fin de livre à parler encore de la France Périphérique.

Il suffira donc de lire la France Périphérique, de cet auteur.

[Mark Peacock · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.25 rounded down. Irritatingly repetitive. It would've been more effective if edited down to a couple of long magazine/journal articles.

However, skimming through the repetition, I found the core ideas in this book from 2016 to still be valid today. They're embedded in many of the explanations/analyses of Trump's 2024 electoral victory. Indeed, Guilluy's observation that the working class has defected from its "traditional political attachments", that "rejection of politicians ..., the mistrust of the media, of pundits,... have reached new heights" is a common explanation for Trump's increased share of Black, Hispanic, and working class white voters. Guilluy's class-based critique gave me a new perspective; a useful shift from the identity-based analyses that are more typical from US-based commentators.

[Adam Pettersson · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author balances perfectly between objectivity and sharp skepticism in his analysis of the neoliberal status quo so widespread today. It’s refreshing to see the struggles and voices of the majority represented by someone who can’t be so easily dismissed as a populist or fascist.

The book’s major strength is its reluctance to offer a simple solution. Instead, it tries to examine why people vote the way they do and what shapes their opinions. There’s a mild contempt for the hypocritical winners of globalization, presented in an almost humorous manner.

Overall, the author manages to explain why so many people disagree with mainstream ideology and shines a light on the efforts of globalist preachers to dismiss this majority’s views. This, in particular, is disturbing—and a very well-articulated observation.

[Philip William · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book illustrates the gulf between the thinking of the French elite and the majority of the French population on many subjects.

The main interest to me is that the overlap with the UK or the USA is enormous and it is a big mistake to see Brexit/Trump as a peculiarly Anglo American phenomenon.

[Clara · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting and relevant exploration of the ways in which globalization is erasing the middle class from our society, and how the metropolitan elite and immigrant labor are becoming the population of our cities. And how this “immigrant vs poor white” conflict is rising as globalization depresses wages in richer western countries. A super interesting and relevant read but pretty grim!

[Mark Pinkerton · Rating 3 out of 5]

an interesting read on social and economic changes -- it's the succcessful metropolitan areas and declining working class rest of the country problem -- happening in France as it is in much of the US and perhaps other places.

Could have been edited into a shorter book.

[Alperen · Rating 3 out of 5]

An earnest and honest revelation of often vilified motivations and their deep rooted causes without much remorse. It tends to repeat itself too often as if approaching an audience under a rock but it makes the book accessible.

[Philippe Lenain · Rating 2 out of 5]

reprise quasi intégrale de "la France périphérique", mais avec une approche et argumentation + limitée.

[Jeffrey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Guilluy raises a warning of a potential outcome of the current trends observable in France (and, by extension in the US as well)...........

[Cristie Underwood · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author's painstaking research and attention to detail is obvious in the writing of this book. There were many facts that I only discovered after reading this!

[Steve · Rating 3 out of 5]

Though the author is on the Left, many of the issues with globalisation are the same concerns that an “old conservative” would share. Part of that is a concern for the demise of the working class.

[James · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book has a few important insights, but it is repetitive and tendentious in the extreme. A decent editor could have cut 100 pages without taking out anything of substance.

[Grant]

Really thought provoking book. Both sides of politics would do well to read it and reflect on policy

[Buchi Chilaka · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book was too light on data to support its claims about the origins of discontent in rural France. It read to me as well-written conservative philosophy more than anything else.

[Eileen · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.25 stars