Ce pays qui aime les idées: Histoire d'une passion française

by Sudhir Hazareesingh

Aux yeux du monde, les Français seraient arrogants, présomptueux, ingouvernables… Ne seraient-ils pas d’abord et avant tout de grands amoureux des idées ? C’est, en tout cas, dans cette passion spécifiquement française qu’il faut, selon l’historien britannique Sudhir Hazareesingh, chercher les racines de notre identité, et en particulier celles de notre fameuse exception culturelle.Au fond, à quoi reconnaît-on la pensée française ? Peut-être à cette façon d’être un art de vivre partagé par tous. Sans doute aussi à son inextinguible vitalité : si les Français donnent l’impression de ne jamais débattre sans se disputer, c’est qu’ils ont l’exercice de la controverse trop à coeur ; s’ils passent facilement pour des donneurs de leçons, c’est qu’ils aspirent toujours vivement à l’universel, au point de s’en estimer seuls garants ; s’ils sont râleurs, anarchiques et prompts à la révolte, c’est qu’ils ont une âme frondeuse et l’esprit critique chevillé au corps ; s’ils se croient supérieurs, c’est qu’ils ont le goût de l’abstraction, l’art d’inventer des concepts qui séduisent au-delà des frontières – le socialisme, le structuralisme, l’existentialisme, la déconstruction, le mot même d’intellectuel. Enfin, s’ils sont enclins aujourd’hui à broyer du noir, c’est qu’ils sont nostalgiques de leur grandeur passée et qu’ils refusent d’abdiquer.Catalogue passionné des spécificités de la pensée française, ce livre nous décrit mieux que nous ne saurions le faire, en même temps qu’il nous pousse à interroger l’inquiétude que nous inspire l’idée de notre déclin.

Genres: Philosophy, France, Nonfiction, History, Politics, Travel, Cultural

469 pages, Paperback

First published June 25, 2015

About the author

Sudhir Hazareesingh FBA is a British-Mauritian historian. He has been a fellow and Tutor in Politics at Balliol College, Oxford since 1990. Most of his work relates to modern political history from 1850; including the history of contemporary France as well as Napoleon, the Republic and Charles de Gaulle.

Reviews

[J · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sudhir Hazareesingh is a fellow at Oxford whose work seems to be primarily focused on modern (18th Century - 21st Century) France. He is of Mauritian extraction. Because of this he offers both an outsider's view of France while still being close enough to offer that differentiated perspective, as Mauritius is considered a part of the Francophonie.

This is a geeky and nerdy book. If you want an easy, simple, and pre-packaged answer booklet for your visit to Paris - you've made a mistake and should go to the Lonely Planet books. If you're learning French / have learned French / enjoy French food then, sadly, this book is also not for you. I think an apt analogy would be something like this: If this book were a book called "How the French Cook", it wouldn't be a friendly introduction with some nice recipes. It would be a dense, specific, historical, gastronomic explication of the development of French cuisine. It would be intended for those who have a degree of: cooking knowledge, knowledge of history, and are capable of maintaining a view of the grande narrative.

Hazareesingh examines essential polarities (a very French thing, one learns in the course of reading the book) such as Rationality/Mysticism, Universality/Specificity, Locality/Nationality and other tensions. He essentially argues that the French are intensely dialectical. If you know anything about Structuralism (capital ‘s’ intended, we take our -isms very seriously here), then during one’s reading one quickly realises why Postmodernism/Critical theory/Structuralism/Post-Structuralism came so easily and naturally to la belle France. The French are infuriatingly, wonderfully confused; they are splendidly assured too.

Hazareesingh is not a boring writer, nor is he actually (certainly not by French standards, in the sense of deliberately obfuscating to prove membership to the club) a difficult writer - he uses standard British English and the occasional 'academese'. He is snarky, eloquent, and opinionated, so it isn't a hagiography to French thinking. He loves his subject. Using honest language, he shows the French's (often) mad ramblings: their hysteria around their language, their quasi-religious adherence to communism, their universalism and their antipathy to the outside ‘civilisations’ (i.e. Islam and the 'Anglo-Saxons/Anglo-Americans').

