Modern Political Ritual: Ethnography of an Inauguration and a Pilgrimage byPresident Mitterrand

Marc Abeles

Current Anthropology, Vol. 29, No. 3. (Jun., 1988), pp. 391-404.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0011-3204%28198806%2929%3A3%3C391%3AMPREOA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X

Current Anthropology is currently published by The University of Chicago Press.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/ucpress.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. Formore information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.orgMon Jun 11 04:52:01 2007

CURRENT Volume 29, Number 3, June 1988 ANTHROPOLOGY O 1988by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. All rights reserved OOI 1-3z04/88/z903-oooz$z.50

Modern Political Ritual

Ethnography of an Inauguration and a Pilgrimage by President Mitterrand1

by Marc AbCles

This paper examines from an anthropological perspective two rituals performed by the French president, Fran~ois Mitterrand. The first relates to the well-established custom of inauguration and commemoration. The second, the pilgrimage to Solutre, would appear to be an original invention of its protagonist. On the basis of this ethnographic analysis, it is possible to find in modem political rituals the formal procedure that anthropologists have described in traditional societies. In opposition to many who un- derline the secularization of politics in contemporary societies, it is observed here that rituals such as these visits of the president have a religious dimension. These modem rituals, which partici- pate in the construction of political legitimacy, are characterized by invention and message.

MARC A B E L ~ Sis Charge de Recherche of CNRS and a member of the Laboratory of Social Anthropology (52 rue du Cardinal Lemoine, 75005 Paris, France). Born in 1950, he was educated at the Ecole Normale Superieure (1968-73) and the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (Doctorat d'ethnologie, 1976). He has done fieldwork in Ethiopia, in southem Spain, and in the Yonne. His publications include Anthropologie et marxisme (Paris: Edi- tions Complexe, 19781, Le lieu du politique (Paris: SociCtC d'Eth- nographie, 1983), Age, pouvoir et societt? en Afrique noire, edited with Chantal Collard (Paris: Editions Kharthala, 1985), "Le degres zero de la politique" (Etudes Rurales 1986, pp. 101-21, and "L'an- thropologue et le politique" (L'Homme 26: 1-2). The present paper was submitted in final form 25 VI 87.

I. Translated by Roy Willis. An original version of this text formed the subject of a paper presented to the Colloquium at Bad Homburg October 16-18, 1986. It appeared in French in Le Temps Modernes in March 1987 and is translated here by permission of the pub- lisher.

That the governance of traditional societies is character- ized by the commingling of politics and ritual is a com- monplace for anthropologists and social historians, who are used to tracing the pansocial implications of major rites and exposing the intimate connections between power and the sacred. A substantial body of literature has been devoted to the relations between these two aspects of social life not only in non-Western cultures but also in our own history, particularly with respect to kingship and the doctrine of Divine Right. If commen- tators nowadays refer freely to the "charisma" associ- ated with certain political leaders to the extent of com- paring them to real kings, such parallels are generally proposed metaphorically-either realistically or satiri- cally, in accordance with the author's particular stand- point. However, such commentators hardly bother to draw out the sense of the metaphor or to consider the image of power thereby projected.

Occasionally the concept of "political drama" is evoked in a pejorative sense, especially in reference to the role of the news media. But the overall impression given is that the political is immersed in a sea of appear- ances that effectively masks the realities of conflict and domination. We need to remind ourselves that the dramatization of the political is not peculiar to our mod- ern civilization: witness the vivid political dramas en- acted in African kingdoms such as the S w a ~ i . ~ It will doubtless be argued that between modern politics and the customs of African monarchies or even of pre-Revolution kingship in France there intervenes the pro- cess of secularization which has separated church from state and which has entailed, at a still deeper level, a dissociation between political power and the sacred. Ac- cording to this view, modem political "show business" represents a new way of portraying power, in which coercive relations and the juxtaposition of crude images tend to obliterate awareness of any fixed referent, either transcendant or immanent (God, the Law).

Attractive though it may seem, this idea of the polit- ical seems unduly schematic. One can certainly admit, with Habermas (1986[1962]:241), that the "public polit- ical sphere" has undergone a remarkable evolution since the Enlightenment, to the extent that it "has been taken over by techniques of demonstration and manipulation invented by organizations that construct a 'publicity' from which the subordinated 'public' has been ex-cluded." But does the analogy between political compe- tition and a great market in which new "products" are paraded before the public according to the latest com- mercial and advertising techniques adequately describe relations between professional politicians and their fel- low citizens? And should these latter, at least in demo- cratic societies, be equated with consumers, albeit fickle ones?

Evidently, the question of political drama is insepara- ble from the complex question of political representa- tion in modern society. At this point the analysis of

2. The Ncwala, the great annual ritual of the Swazi, described by Kuper (1947:197-225], explicitly generates the powers of kingship.

