Nationism

Front Populaire

interview by Théo Debavelaere - 21 April 2025

Henri Temple: ‘Nationist analysis reinforces and structures sovereignty’

INTERVIEW. A regular contributor to the Front Populaire website, Henri Temple has published an essay on the concept of nationism (published by Sphairôs). This provides an opportunity to take stock of a little-known concept.

F.P. - You have devoted a recent book to the concept of ‘nationism’. We often hear about nationalism or patriotism, but very little, if ever, about nationism. What do you mean by this and how does this concept differ from the previous two?

H.T. : Nationism is intended to be the ‘science of nations,’ applicable to all nations of the world (I say “nations” and not ‘states’). It is a science based primarily on the observation of reality: geographical, linguistic, cultural (including religion) and historical. This initial observation gives rise to a series of consequences: psycho-sociological, social, economic, philosophical, legal and political; each consequence follows on from the previous one and then serves as the cause of the next consequence. It is this coherence of cause-and-effect relationships that gives strength to the nationist approach: realism, emotion and consensus. However, emotion and consensus, the pillars of the nation – and of a harmonious society – are crumbling in France and throughout Europe.
Nationnalism is not illegitimate if it is not aggressive towards its neighbours or, worse, if it denies its collective identity and its right to freedom; however, nationism is not a science but a political doctrine, specific to each country. As for patriotism, it is a feeling of love for one's country and culture: it is self-centred and can go as far as devotion or even sacrifice. National anthems and poems have always used familiar vocabulary: father, mother (and strangely, “motherland”!), children, ancestors...
Since these millennia-old intuitions about what makes up the emotional coherence of peoples or nations, researchers have continued to make progress in understanding the sociological unknown of nations. Our work traces the path of this progress, up to the work of Max Weber on the “purification of reality” to achieve what he calls an ideal type of social human being. A being who is the foundation of nations and their differentiations; which, in Benda's words, means that “like unites with like and separates from unlike”. But now, the social neurosciences of the 21st century are opening up extraordinary perspectives for understanding the national and cultural imprinting of the brain of the social human being. No one can now claim to be unaware of these causes of collective happiness or suffering in a given society.
 
F.P.-In the mid-1990s, Pierre-André Taguieff had already coined the term ‘nationism’ to describe republican nationism and clearly distinguish it from exclusionary nationalism. Do you think this definition is relevant?

H.T. Yes, it is very relevant: to love is not to hate, and to defend oneself is not to attack or invade.
I dedicated my research to Taguieff (with whom we had already published a collective work at Presses de la Sorbonne) and Emmanuel Todd. Taguieff introduced the conceptual term ‘nationism’ to French political science, borrowed from the American Fishman (1968). And Todd undertook a brief and profound sketch of it.
It seemed essential to me to build on these initial research findings and to explore the idea of nationism in greater depth at the beginning of the 21st century, because French intellectual and political life has been paralysed for 45 years by globalist dogmatism from Brussels, while the states of Europe – and especially France – have continued to decline in all areas, whether cultural, educational, economic, democratic, geostrategic, industrial, judicial, health, military, energy, security and migration. And the German myth has just collapsed, with added fears for Germany of losing the American nuclear umbrella, Russian gas, the US and Chinese markets...
We are therefore now faced with a fatal failure: our instinct for self-preservation dictated that we pull ourselves together.
Trump has just sounded the alarm (with a few false notes), and the time is therefore particularly ripe – even urgent – for a comprehensive reflection on the democratic way in which peoples and the territories in which they live are organised (including in terms of the national economy), but also on the nationist way in which nations should behave towards each other and respect each other. This could even involve cooperation in a confederal approach, but certainly not through merging, because a collection of nations will always be more democratic and stronger than an average, a federalist magma that is both unstructured and hyper-centralised.

F.P.-How does national sovereignty relate to nationism? Can one be a ‘nationist’ without being a sovereignist, or vice versa?

H.T. In 1789, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (incorporated into all French constitutions and many foreign ones) stated in Article III: ‘The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation...’ This applies both to the internal sovereignty of the people (true democracy) and to external sovereignty in the concert of nations (independence).
Consequently, nationist analysis necessarily leads to these two dimensions of sovereignty and reinforces them by structuring them and giving them an even more solid foundation.

F.P. -Is your book simply descriptive in nature, or do you aspire to offer a vision for France? In other words, is it an academic or political work?