It is an intellectual history that informs the reader where the nodes of French thinking lie, its points of departure. The second part was especially fascinating to me, since as a humanities student I have been rather acontextually forced to read (god, it was a punishment) many of the big names mentioned here: Sartre, Fanon, Foucault, Derrida, Althusser, Baudrillard, Deleuze, Irigaray, de Beauvoir, Latour etc. bla bla bla - all are placed within the distinctive French intellectual tradition (of obfuscation, [joke]), whose hallmark (Hazareessingh argues) is a penchant for large, overarching analysis. This is in sharp contrast to our (my) technocratic particularism in the English world - hence the Continental vs. Analytic philosophy divide. This, I suspect, has something to do with the strong divide between the educated and the not-quite-so in France, where it is a matter of savoir-vivre to perform your cultivation.

Hazareesingh gives the French too much credit. I think he certainly failed to address the enormous intellectual debt France owes to Germany (and vise-versa, but the book doesn't concern the Teutons). In doing this, he misses the intellectual competition that nations engage in: having your biggest rival and partner in crime on the border certainly contributed to that.

Overall, a very insightful and fun perspective on les gens malheureux.

[Jim Coughenour · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read Hazareesingh's book soon after finishing Gary Gutting's Thinking the Impossible, which addressed a narrower subject (French philosophy) within a more concentrated span (since 1960). Even so, the overlap is less compelling than expected. Hazareesingh's French thinkers are a bit more grim, less brilliantly Gallic than Gutting's. After a telling prologue (Dominique de Villepin's 2003 address to the U.N. countering the Bush/Blair rush to invade Iraq), Hazareesingh begins with Descartes, and the book bogs down.

Of course: À chacun son goût. For my taste, the bulk of Hazareesingh's book is as dry as a day-old baguette – as compared to (first example to mind) Tony Judt's Past Imperfect: French Intellectuals, 1944-1956 or even Gutting's careful account. The last couple chapters, documenting French thinkers' thoughts on their own decline, are slightly more interesting but at the cost of a certain acerbity ("mindless word games in the style of Derrida and Baudrillard"). Those targets are too easily hit, and far from affectionate.

At its best, the book provided a dogged survey of writers I knew nothing about or had largely forgotten. One example: I was startled to see the name of Reynaud Camus, whom I remember only for his unapologetic Tricks: 25 Encounters (1981, introduction by Roland Barthes and the ostensible subject of Gore Vidal's spectacular polemic "Pink Triangle and Yellow Star"). It appears he's moved far beyond sex with strangers.

Camus believed that the notion of France as a land of immigration was a "myth" that had been fabricated by the ideologues of the establishment for the sake of promoting multiculturalism and the "decivilized" utopia of a global village. According to the author, the strategy was succeeding: the sacred concepts of patriotism, patrimony, and heritage had been emptied of their substance, and France was facing a "replacement" of its native populations by immigrants from the Maghreb – an Islamic invasion that Camus described as a "counter-colonization."

Indeed, a quick read of the Wikipedia entry on Camus reveals a complicated character who does indeed (as he did in 1981) seem entirely French. And Hazareesingh is helpful on explaining this exacerbated debate, especially post Charlie Hebdo.

I could have used more of this, more flavor – there's precious little on French fiction (nothing on its crime fiction, one of my favorites); almost nothing on its music or film or food. – Well, there is one orotund quote from the philosopher Yves Roucaute

who used a sustained comparison between the blandness of the fast-food hamburger and the authenticity of the French sandwich jambon-beurre… This opened the way to a lyrical evocation of the liberating virtues of the French café… "Remarkable school of equality, the French café symbolizes equal dignity. Extraordinary school of liberty, the French café opens its doors to all and allows true choice. Prodigious school of fraternity, by this apparently simple act of buying a sandwich is created a communion around regional products. So with butter, bread and pork, without knowing it, you declaim these three words: 'liberty,' 'equality,' and 'fraternity.'"

Sans doute! And as I started my review with the metaphor of taste, so I must conclude with the delightful scene from Diva on Zen and the art of the baguette.

[Bookworm · Rating 1 out of 5]

Definitely for an audience that is not me. I think I must have read an article somewhere about this book, but whatever appeal that led me to pick this up definitely was lot on me once I actually read it. The author claims that it's an examination of how the French think (hence the title) :). I guess what I had been hoping for was more of a psychological/sociological examine of the French people, but instead it is much more academic than I thought it would be.
 
The author instead examines various types of French thinkers, writers, philosophers and their influences on the French. But it's not really "how the French think." It seemed much more of "How *I*, the Author, Think French Think." The overall style of the book reminded me of another book, 'How the French Invented Love,' where the author examined love as presented by various French writers, lovers, etc. but not much in the way of a broader historical context.
 