392 1 C U R R E N T A N T H R O P O L O G Y Volume 29,Number 3, Tune 1988

contemporary society would seem partially to invalidate the notion of total secularization of political life in favor of a less strictly evolutionist view of matters. If we ex- amine political ritual in present-day France, we find our- selves dealing with relations of abiding complexity, as Lefort (1986) has emphasized, between the political and the rel igiou~.~ That is why I have chosen to consider from an anthropological perspective two rituals per- formed by a particularly typical statesman, namely, the President of the Republic, Fran~ois Mitterrand. The first ritual relates to a well-established custom, that of inau- gurations and commemorations such as are regularly at- tended by elected representatives in the course of their duties. The second ritual would appear to be an original invention and also contains information about the per- sonal history of its protagonist. Analysis of the charac- teristics of these kinds of political practice leads us to question the adequacy of the very idea of "ritual," and deeper study of these public procedures may enable us better to understand the function of political ritual in terms of legitimacy.

A Presidential Day

On February 14, 1986, President Mitterrand went to Nievre, a department for which he had been the elected representative for more than 30 years, right up to his accession to the supreme office. The official purpose of this journey was to inaugurate the new railway station at Nevers (the principal town of the department). The remainder of the day was to be devoted to other acts of commemoration and inauguration, such as the bestowal of decorations on various local personalities: a full day that was to take the president all over the department. Let us now follow M. Mitterrand and his entourage: we shall also take note of the various local and national press commentaries that marked this visit and effec- tively made an event of it.

On this Friday a special train conveyed the president, accompanied by the state secretary for transport and the president of the state railway corporation, from Paris to Nevers. The journey became the occasion for a free- wheeling discussion with journalists, and inevitably in- terest focussed on the legislative elections, due within a month; on this topic M. Mitterrand observed that his pronouncements placed him "very much in advance" of his predecessors. According to him, the elections would follow a pattern already laid down by the presidential campaign: "Undoubtedly the legislative elections will take just that shape." As to a possible "deal" over the premiership, the president emphasized that he would choose "whomever he wishes" as prime minister. This concern over the proper preeminence of the head of state

3. Lefort rightly emphasizes the interrelation of the political and religious dimensions, noting in this connection that "it is impossi- ble to separate what belongs to the elaboration of a political form . . . from what belongs to the elaboration of a religious form" (p. 261).

did not in any way imply denying the future prime minister access to certain spheres of activity: "The prime minister has every right to contribute to all polit- ical debate outside the province of the president."

These carefully constructed statements did not, of course, go unnoticed. The following day they made the headlines in the political columns of the major newspa- pers: "The Premier According to Fran~ois Mitterrand" (Le Monde, February 17); "I Remain Very Much in Ad- vance of My Predecessors" (La Montagne, February I S ) ; "Mitterrand: Diplomacy a Job for the Prime Minister" (Le Matin, February IS). From the presidential journey in Nievre, the national dailies and the television service selected these brief statements relating to the manner of selecting a prime minister and to the role assigned to him by the occupant of the ElysCe Palace. However, the actual day in Nievre had yet to begin: it was I I :14 A.M.

when the train arrived at the station. The building was bedecked with both the national colors and those of the town.

The main element of the ritual performed by the presi- dent was the inauguration of Nevers railway station. On his arrival, M. Mitterrand was welcomed by the deputy mayor of Nevers (M. Beregovoy, minister of economics and finance), the president of the department's General Council, another deputy for Nievre, the regional prefect, and the departmental prefect. The red carpet had been duly rolled out, and the president emerged into the sta- tion courtyard, where he reviewed a detachment of the Seventh R.A. To the applause of the crowd, estimated by the journalists as close on a thousand people, he moved towards the station entrance. For a moment, together with the stationmaster, he contemplated the building. Then he cut the symbolic red ribbon and unveiled the plaque commemorating this inauguration. Followed by several hundred invited guests, M. Mitterrand was shown around the premises by the regional director of the railway corporation. ~ w e l v e minutes later, he re- turned to the grand concourse, where he made a speech on a modest platform specially constructed for this pur- pose. The president spoke after listening in turn to the words of Nevers's deputy mayor and the president of the railway. The speeches were relayed through loudspeak- ers to the crowd gathered outside the station. His ad- dress concluded, M. Mitterrand laid a wreath in memory of the railwaymen who had died for their country, in the Dresence of the veterans' standard-bearer. He next moved towards the buffet, where refreshments had been prepared for the guests, pausing on the way to sign two copies of his recently published book, Rkflexions sur la politique extkrieure de la France, and present them to the station library. Without pausing at the buffet, the president went out into the courtyard and mingled con- vivially with the crowd before getting into his car and heading for La Baratte, the hall that houses the annual Nivernais-Morvan Exhibition. Accompanied by the di- rector of the exhibition. M. Mitterrand visited the nearlv completed new hall. This visit provided an opportunity for several minutes' conversation with the former mayor of Nevers and several other guests.