H.T. “Descriptive” was not so simple in this case, because apart from a few sentences by Renan and Pierre Manent's magnificent book, there was hardly any real, coherent, comprehensive study of the nation after Marcel Mauss's failure to build a Theory of the Nation (a failure he himself acknowledged). Yet the nation is a human right and the foundation of the Republic, as the constitution reminds us.
The subject of the nation is very broad, subtle and highly complex. I therefore attempted to do more than simply describe it but – I repeat, because this is essential – in the course of my research, I discovered the coherence and sequence of the seven dimensions of nations in an immutable and universal order of links.
It is therefore not a “simple description” but a demonstration, an explanation (as in physics, crystalline growth). And this applies to all nations of the world. For centuries, and still today, powerful countries deny the existence of neighbouring countries, which constantly causes increasingly appalling wars. Humanity becomes inhuman if it rejects its nationist foundation. 
But the nationism of our work is only a rough draft and, obviously:
- as I am French, this outline draws heavily – but not exclusively – on illustrations and proposals specific to France,
- in relation to the outline, different nations and their governments follow their own particular path, too often forgetting that peace, including civil and social peace, and prosperity, which is a condition of peace, must be as close to the outline as possible.

To conclude: if the nationist explanation is correct (unless it can be proven false), it would still be necessary to explain why it should not be applied, whether to France or to other countries. Nothing in the gibberish spouted in the corridors of power in Brussels and Paris gives any hope for a responsible awareness of the situation.

.

Boulevard Voltaire

interview by Marc Baudriller - 23 June 2024

Henri Temple: ‘THE NATION AND ITS GREAT POWER HAVE MANY ENEMIES...’

Faced with the disaster of globalism, the idea of the national framework is making a strong comeback in people's minds, not only in Europe but also, more broadly, throughout the West. But beyond the natural attachment to one's homeland and nation, we must try to perceive the theoretical contours of what it covers. ‘Rousseau, the Declaration of 1789, Renan, all attempted to explain the idea of the nation, but in the end, we gave up on developing a theory,’ writes Henri Temple on the back cover of his book. It is this challenge, this essential and fascinating task, that Henri Temple, essayist, former professor of economic law and international expert, has taken on. Following his Théorie générale de la nation (General Theory of the Nation), in his latest book he constructs what he calls ‘nationism’. ‘A path opposed to globalism, nationalism, imperialism and the mystique of the state,’ he says. We interviewed him for BV.

Marc Baudriller. Do the wave of patriotism in the European Parliament and the polls favouring the RN in the legislative elections show the French people's attachment to their identity and their nation? What is the nature of this attachment?

Henri Temple. There is no doubt that the French people, increasingly anxious about their survival as a coherent nation, their physical security, their standard of living and their democratic freedom, have rediscovered that only their nation can provide them with the answers they seek. This is especially true for the most vulnerable. This was expressed so suddenly in the vote on 9 June, which had nevertheless been simmering for a long time beneath the ‘glass ceiling’.
This attachment reflects both a deep emotional attachment and an essential cultural, sociological and political consensus. This affection – which we mistakenly believed to be dormant – was reawakened at the moment, and because of, the sudden perception of a risk of disappearance: it is the instinct for self-preservation, an unstoppable force.

M. B. Cultures, languages and origins are now fragmented in France... Is the nation dead? If not, what is the place of culture and religion in the nation?

H. T. France was built over the centuries, somewhat like an empire, often by force and with the greatest diversity in Europe: four Latin languages, two Germanic languages, one Celtic language, one Basque language, and then the languages spoken on the sunny islands off the French coast. But initially, in mainland France, there was territorial and historical continuity, common and consensual values, first religious, then philosophical, social and political. This balance is vital, and it would be a violation of a collective human right (of the most powerful) to prevent the population from maintaining it.

Throughout history, nations have died, but not France. Not yet. Our people – and the other peoples of Europe – were until then hypnotised, anaesthetised; but the awakening is powerful and has only just begun.
It is often said that the Christian religion is dying out. Its traditional form, sometimes outdated and stifling, has grown old. Many have forgotten its deeper meaning, hidden beneath symbols, parables and rituals. But for more than 1,000 years, this religion has nourished our societies, improving, elevating, pacifying and developing them. Now, ‘Caesar’ (the state) has regained his freedom and neutrality and ceased his intrusion. For their part, the churches have done the same, but they have also bequeathed to us such conceptual treasures as secularism, freedom of conscience, human rights, universalism and love. Implicitly, spirituality is still there, more discreet and perhaps, at times, stronger, experienced differently: for believers and even for ‘devout atheists’!