Maybe it's just me but I wanted statistics, polls, citations to academic studies in sociology/psychology, etc. I'm fully willing to acknowledge that's either my own personal mindset or perhaps very "US" of me, so used to being in your face with political polls polls polls. But I just can't help but wonder if the approach would be different. If you wrote a book about "How Americans Think" I'm not sure there would be so many academic names or writers or philosophers, etc.
 
I can't help but feel this book is meant for a very small, rather narrow audience and I'm not part of it. Which is fine, but I just don't think I got as much out of it as someone else who is more entrenched in this. Library borrow.

[Kamakana · Rating 4 out of 5]

this is a later addition: after the attacks in paris i was very sad, though of course such terrorism afflicts other cities, countries, even more violently- but this felt personal, felt immediate, for the victims were in many ways living what is for me the ideal, just drinking, talking, laughing with each other at some cafe... however it is less than ideal, this is how i want to think the french think...

150919: first review: while there is certain uncertainty in characterizing an entire country as manifesting a 'style' of being, of thought, this is a helpful examination, expression, celebration of 'the intellectual' in a given world. this book is ambitious, is dedicated, is historical, is most convincing when recounting the past several hundred years- the first half of the book- which serves to give a grounding on interpreting France and her intellectuals, her elites, her peoples, throughout the 20th century and the early 21st... of other languages i have read more French authors, more French philosophers, than anywhere else. that the world needs France, needs holistic, gentle, general life, politics, society, seems to me incontestable. this does not mean it best remain nationalistic or parochial, be only 'true' french like right-wing populists want, but something of an export anywhere in the world could use...

[Jake Goretzki · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent, solid primer on French philosophy, historiography and cultural character, written by an insider and thankfully steering extremely well clear of guffawing '100 Years of Annoying the French'-level Anglobullshit. Hazareesingh really, really knows his Descartes and his Derrida and guides us through the repeating patterns of the French worldview and self-perception, from the weakness of liberalism to the immovable belief in popular sovereignty, the passion for providential leaders and rupture, the contrarianism and slow sense of declinisme that's characterised the post-WW2 era. And, of course, the vaulting contrarianism and frustrating fixation with grand concepts and abstract propositions over detail and data. But it's affectionate too - and, for me, 'really ties the room together'.

Excellent work. I could have done with a little more on Vichy and Algeria, but that's another book.

What an amazing culture though - and just so very much to admire. (I just wish they'd drop the anti-Americanism and sign up to liberalism with full gusto - they'd be absolutely amazing if they did).

Highly recommended.

[مروان البلوشي · Rating 4 out of 5]

السؤال الذي يطرحه الكتاب في بدايته بسيط : هل هناك "فكر فرنسي"؟ منظومة تفكير خاصة بالفرنسيين أو نابعة من فرنسا.
الجواب الذي يطرحه الكتاب : نعم. هناك تراكم من تقاليد التفكير في فرنسا، سواء في مجال الفلسفة أو العلوم السياسية أو الأدب أو فلسفة العلم، أو حتى تاريخ تشكل "الوطنية الفرنسية" عبر مئات السنوات الماضية.
االشئ الجيد أن الكاتب لا يبخل على القارئ بتفاصيل كثيرة عن التاريخ الثقافي لـ فرنسا، كما أن الكاتب لايتورع عن استخدام تعميمات فضفاضة بحق الفكر الفرنسي.
الكتاب يستحق عموماً قراءة سريعة.

[Jerry Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hmm. Not quite what I was expecting which was a light hearted view of how the French approach the world. This is a heavy, esoteric volume that delves deep into the history of French culture and existentialism as a means to explain how the country relates to the world and to itself. This is all very well and not uninteresting but presented in such high brow terms that is becomes hard to read and risks coming across as pretentious at times.

I am all for exploring the richness of the english language (as ironic as that may seem when discussing a book about the French) but this is taking it to a level that sometimes makes this hard to read and indeed I was unable to get into it significantly before having to return it to the library. I will probably return to it, but for the moment it seemed a little too much like hard work to me.

[Johan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Truly exceptional and so much insight. To name just one of many moments: Enjoyed particularly the critical and sharp but funny summary of Finkielkraut's pessimistic thoughts. To read and re-read this book.