A B E L B S Modern Political Ritual I 393

At half-past twelve the head of state took a helicopter trip to Lormes, a cantonal headquarters situated within the parliamentary constituency he had represented. The pretext for this visit to his fief of Morvan was the inves- titure of the general councillor of Lormes with the Le- gion of Honor. On his reception at the town hall, M. Mitterrand made a short speech in which he expressed his pleasure at once again meeting with friendly and loyal people: "I see here many familiar and friendly faces. This is a special occasion for me." Addressing himself to the general councillor whom he had come to decorate, the president evoked the past: "I knew your father, a respected and conscientious craftsman of deep political convictions." Remembrance and also attach- ment to the land of Morvan were signalled in the presi- dent's assertion, "If I were in need of reassurance-which I must hasten to add I am not-it is to this place that I would come for it" (Le Journal du Centre, February I S ) . With this ceremony the morning's business con-cluded with a private luncheon for I s guests provided by the general councillor of Lormes.

M. Mitterrand's day in Nevers was by no means over. We find him again at 3:30 P.M. inaugurating a block of 27 apartments at La Charite-sur-Loire. An old building had been renovated for this purpose. Numerous local per- sonalities accompanied the president, including the dep- uty mayors of Nevers and Cosne-sur-Loire, the local di- rector of housing, and the local senator. The press photographers recorded the "affectionate gesture" with which M. Mitterrand embraced a little girl before cut- ting the inaugural ribbon. From his address, what was particularly noted was his insistence on "the will for renewal of this commune, in the context of the general renewal" (La Montagne, February I S ) . Once again, M. Mitterrand told of "the pleasure I feel at being among you, together with my sense of the historic significance of this place." The faces of those present betrayed their emotion. This was the moment to proceed with the in- vestitures: two general councillors and a mayor were made respectively officer and knights of the Legion of Honor. "A signing of the goldw book, several auto- graphs, a kiss for the little girl, a warm handshake for Adrien Langumier who has come from Saint-Amand-en- Puisaye for this little exchange of civilities . . . the Presi- dential visit was over in less than an hour," reported La Montagne.

A little later, the presidential helicopter touched down at Chatillon-en-Bazois. M. Mitterrand's purpose in com- ing here was to unveil a plaque in memory of the founder of a children's village, a man who was also his deputy when he was deputy mayor of Chateau-Chinon. The ceremony was performed in the presence of the dead man's widow, currently the guiding spirit of the village. In his speech, the president emphasized the importance of this kind of enterprise and observed that "the village has been part of the larger movement which has led to Nievre's being the department that has best understood childhood"-(Le Journal du Centre, February I S ) . After decorating another woman, who is handicapped and comes from Corbigny and who is also extremely active

in the affairs of her commune, the president made a point of devoting the last moments of this visit to an- swering questions from the press. It fell to a young woman to have the privilege of questioning M. Mitter- rand, and she simply asked him, "What do you think about world hunger?" At 6:os P.M. the presidential helicopter took off; the constraints of protocol had been observed for nearly five minutes.

A study of the different phases of M. Mitterrand's visit to Nievre gives one the sense of being present at a major ritual in which the combination of spoken words, significant acts, and manipulated objects (cf. LCvi- Strauss 197 I :600) brings into play the symbolism of rela- tions between political power and civil society. We see here the bringing together of an ensemble of coded be- haviors, whose meaning is well understood by the differ- ent participants, around certain "focalizing elements" (blbments focalisateurs) that mark the highlights of the presidential day. Pierre Smith, to whom I am indebted for this expression, has rightly emphasized one of the characteristics of ritual, dramatization, the acting out of performances that mobilize public support. When we look at M. Mitterrand's journey, the dual dimensions of ritual are clearly apparent: on the one hand, a high de- gree of formalization, given that all the acts are thor- oughly codified, from the cutting of the ribbon at the station to the investiture of new knights of the Legion of Honor; on the other hand, the promotion of a high de- gree of emotion in the participants.

Let us try to understand better this curious contrast between formalism and artifice, drama and sentiment, that lies behind the ritual. Here one may readily agree with Pierre Smith's contention that an inauguration is no more than a "symbolic act." There can hardly be a French citizen who has not been present at some time at a performance of this sort. Each one knows the scenario beforehand. Taken individually, each participant will readily concede that both the organizers and the public could put the time taken up by this ceremony to better use. It will also be generally agreed that there is "ar- tificiality" in certain types of behavior adopted by the principal protagonists, behavior expressive of respect, meditation, emotion, etc. In this sense, the ritual func- tions as what Smith calls a "snare for thought," in which everything is acceptable because no one asks more in that moment than to believe. No one would have turned down his invitation to attend the inauguration of Nevers railway station; and so the photographers recorded the expressions, respectful or admiring, of those members of the public who were present when M. Mitterrand un- veiled the plaque in memory of his old deputy. More- over, no one would dare to talk aloud or look cheerful during the minute's silence.