M. B. Why a theory of ‘nationism’, a new concept? Isn't it a physical attachment that binds us to France? Why not refer instead to the homeland, the land of our fathers?

H. T. Nationism seeks to transcend patriotism. Firstly, because legitimate love for one's homeland can sometimes lead to hatred of the homeland of others: nationalism, imperialism. Secondly, because ‘physical attachment’ grows stronger with each generation! My forefathers, in Rouergue, fought many battles to defend their land: we know the names of the Ruthenian Gallic generals who fought the Roman colonisers and slave traders in 121 BC, then in 51 BC... But the sons of riflemen from Africa can feel the same fusion, the same pride, the same devotion to a collective cause. Finkielkraut has dedicated beautiful lines to this emotion that reveals itself to him, as sudden as it is unexpected: love for France. Bloch and Weil had already felt it deeply. And little by little, it is taking hold of most recent immigrants. Unfortunately, many do not succeed: this failure or bitterness has been described by sociologists and writers, some of whom are themselves immigrants. For changing one's soul is not easy, and such failure can cause dissociative identity disorder (DID) or even brain damage. Mass immigration is a sign, for those who facilitate it, of either crass ignorance or irresponsible cynicism.

M. B. Who wants to destroy the nation, and why? What threats are hanging over it?

H. T. The concept of the nation and its great power have many enemies, because their harmful and aggressive plans are thwarted by the nation and by the state that represents it. And sometimes these enemies form surprising collusions among themselves.
Humanity first suffered from imperialism and nationalism, which deny weaker nations the right to exist. Sometimes by colonising, crushing, enslaving or even committing genocide against them. These horrors were common in past centuries and reached their peak in the 20th century. Islamism, for its part, is part of the same project, given its history: it is not appeased and still serves as justification for caliphates and terrorism. For Islam can call itself the ‘nation of Allah’ and therefore has no other legitimacy than that of its goal of conquest and submission. More recently, Marxism, under the guise of internationalism, has stifled nations, sometimes in bloodshed, always in dictatorship. Finally, it is only in the last half-century or so that a new enemy of nations has emerged: ultra-capitalist and financial globalist extremism, which has set out to dismantle borders (the WTO, in collusion with the harmful Brussels bureaucracy). The economy is thus slipping away from the people for whom it was intended, becoming, in the words of Nobel laureate Stiglitz, the ‘triumph of greed’. Yet it is no small paradox that these excesses – brutal capitalist extremism, naive bourgeois bohemianism, toxic wokism and left-wing extremism – are colluding to attack the very idea of the nation. The Open Society Foundations of financial speculator and agitator Soros and his No Borders, Bilderberg, Davos, Goldman Sachs, Basel agreements, WTO, global village, relocations of factories, capital and workers... all of this aims to destroy nations and, therefore, human humanity.

M. B. How does nationism also apply to other nations?

H. T. Nationism was constructed as a series of virtuous causes and consequences... Without neglecting to honour the preliminary work on the subject by its precursors (Taguieff and Todd) or the fine work of Pierre Manent, our Essay on the Concept of Nationism is the first and only comprehensive work with such a perspective on the subject. Since Article 3 of the 1789 Declaration (‘The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation’) and Renan's few inspired pages, this fundamental subject had been forgotten in its many dimensions. Too obvious or too complex?
Yes, not only does nationism apply to all nations and, as such, it should also underpin international relations. ‘Inter-national’ relations are preferable to international relations. For a long time, and still today, the ‘Westphalian’ system is the only one known to mechanistic diplomats. Admittedly, respect for borders was, in the 17th century European kingdoms, a (rough) framework for relative peace. But sometimes, in order to ensure peace, the idea of nation must prevail over that of border. In Central Europe, countries that had been forcibly joined together peacefully separated at the end of the communist system. In Ukraine, Africa, Turkey and China, in particular, borders imprison and oppress nascent nations or, conversely, disputed borders provide pretexts for invasions.
Stuart Mill, speaking of the ‘feeling of nationality’, brilliantly stated: ‘...the right of human beings to associate themselves into nations to unite all members of the nationality under the same government, for the question of government should be decided by the governed’. And such a right is now enshrined as a human right; both the right of an individual to have a nation and, a fortiori, the right of a nation to ‘freely determine its social and cultural development...’ (Article 1 of the United Nations Covenant). Who has forgotten this right? Who is violating it?

.