[Richard · Rating 4 out of 5]

I picked this book up from a Cambridge market stall for £3.50, and that I believe encapsulates this book in its entirety; it is, by its very nature, a second-hand book. Hazareesingh manages to successfully synthesise 400 years of intellectual history into a neat 324 pages of text, available to both those with a penchant for Foucault or those who have never even heard of Napoleon. Hazareesingh is clearly very well-versed in French intellectual life, drawing on an eclectic base of both sources and thinkers to illustrate his main theses on how the French think. I think his most successful aphorism is the idea of the proselytism of ideas through the public space as being essential to the French intellectual tradition. I think this stands up particularity well as to the usage of literature to convey philosophical ideas, through great tomes such as Michelet's history of the French Revolution, or more lyrical pieces like Sartre's 'Nausea'.

Perhaps where the book falls down slightly, not allowing it to be a 5* read, is the prose itself. It really is awfully dense. It strikes me as a university-essay style book, with the constant and endless want to completely holisiticise, for lack of a better verb, the entirety of French thought. Hazareesingh is far too fond of the semi-colon, in the way I am with dashes in my texts. It's too florid in places, and alas the meaning can often be lost within a passage due to stylistic suffocation. Nonetheless, the book is not irredeemable, and for the most part can be understood.

I think that Hazareesingh is much more familiar with the content of the latter half of the book, looking at thinkers like Braudel, Foucault, Derrida and Althusser, and could be said to be much more interested in these fields. Whilst the pieces on Saint-Simon and Rousseau don't at all lack detail, it reads much less passionately and naturally than the latter half. However, this does not detract away from the seemingly Herculean effort that Hazareesingh has made in order to not make this work 4,000 pages long. Perhaps it is much more that I am less familiar with the Revolution of 1848 or the Third Republic which made me enjoy these sections less.

On the whole, I did quite enjoy this book; it was a much slower read than I originally anticipated (it's been quite a while since I read an A4 book, as it were), but nonetheless I enjoyed it a great deal.

[Magne Martin Haug · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting and well written, but basically a shallow series of quotation from many authors. A tilt towards leftism, completely ignoring important undercurrents in French intellectual life, like the impressive tradition of Catholic philosophy which has had a large worldwide influence.

[Deborah · Rating 2 out of 5]

I must have read a glowing review of this book at some point the actual book was so dense, a litany of names and theories and thoughts. It was for the most part just too much to swallow and digest.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read French history for information and a framework in which to think. For me, this book did the trick. There was the occasional jargon and odd sentence structure with its attendant ambiguity (can't believe this comes from the pen of a PhD and escaped Penguin) but I mostly learned from this book. Would actually read a second time.

Quotes and passages:

Poujadist language was notable for its crude and graphic imagery: in the run-up to the 1956 elections, its newspaper, Fraternité française, compared France to a cesspool in which the number of defecations is increasing by the day. pg. 149

Doing politics is like washing one's hands in shit. pg. 161 (quoting Proudhon)

France needs a Vladimir Putin. pg. 161 (quoting de Villiers)

Georges Duhamel described American food as leaving an aftertaste of industrial waste. pg. 222

Non merci, Oncle Sam! pg. 223

Michelet believed the historian was a giver of life, whose duty was to resurrect the past in all its dimensions, individual and collective, material and spiritual, human and natural. pg. 265

Even idiots have now stopped being happy. pg. 289

....corruption of civilization by mass culture. pg. 295

post-de Gaulle France had become a decultured nation, whose elites were spitting on its grave and trampling over its smouldering corpse. pg. 308 (quoting Zemmour)

...the year 1940 marked the moment when France ceased to be a great power... pg. 319 (quoting Gauchet)

[Nancy · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an insightful book on how the French view life and the world.

[O. · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5 stars.

How the French Think: An Affectionate Portrait of an Intellectual People by Sudhir Hazareesingh is an overview of French culture, history, and philosophy. It focuses greatly on the impact of the French Revolution and Napoleon´s leadership of France, while also including the philosophies of the Enlightenment and French politics in a way that is more or less easy to digest with some background knowledge in philosophy and politics. There is considerable concentration on The French Revolution and Napoleonic Eras and while these are intrinsic to the author´s later points, there is so little covered on modern thought and philosophy that even the overview of post-WWII France seems far too brief. Nationalism is deeply covered to an exhausting extent, and I truthfully had a hard time finishing this book. There was a ton of interesting material in it--from the occultism of various French greats to various communist sects within French society--but mostly presented within the first 50 pages of the book. Worth reading, not a waste of time, but difficult to get through after a while.

[Alex Beckett · Rating 5 out of 5]

Overall, this is an enjoyable read. It started slowly, in a way that I hadn't pre-empted when I ordered the book. It struck me as quite dry, and it felt distant, since it - naturally - began with discussion of the older, more fundamental currents of French thought, rather than the modern ones. So I set it aside for a while, and have only recently come back to read the rest this year.