Comedy? Conjuring tricks? In reality, it is obvious that everyone believes: the ritual does not generate but presupposes solidarity. To understand this it is neces- sary to consider the second dimension of the ritual, which I shall call "contextual dramatization" and which produces, I believe, the "snare for thought." If we take into account the totality of the acts performed by the

394 1 C U R R E N T A N T H R O P O L O G Y Volume 29, Number 3, Tune 1988

president during this day of February 14, we see that they compose a series of movements. Besides the initial train journey to Nevers, the sites of Lormes, La CharitC- sur-Loire, and Chatillon-en-Bazois constitute the stages of this pilgrimage. One may further suggest that the to- and-froing all over Nievre is the central "focalizing ele- ment" of this ritual. Thus the various celebrations are grouped around an action which provides the real significance of this day: the movement of M. Mitterrand from the center to the periphery and then, as if into an abyss, from the departmental headquarters to outlying localities. The inauguration of the Nevers station sym- bolizes in itself the permanence of the exchanges repre- sented by this political man between the abiding coun- tryside, in which he finds the source of his legitimacy, and the capital city, from which it is his task to attract financial manna for the benefit of his de~ar tment .~

M. Mitterrand's s ~ e e c h at Nevers at the outset of his visit clearly illustraies these themes. In it he evokes the atmosphere of railway stations and their significance in the daily life of the politician: "I have travelled by rail so many times, and very frequently on the Paris-Nevers line." And he goes on to say, "I have crossed this grand concourse [of the station] so many times: this station has been associated with manv im~ortant moments in , A

my life, some fraught with uncertainty, others with hope; as a result I have a kind of personal attachment to it" (La Montagne, February IS) . Hence a return to Ne- vers, and a fitting one, for in the context of exchange between territorial and national collectivities, it is only right that the president should remember the parlia- mentary representative that he once was and the land which engendered his political career. He had himself made sure that Nevers acquired a new station: "We are workinn for France. but it is not forbidden to work also .,for Nievre. It is not a matter of privilege but of due rec- ompense." But this celebration contains a deeper con- cern, for the president is visiting his friends, and is glad of it: "It is a great pleasure for me to be in Nevers this morning, to be in Nievre. . . . we comprise some sort of community."

In the course of his iournev M. Mitterrand makes nu- merous references to' his delight at being among his faithful followers, his "old stagers." The tour of the de- partment represents a return to his roots, as the opening address at Nevers station makes clear: "Nievre remains for me, and in both senses of the term, a place of elec- tion. As for me, I prefer that sense which refers to a

4. As I have noted elsewhere (AbC1i.s 1986), the marked polycen- trism of the French system implies a perpetual to-and-froing from the central to the local and vice versa; a deeply entrenched local base, often translated into an accumulation of successive electoral mandates, is the minimal but essential precondition for the achievement of "national" legitimacy. M. Mitterrand's tour bears witness to the graduated relationship between the elected person and his constituency: he returns there only to obtain this fresh endorsement which communicates legitimacy confirmed. By way of comparison it will be recalled that it was from Chamalikre, his local town, that Valery Giscard dlEstaing announced his candidacy for the presidency in 1974.

heartfelt choice, to the friendship and gratitude I owe to this people, loyal through the years" (La Montagne, Feb- ruary I 5). Friendship and loyalty are two themes central to the presidential message, associated with a certain stubbornness, the "solidarity" referred to a little later during the visit to Morvan.

The image of return recurs again in this reference to Nikvre: "It is here perhaps that I have most readily been able to relate directly to the men and women of a de- partment" (La Montagne, February I 5). This is a para- digmatic instance of political discourse, for the quasi- transparency of the relationship between the elected and the electorate in Nievre on this fourteenth day of Febru- ary, 1986, also reveals an underlying uncertainty. For all that the topic is never explicitly raised, everyone is aware of the imminent national elections, the possibil- ity of the coexistence of a president and an executive of opposed political allegiances and all the potential for conflict inherent in such an outcome. The tour of Nievre is in part an acting out of a reply to these unspoken questions. The opening address at Nevers proclaims a return to origins, as in this evocation of the past: "I spent my earliest years in the shadow of a railway station, because when I was born my father had just left Montlu- Gon, where he was stationmaster. All the men of my family for the two preceding generations, my father and grandfathers, had been railwaymen" (La Montagne, Feb- ruary 1s).

The inauguration of Nevers station thus serves as the occasion for a return to origins: the elected one is reunited with his loyal followers, and the son remem- bers his forefathers. The speech at Nevers lays out, as it were, the ritual program. The actions which thereafter punctuate the presidential progress make visible this "journey to the heart of legitimacy" in the manner of royal progresses recorded by anthropologists in certain African kingdoms (cf. Evans-Pritchard 1962 (19481, Izard 1973). Obviously we are dealing here not with a quest of the kind characteristic of royal enthronments but rather with the symbolic reaffirmation of a continuing rela- tionship between the president and the country. The tour of Nievre constitutes in this sense one of those "occasional rituals" defined by Smith (1979:147) as "based on the idea of a disorder that must be dealt with."

The formula adopted conforms wholly to a traditional pattern, from the beribboned bouquet to the fanfare at the reception. The day is thus composed of monotonous sequences informed to the point of satiation by what Claude LCvi-Strauss describes as the two characteristic procedures of ritual: minute division and repetition. Di- vision is manifest in the decomposition of the principal action in each sequence into a multiplicity of speech and actions. For example, at La CharitC-sur-Loire the inaugu- ration of the 27 apartments includes in succession the greetings to those responsible for the operation, the ar- chitect's exposition to the president, the cutting of the ribbon, a hasty visit to one apartment, the hearing of a piece of music played by the local philharmonic or- chestra, a motorcade to the festival hall, a visit to a museum, a reception comprising the senator's address

and that of the president, the bestowal of decorations, and the signing of the town's Golden Book.

It would be superfluous to emphasize the repetitive character, from one place to another, of these operations to do with decorations, inaugurations, etc. LCvi-Strauss's (1971:602) comment on certain rituals of the Navajo is relevant here: "at the price of a considerable expense of words, the ritual becomes an orgy of repetitions." This ensemble of microsequences linked together without a break confers on political ritual a special atmosphere. On the one hand, there are real events of genuine collec- tive interest, concrete gains accrued by reason of the eminent political role acquired by Nikvre's political rep- resentative; on the other, the whole celebration occurs on the margin of ordinary life, in a special time that forms a kind of parenthesis as much in relation to the normal preoccupations of the participants as to the cares of government one would generally associate with the office of President of the Republic.

This contrast between ritual time and the general con- juncture in which it is inscribed in fact constitutes a necessary condition for the setting up of the "snare for thought." All the participants lay aside their ordinary activities for several hours to join with the principal officiant in a ceremony to effect a double homage: on the one hand dedicated to the elected one, to the "sover- eign," on the other by the president to the department, whose heroic notables he continuously extols. This quasi-religious aspect of the political ritual is perceptible in the actions and even in the looks of both parties. Public attention is riveted on M. Mitterrand as if he were, in decorating one of the guests or in going into an apartment, performing some mystic act. Like a priest performing his office, the president concentrates on his every move, and no one would think of distracting him from the task in hand. He himself walks among his fol- lowers, sometimes slightly in front, his eyes on the hori- zon, except for the brief moments when his gaze settles on an individual who is receiving a decoration or whom a short exchange of words rescues for a few seconds from anonymity.

In a centralized political system it is hardly surprising that a presidential act, even if not seen as an event at the national level, nevertheless makes some impression there. Even so, one may wonder to what extent an of- ficial day spent in a department is also intended to affect the global society. Does the symbolic efficacity of this kind of ritual exceed the boundaries of the territory to which it is devoted? A reading of the national daily newspapers enables one to gauge the effect of M. Mitter- rand's tour of Nievre on French politics. I have quoted several newspaper comments which dwelt on the pros- pect of the elections. As far as the journalists were con- cerned, what seemed to be important was said in the train before the beginning of the presidential tour. It would appear the ritual served as a pretext whereby the president could feed the media with one or two carefully chosen phrases.

On further examination, it seems that an interpreta- tion distinguishing two kinds of messages according to

A B ~ L ~s Modern Political Ritual I 395

their purpose, one being "political significance," the other "ceremonial offered to the department," does not suffice. Obviously, the correspondent of Liberation is not concerned about the details of the station inaugura- tion. For its part, Le Monde, while satisfied with a sum- mary of the remarks of the president during his inter- view with the journalists, returns a couple of days later to the tour of February 14 and devotes to it three lines, not without a touch of humor: "The president Nikvre has given France, according to M. Pierre Beregovoy, the mayor M. Mitterrand has given Nikvre, still owes some- thing to his department. . . . M. Mitterrand had the right to all the flummery of a full-dress official visit . . ." (Le Monde, February 17). Behind the simple words of these national journalists there lies the outline of a negative message projected by the president. "M. Mitterrand 'in- augurated the chrysanthemums,' as the late General de Gaulle might have said, all through that day of Friday, February 14. But after March 16 it will be a different story" (Le Monde, February 17). And was not this the essence of the matter, the simple idea offered to the public-an idea which could be paraphrased as "See me playing the role of a president in the style of the Fourth Republic! But know well that I will never be confined to such a role!", a message in the form of a paradox well summed up in the opening address at Nevers (Le Monde, February 17): "I am not particularly keen on inau-gurations"?

The day in Nikvre, thus placed in perspective by its principal protagonist and transferred to the context of the ongoing political debate on the role of the President of the Republic in the event of a victory by the opposi- tion in the legislative elections, takes on a special significance. It is the irreducibility of presidential power that M. Mitterrand is reaffirming, in the face of public opinion. That at least is the sense of the image of the ceremonial occasion as reflected in the mirror of the national dailies. As in many other societies, political ritual is eloquent here, simultaneously evoking the rep- resentative character of the president as the choice of the people and the authority he exercises as a head of state. But whereas the inauguration of the Nevers station and the subsequent celebrations all serve to highlight the first term-the relation between the elected one and civil society-the second term becomes evident only when studied in the context of a speech act endowed with its strict rhetorical sense of antiphrasis, pure and simple.