After picking it back up, the remaining chapters engaged me much, much more, and I found myself reading through several in one sitting. It covers a wide-range of intellectual fields and explains trains of thought comprehensively, understandably, and makes them recognisable in modern French culture and politics (frequently highlighting highly pertinent books, intellectuals, films, etc.). For anyone interested in the French nation's penchant for pessimism, optimism, logic, paradox - essentially, in the psyche of the Hexagon and its inhabitants, I firmly recommend 'How the French Think'.

[Sam Eccleston · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a brilliant overview of French thought; exploring in equal measure the philosophical works and historical events which have provided the dialectical framework for the evolution of modern French culture. The account is nuanced enough to avoid easy and unconvincing generalisations, while at the same time saying something substantive about the distinctive approach to the world which characterises the French. Of particular interest are passages dealing with the post-mortem apotheosis of Napoleon, the spirituality of post revolutionary France, the conflict between Camus and Sartre, and the misinterpretations of French Structuralists and existentialists by their post-structuralist heirs in the American academy, all of which deserve book length treatments in their own right. The rest of the narrative is thoroughly fascinating; every page is worth the read.

[WendyRG · Rating 2 out of 5]

Everything you ever wanted to know about French thought!. The book made me think of a PhD comp exam. Every page, a new name. Every page, a different school of thought. I would have much preferred and would have learnt a lot more had he concentrated on one period instead of writing the ultimate survey course. In its defense, I did actually find the two last chapters interesting, perhaps because they dealt with France (more or less) today. (Unfortunately, the book was published after Charlie Hebdo but before the Bataclan massacre.)

[David · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ending in a triumphical optimism, made me almost forget how much I disliked large parts of the book; unorganically structured, relying on citations of others in the running text, and annoying verbal ticks (everyone "observes" things in Hazareesinghs world. It does contain interesting information, and the chapter on Sartre and the post-war era is probably the best, while only sometimes having the prose get in the way of itself. Therefore it can't be a one-star. But I didn't really like it.

[Jakub Dovcik · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really wonderful, but also quite dense, book on the history of French philosophy, literature, and thinking about the public sphere from the 18th century until the present. Written by a British-Mauritian Oxford academic studying these areas, the book manages to strike a good balance of a deep understanding of the history of French thought, while keeping a somewhat distance (although this guy really does not like Bernard-Henri Lévy).

The book is split into two halves - the first is essentially about how the French think in terms of style, approach, or methodology, where things like yearning for universality in the 18th, importance of science and occultism in the late 19th century, or somewhat a predisposition for abstract thought are explained in an interesting way from the French perspective, but can hardly be seen as unique to them. Hazareesingh traces the origins of modern French thought first to Descartes and then to Rousseau. I was surprised to learn about the impact of Saint-Simonianism in the 19th century, the contested nature and form of the Revolution in the 19th century (with July 14th being set as the national holiday only in 1880, because other possible dates, like the first meeting of the National Assembly or the establishment of the Republic being too divisive), or the nature of the French Right (with its worst effects culminating in the Vichy regime, which later meant it had to transform after the War).

The second half of the book deals with the way the French think about themselves - about their history, the role of intellectuals, how they speak to the masses or in the end, how they have 'closed their minds' and become rather pessimistic (and antagonistic towards the 'Anglo-Saxon' neoliberalism). The author admires the activism of Sartre, finds Foucault good analytically, but 'not confronting the ideas head on' and not providing real alternatives to things he critiques, and has a lot to say about the incomprehensibility of Derrida's work. This part is also interesting from an institutional perspective, as he details the shift from the dominance of the normaliens - graduates of the École normale supérieure, the philosophers, thinkers, to enarques - graduates of the now restructured École nationale d'administration, the technocratic administrators, in the French public life over the course of the late 20th century.

There are a lot of very fascinating parts within the book, like the nature of Republicanism in the 19th century (as effectively, the Left of those times), the essence of Gaullism as a neo-Bonapartist ideology (albeit transformed from a leftist to a rightist ideology), the dominance of the Communism on the French left effectively until the election of Mitterrand in the 1980s.

I read this book on a holiday in France, and it brought me a lot of joy. It is written in a rather popular-academic language, but at some points, especially later in the book, it dives maybe too deep into the literary debates.