The consistency and polysemic range of the ritual un- doubtedly derive in part from the multiplicity of regis- ters employed, in part from this insertion of the sa- cralized act into a field of communication shared by the global society. The president's art consisted in adhering scrupulously to a model belonging to the Republican tradition while using its symbols, its actions, even its time to express something quite other than what would have come across in a speech or a press interview. Here there is an instructive parallel to be noted between the practice of M. Mitterrand and that of General de Gaulle. It is well known that the latter, an expert in the matter

396 1 C U R R E N T A N T H R O P O L O G Y Volume 29,Number 3, June 1988

of communication, never showed much interest in the classical duties of a president (inauguration, commem- oration, etc.). Certainly the general did not neglect pro- vincial tours, as Viansson-Ponte (1963) has reminded us in a work devoted to Gaullist ritual: "[The provincial visit] is considered so important that despite its time- consuming and tiring character it is systematically undergone, department by department, and so it will be to the end" (p. 35). But these journeys executed at break- neck speed were ill-suited to the communicative ardor of De Gaulle, who had discovered in television the ideal medium to embody the relationship uniting him with the nation. Viansson-PontC has admirably described those grand moments when the general gave a press con- ference: "It is a sung High Mass, a major ritual endowed with all the ceremony of a sacred holiday" (p. 46). For his part, M. Mitterrand has shown little inclination to culti- vate this medium. Less at ease than his predecessor when addressing the French directly, he has, contrari- wise, become master of the art of communicating his ideas, of lightly suggesting his intentions, in contexts where a few words (conversational, reflective, confes- sional) can be contained within a series of ritualized acts-such as the tour of Nievre-so that they come to signify more than the words themselves. This mastery was particularly evident in another ritual that appears to have been a true creation ex nihilo. And here the con- straints of protocol are relaxed to permit a celebration which was originally more intimate but after 1981 took on quite another significance.

The Pilgrimage to Solutr6

Since May 10, 1981, journalists have grown accustomed to travelling to SolutrC on the Monday of Pentecost, there to follow the pilgrimage performed by M. Mitter- rand. Here we have a case of a national political ritual with the peculiarity of having been to some extent in- vented by its principal protagonist. The rock of Solutre is a prehistoric site5 in the heart of Bourgogne that domi- nates the surrounding vineyards of Pouilly and the Saone Valley. A walker who takes the trouble to ascend this high point reaches, by rather a steep path, an altitude of 495 m, from which may be contemplated the peaceful and fertile countryside, soaked in immemorial tradi- tions.

Since 1946 M. Mitterrand has made an annual pilgrim- age to SolutrC to relive in memory the war years when, newly escaped from Germany, he went into hiding nearby. He was given refuge by the Gouze family along with other notable members of the Resistance such as Henri Frenay and Bertie Albrecht. It is common knowl- edge that soon afterwards the future president married

5. At the foot of this rock, a pile of horses' bones and lithic tools dating to the Upper Palaeolithic were discovered in 1864. Accord-ing to legend, these prehistoric horses threw themselves, for un- known reasons, from the top of SolutrC Rock.

one of his hosts' daughters. Until 1981 the ascent of Solutre was part of just such an intimate ritual as anyone might perform to commemorate a comparably signifi- cant episode in life. M. Mitterrand would here rediscover a familiar countryside in the company of a few intimate friends: "I like to spend a long time looking at the view. There I understand better what is happening, what has been happening, and-above all-what is unchanging" (Mitterrand 1975 :I 84). A suitable occasion for quiet thought, the pilgrimage to SolutrC thus afforded a mo- ment of escape from the distractions of public life.

Once become President of the Republic, M. Mitter- rand remained attached to the ritual he had created. This indeed continued substantially unchanged, except that journalists were invited to follow the presidential prog- ress. The order of the ritual comprised three successive stages:

First, the ascent of SolutrC Rock accompanied by the "faithful": this was the opportunity for the photogra- phers to bombard the illustrious walker with their cameras. The resulting pictures presented an image of the president's physical condition. It was as if, every year, the latter was obliged to bear witness, in action, to the excellent state of his health. M. Mitterrand's cloth- ing also provided cause for comment. Trousers of ribbed velvet or of linen, sport shirt, linen hat or cap, walking stick, here was a statesman free of the constraints of protocol taking his ease late in the morning. "The man who walks at its [the procession's] head, cane in hand, wearing a kind of angler's linen hat, has an appearance of serenity, as if momentarily relieved of his cares. The weather is fine" (Le Monde, May 24, 1986).

The president an angler? At all events, here the dress makes the man: velvet and linen, beige or chestnut in color, suggest a closeness to the earth, a rustic simplicity that recall the attachment of the occupant of the ElysCe Palace to the values of the soil. One detail is illuminat- ing in this respect. Whereas in previous years the jour- nalists had reported the president as wearing plimsoles, M. Mitterrand informed them during the 1985 pilgrim- age that his shoes were of another kind, "made at Chateau-Chinon in a factory called Morvan-Chaussures, I think" (Le Monde, May 25, 1985). The choice of a local product made not far away, in the president's old con- stituency, is eloquent testimony to the territorial mean- ing of the ritual.

As a commemoration of the welcome he received here in a difficult time and of the marriage he made, here in Bourgogne, with a family and with a place, the ascent phase of the ritual has a double significance. Here, on one side, is a man who has sworn never to forget and who has come to steep himself in the contemplation of a past both somber and glorious; at the summit of the rock M. Mitterrand can also meditate in peace on the future of the country. But at the same time the ascent of Solu- tre Rock is not made by one man alone. Everything here reminds us of alliance and loyalty: the presence of the president's family and of his friends' spouses and chil- dren, the atmosphere of a spring outing, in all this the ritual presents the image of a shared well-being. It is

thus described by one of the journalists present (Libera-tion, June 11, 1984):

Gilbert Mitterrand and the children, Mme. Hernu and other friends from the rue de Bievre sun themselves at the summit. Towards 12: 30 P.M. the advance guard arrives. The sunburned Roger Hanin, Mme. Lang and her daughter, Georges Fillioud, Jean Riboud. For secu- rity reasons, they are not without a following. The party breaks up to allow Fran~ois Mitterrand to arrive incognito. Riboud, sporting big sunglasses, takes Fil- lioud by the arm, he wearing zip-fastened slacks: "Georges, what has happened to our things?" At 12:30 P.M. the president is announced. Fran~ois Mit-terrand in the lead, then Hernu, Attali, Francheschi. . . . the president tells the children: "Be careful, don't take risks!" To the journalists who surround him: "You are blocking my view!"

The second phase of the ritual brings the participants together in a nearby restaurant, La Grange au Bois. Here we again find the good-natured atmosphere of SolutrC. On the menu card is inscribed: "The Mitterrand familv relax over lunch in the wine country." After this meai, shared by those described by the press as "close friends and neighbors" of the president, there comes the great communicative moment of the day. Neither formal con- ference nor anodyne dialogue, the conversation between M. Mitterrand and the representatives of the press seated around him provides the president with an opportunity to express himself on current matters of concern in an atmosphere of calm and, even, confidentiality.

It will be seen that SolutrC is also the occasion to de- liver certain anticipatory messages about likely political developments. During the 1986 pilgrimage the head of state indicated how he intended to coexist with the new majority, and he let it be understood that the signing of ordonnances on denationalization and the redrawing of electoral boundaries would pose problems. Several months later the French could appreciate the continuity of presidential policy in these matters. Other statements by M. Mitterrand in previous years were also predictive; thus, in 1984, when asked about the head of the govern- ment, the president replied: "The prime minister has plenty of qualities, much merit, much courage and sen- sitivity. He works a lot. It would not be easy to find another with such qualities. But such exist, I hope" (Le Monde, June 12, 1984). A month later Laurent Fabius replaced Pierre Mauroy, who was certainly accumulat- ing a great many superlatives. The headlines of the newspaper reports on the SolutrC pilgrimage indicate rather clearly how these forecasts are understood: "Mit- terrand: What I Know About Post-1986" (Liberation, May 2, 1985); "Mitterrand on His Rock: He Refuses to Give Up Any of His Rights" (Le Quot iAen de Paris, May 27, 1986). The year 1985 provided the president an op- portunity to loose several shots at his political oppo- nents. For M. Giscard dlEstaing, who would certainly see -,

the president of a future coexistence retiring to Ram- bouillet: "I believe he liked Rambouillet [an allusion to his predecessor's passion for the hunt]. That didn't hap-

A B ~ L E ~Modern Political Ritual I 397

pen in his case [Giscard won the legislative elections of 19781. Why do you want it to happen in mine?" (Le Monde, May 27, 1985). One could well evoke other statements by the president, other throw-away lines which delighted the journalists. The inimitable tone of the SolutrC conversations, a mix of reflections on the solitary exercise of power and very concrete observa- tions about the immediate concerns of the French, have made this pilgrimage a veritable "present-day classic."

This is a strange evolution of this intimate ritual that after 30-odd years has become an element in a com- municative strategy. Having become substantially polit- ical, this ritual might seem in some way "denatured," a mere pretext for the media operations beloved of pres- ent-dav commentators. But to dwell exclusivelv on this latter aspect of the presidential day would be ;o go too far, reducing the message of the ritual to what the presi- dent says. While keeping track of the president, the an- thropologist must contest the type of approach that tends to impoverish the significance of the event as a whole. What we have seen is first an ascent, and the theme of verticalitv has its im~ortance in Mitterrandian symbolism. At the'time of hisAinstallation in May 1981, the head of state went up, followed by many Parisians, to the top of the Montagne Sainte Genevieve to meditate inside the Pantheon. The ascending character of this kind of movement partly reflects the protagonist's posi- tion in the political hierarchy. We have seen that the descent from SolutrC provokes no comment, being merely the necessary complement of the presidential outing. The ascent gives evidence, as we have seen ear- lier, of the resident's state of health. The ritual thus makes visibie the man invested with supreme power, exposing a president walking with his family and friends. But it is also apparent that the ascent not only tells us about the man but equally serves as the prelude to deeper reflection. As at the Pantheon, though in a very different mode, the president has a rendezvous with history at the summit: a very ancient history being ex- posed by the local archaeologists and much more recent events to do with the Resistance, but in both cases con- cerning France and its greatness.