[Christine · Rating 5 out of 5]

주로 미국, 영국의 영어권 책들을 읽다 보니 유럽인들의 생각도 알고 싶어 선택한 책이다. 프랑스 사람들의 사고방식을 설명해 주려니 했더니, 프랑스의 찐한 역사를 다 읽어낸 느낌이 들었다. 실용적인 것을 우선시하는 영국인들 과는 달리, 철학자나 작가에 대한 존경심이 강한 프랑스인들은 지식인들이 이끌어 가는 사회를 지향하고 있었다. 덕분에 데카르트, 루소, 사르트르 같은 철학자들의 사상을 더 깊이 알게 되었고, 그들이 프랑스 문화와 서양 문명의 발전에 끼친 영향력을 생각하게 했다

나는 생각함으로 존재한다(I think therfore I am)는 사유로 인해, 인간에 대한 이성적인 근거(human reaon)을 제공한 데카르트(1596년 생)는 아직도 프랑스의 국가적 상징이다. 당시에 자신들의 지식을 신에 의존한 믿음에 근거하여 판단했던 사람들에게, 지식은 조사와 검토를 근거로 해야한다는 합리성을 제공한 것이다: 도덕성을 실현하는 가장 좋은 가이드는 상식(common sense)이다. 개인의 타당한 이유(individual reason)에 근거한 사유를 주장한 데카르트의 철학은 그당시 큰 세력인 카톨릭의 엄청난 비판과 적대감을 불러온다. 이러한 사유의 주요 포인트는 철학적인 사유와 종교적인 믿음의 분리인 것이다. 궁극적으로 합리적인 사고가 종교로 부터의 자유를 얻게하고, 더하여 왕정 독재을 반대하는 공화주의자(republican)로 가는 길을 열었다고 말하여 진다.
1789년 옛 제도를 타파하고 공화정을 이루고자 했던 프랑스혁명은 프랑스역사의 큰 자부심이면서도 진보주의자와 보수주의자를 가르는 큰 분기점이 된다. 애국적이며 모든이의 동등함을 외치는 혁명주의자와 왕정의 복귀, 기독교 믿음, 계급사회로의 복귀를 꿈꾸는 보수주의.
더 나은 세상의 가능성에 대한 믿음을 가졌던 루소(Jean-Jacques Rousseau 1712-1778)의 주요 작품은 해로우며, 파괴적인 사회에 대한 공개적인 비난과 인간 재활을 통한 공화주의의 실현에 관한 것이다. 그는 동시대의 사람들에게 모던 아트나 사이언스가 유도하는 비굴하고, 기만적인 규율이나 규칙을 벗어난 자유를 찾으라고 강조한다. 또한 루소는 대다수의 삶의 기본적인 필수품도 없이 굶주림에 시달리는 민중과 소수의 기득권자가 누리는 과도한 부를 자연의 법칙에 어긋난다고 지적한다. 절대적인 자유, 더 나은 세상의 추구, 공동선인 모두의 동등함을 이루는 사회의 구현을 주장하는 루소의 주제는 당시 사회에 크게 어필한다. 1778년 이미 현저한 위치를 차지했던 루소의 주요 이상이, 연대를 통해 대중의 주권과 도덕성을 추구하는 프랑스혁명의 기본 원리로서의 역할을 하게된다.

합리성을 추구하는 이성주의에 모순적이지만, 프랑스 사회의 큰 주류를 차지했던 경향으로 초자연적이고 신화적인, 마법적인 것을 추구하는 신비주의가 있다. 신화적인 가공의 세상에 대한 추구는 영원한 지옥을 말하는 카톨릭을 대체할 만한, 사회 구성원을 묶어 하나가 되어줄 무언가를 갈구했던 집단성에서 찾아진다고 해석하고 있다.
주류 운동의 하나인 프랑스 사회주의 운동은 개인 보다는 사회의 요구를 더 중시한 '모두는 동등하며 같은 권리를 누려야 한다'는 명제를 초기 부터 받아들인다.
지금보다는 더 나은 사회, 유토피아를 꿈꾸는 프랑스인들의 성향이, 프랑스혁명을 계보로 하는 유토피안적 공산주의로 발현되는 것도 특이하다. 1980년도 죽기 전까지 큰 영향력을 가졌던, 프랑스 철학자 사르트르의 막시즘도 이 맥락에서 이해할 수 있었다. 예전에 사르트르에 관한 책을 읽었을 때가 생각나는데, 영미권에서 공산주의에 대한 무지막지한 박해가 일어나고 있을때 쏘련의 스탈린을 공히 지지하면서 쏘련을 방문하는 싸르트르를 그의 독특한 입장이라고 해석하기 어려웠기 때문이다.

개인의 절대적인 자유와 이성주의를 발달시키며 공동의 도덕적 사회를 지향하는 프랑스 사회가, 프랑스 시빌라이제이션(civilisation)으로 비문명권을 구제 한다는 임무를 수행한다는 기치하에 16세기 부터, 1960년 안티 콜로니얼 무브먼트(anti-colonial movements)에 의해 알제리아와 인도차이나를 잃기 까지 광대한 식민 제국을 운영하였다. 식민국가들의 대중들은 프랑스와는 구별되는 불평등한 법제도 하에서 통치되었고, 프랑스 시민권의 부여도 거의 없었다. 영국의 식민정책 처럼 싸게 원자재를 식민국가에서 구입후 산업제품을 만들어 팔아 큰 상업이윤을 남기는 거래를 하였고, 식민국가의 지도자로 독재자를 선호하는 정책을 펼쳤다. 프랑스인의 국민적인 비판적인 사유가 프랑스 제국주의, 식민국가를 이용해 얻는 이익에 관해 얼마나 이루어졌는지 매우 의심스럽다.

철학과 지식인들을 기리는 프랑스는, 어느나라와 비교할 수 없는 개인의 자유와 합리적 판단을 중시하는 전통이 있지만, 그와 맞서는 과거로 회귀하고자 하는 왕정주의자, 기독교 믿음의 회복과 권위주의 사회의 강점을 말하는 보수주의자와 진보주의자의 투쟁으로 프랑스 정치역사는 되풀이 된다.
2차 세계대전후, 1940년 독일에게 패한 기억과, 1960년 프랑스제국의 알제리와 인도차이나를 잃고난 프랑스는 대국이라는 허상에서 벗어나 프랑스의 쇠퇴의 징후를 겪고 있다. 제국주의 국가 영국처럼, 제국주의의 후안무치하고 모순적인 태도와 역사적 과오의 비판이 없이는 프랑스도 유럽의 여느나라와 다름없는 작은 국가로 전락 할 거라 생각든다.
국가 경영의 어려움을 이민자와 이슬람주의에 전가 하는 정치적 우파의 주장에 흔들리면서, 루소의 사상과 공화주의적 사회유산인 혁명적이고 모두가 평등하다는 신념을 져버리면서 인종차별 주의가 득세에 있다. 안타깝게도 프랑스의 지식사회에서도 지적 폐쇄성을 보이고 있다.

문명국가로 불리던 국가들의 자기 중심적인 오만한 특징을 다시 한번 확인할 수 있었던 좋은 기회였다. 아무리 찬란한 문화유산도 반성 없이 현 시대가 가꾸어 나가지 않으면 그냥 선사시대의 기록일 뿐이라 생각된다. 쉬운 리딩은 아니었지만 얻은 게 많아서 만족스럽다.

[Tom Burdge · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really enjoyed this book.
A good survey of french thought, particularly in the popular intellectual and political sphere.
The author overcomes any issues of dryness through a sprinkling of light-hearted true anecdotes; a philosopher who refused to read Foucault because he wore polo necks, and a pro-american bureaucrat whose cellar was filled with imported US-branded baked beans.

The book wouldn't serve as a good introductory reader; if you haven't heard of Chirac, Sarkozy, or D'Ormesson before you will get lost pretty quickly.

Many of the author's feelings reflect my own feeling about France's thought; a beautifully rich nation, filled with perplexing contradictions. France has produced brilliant thinkers, while its educational institutions encourage conformity. France has almost unparalleled popular anti-capitalist sentiment, but has been a pioneer of European liberalism.

I much preferred the second half, which focused on French thought post-liberation, but this may just reflect my own interests. Some of the earlier chapters didnt really capture my interests; many just tried to illustrate how important x figure (Rousseau, Descartes Toqueville) has been for french thought.

A smaller point I enjoyed is the author's complete disdain for BHL. Since Lévy remains the most well known French intellectual the author has spent a lot of time becoming familiar with Lévy's work, but he has clearly hated every minute of it. Each mention of Lévy's name includes a venomous jab at his shameless self-promotion, populist mirroring, and veiled xenophobia. In a similar vein, i found the author's treatment of French xenophobia satisfyingly nuanced throughout the whole book.

[Maksim Karliuk · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book provides a complex and fascinating portrait of the French people. One small stroke to add based on my observations while living in France, which I believe is telling about the nation. I find it amazing (and astonishing) that I can buy “The Economist” and “Philosophie magazine” in my local grocery shop (the latter is by far my favorite French journal - I have read every single issue since I moved to Paris). I mean I don’t live in a fancy arrondissement or anything. I imagine a simple French person, wondering in the shop to buy some bread and cheese, and casually picking up a philosophy journal to contemplate some ideas in the evening. And why not take a major British newspaper along? This puzzles and fascinates me at the same time. I haven’t seen this elsewhere. Generally, what I find most attractive and inspirational here is the intellectual atmosphere. It reverberates through the predominance of statues of philosophers and writers around (unlike some other places I lived in, which are dominated by the military theme), public philosophy talks (and the whole café-philo concept), and packed libraries on weekends.

[RUI ZHANG · Rating 5 out of 5]

A relatively systematic introduction to the history of French philosophy.

Descartes and Rousseau had a great influence on French philosophy. The utopian world of equality and fraternity originated from Rousseau's thoughts and was continuously developed and improved by later generations.

The reason why the French are romantic is that they always think about solving problems from a high level and ignore the multifaceted nature of reality. To put it bluntly, it is more idealistic. But it is also the pursuit of ideals by French progressivism that has promoted the development of part of civilization.

The problem with France is the disconnection between its actions and slogans, such as the way of colonial rule over the Third World.

Since the late 20th century, French intellectuals have ceased to be active, and the influence of French intellect on the West and the world has greatly weakened.

Due to the rise of neoliberalism and the demise of old ideals, France as a whole has entered a state of pessimism. The way to deal with pessimism is to focus on personal happiness and love life to fight against uncontrollable torrents.

[Nosemonkey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Terrible cover, excellent book. An amusing, affectionate yet clear eyed, engaging, and well-structured overview of the best part of 400 years of French intellectual history, with a strong emphasis on how this has influenced the present day.

First published in 2015, it not only helps contextualise and explain the rise of Macron and continued popularity of the Le Pens for those who hadn't been following French politics, but also makes clearer the wider cultural context - the longue durée, if you will, of the mindsets of dissatisfaction and discontent that saw underdogs take over and gilets jaunes take to the street. And that will, in all likelihood, see more shifts in the run-up to next year's presidential election.

I was expecting this to more or less wrap up with the usual - Foucault, Barthes, Derrida, Bourdieu and Braudrillard. The fact that it covers so much of the thinking of the last 20 years - and has so much contempt for Bernard-Henri Lévy - was a pleasant surprise I didn't know I wanted.

[Richard Liu · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hazareesingh provides a comprehensive breakdown of modern French philosophy, starting from Descartes. He covers the French thinkers’ contributions to rationalism alongside their flirtations with occultism. He leans heavily into the political philosophy of France and the near-paradoxical support for republicanism and totalitarianism. Importantly, Hazareesingh ties this history into modern times and discusses the modern landscape of French philosophy.

This book tended to be a bit abstruse and academic at times, albeit highly comprehensive. There were the familiar names such as Sartre and Victor Hugo and Rousseau who were discussed as well a lesser known names. Altogether, I learned a lot from this work but had to make it through a fair amount of density.

[Carolina Caroleta · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a French person, it was interesting to read my history through the eyes of a brilliant fellow of the British academy. It starts with our obsession with Descartes, through the « siècle des lumières » till the 19th century!
It’s a great philosophical book 📚 that I really have enjoyed reading! I would say it’s not an easy read however every page is sacred. One can tell the amount of work the author has done because it was well researched and accurate!

Vive la France!!! On aura toujours ce coté je ne sais quoi.. hahahah 🤣🙏🏻 Cette passion de débattre tout et n’importe quoi!

[Thorlakur · Rating 4 out of 5]

A brilliant outline of French thought from Descartes to the present day. Mr. Hazareesingh does a good job in explaining the everlasting French crisis and pessimism, linked with the notion that French status in the world is ever declining. This book can be recommended to all Francophiles, and Francophobes alike.

[Anand · Rating 2 out of 5]

Dense, academic, and a chore to get through. It’s a fascinating topic, but almost every fifth word ends in -ism and every fifth sentence is a quoted phrase from somewhere else. Not recommended for amateurs like me.

[Julia · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a dense history of French intellectualism. While the author has an encyclopedic knowledge of his subject, he writes in conclusory language, not stories. Did I learn from this book? Most definitely, but its writing style was dry and heavy.

[Doug Newdick · Rating 4 out of 5]

An entertaining tour through the history of French thought. Hazareesingh does a great job of explaining what is characteristic of French thought and why it is that way.