Here we come upon the authentically religious dimen- sion of the political ritual: exactly as during the tour of Nievre, the sacred is here invoked. But at SolutrC we are dealing with a dialogue between Mitterrand the man and the transcendent history of France, whereas the first ritual concerned the elected one and the Republican tradition. While it is true that the tour of Nievre and the SolutrC pilgrimage participate alike in the construction of the president's legitimacy, the second ritual has a par- ticular originality, introducing a new tradition made en- tirely of symbols created by M. Mitterrand himself: the place, the kind of movement, the meditation at the sum- mit, etc. By combining the registers of the mundane and the sacred, the ritual provides an arresting summation of the different facets of Mitterrand's personality, at the same time as it tends to establish him as a mythological hero in an arresting face-to-face with the nation and with history. No pomp or fanfare here, but the represen-

398 1 C U R R E N T A N T H R O P O L O G Y Volume 29, Number 3, fune 1988

tation of an unswerving loyalty to a land and a people among whom the president has fought.

In the Solutre ritual the ~ u b l i c man is fused with the private, the mundane merges with the sacred to enrich the personage of the president with a more authentic dimension. In this sense the ritual constructs a richer and more complex image of its protagonist than emerges from the customary eulogies of the president in the news media. These media obscure the passion, and where General de Gaulle managed through his televised "High Mass" to evoke a truly spiritual relation with the coun- try, M. Mitterrand remains one seen initially as just a major politician. During the Solutre pilgrimage, on the contrary, the political "message" simply prolongs a more lofty kind of thought. Admittedly, the ritual's invi- tation to a conversation with journalists might appear somewhat artificial, destroying in some sort the har- mony of this "family outing," or to reintroduce the con- tingency of the present immediately after a moment of withdrawal. In other words, what makes this day of Pentecost propitious for the public display of the thoughts of the head of state?

To answer this question, it is necessary to refer to the meaning of Pentecost in the Christian tradition. We know &at this festival commemorates, 50 days after Easter, the effusion of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles and the disciples of Christ. According to the Acts of the Apostles (2: 1-41), the disciples who had scattered after the arrest of Jesus returned to Jerusalem and passed their days in prayer in a high room. The fiftieth day after the Resurrection of Christ, being assembled to the number of 120 and praying, they were suddenly filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in foreign tongues they had never learned. At that time there were at Terusalem Jews who had come from all over the world to be present at the festivals and who were astonished by this strange phenomenon and accused the disciples of drunkenness. Peter then spoke in reply to this accusation, and 3,000 people were instantly converted by his words. The mira- cle of Pentecost thus marked the beginning of a new era: tongues were unleashed, and prophecy exploded through those who had adopted the new faith.

Without making any pretence of finding in this refer- ence to the Acts of the Apostles any sort of key to the understanding of the Solutre ritual, one point should be noted nonetheless: the descent of the Holy Spirit shows itself in the immediate ability to understand and be understood. Whether or not the choice of this dav for frank discussion with the representatives of the &or- mation media was intentional, it still takes on a partic- ular significance in this eminently religious context. Whereas the interview with the journalists appears at first sight as a profane interlude contrasting with a ritual that sets up a relation between the man and tran- scendence, the reference to the miracle of Pentecost in- troduces ;true continuity between the different mo- ments of the presidential day. More, it generates a context of enunciation propitious to the mode of com- munication adopted by the head of state: confidential and at times, if not prophetic, at least inclined to predic- tion.

Observing this interweaving of a religious motif and profane intentionality allows us the better to understand the true complexity of the political ritual. It is evident that this ritual comports a relation to the sacred. In de- creeing the separation of church and state, secular France has not effaced a religious dimension which is one with the Republican p r ~ j e c t . ~ The visits of M. Mit- terrand to Nievre and SolutrC afford the opportunity to evoke those transcendent values called Nation, Re-public, Land, Family, History. There is thus no differ- ence in kind between the political rituals of traditional societies and those contemporaneous with us. Like other leading statesmen, the President of the Republic conforms to a logic of representations which preexists him: that logic orders the relations of the central govern- ment with the different territorial segments and decides the form of representativity of the Republican elect. The ritual labor engenders the insignia of legitimacy within this framework.

If we find again in modern political rituals the formal procedures which anthropologists have described in so- cieties far distant in space and occasionally in time, two characteristics can be said to specify those procedures: first, we have seen that conformitv to values and forms does not exclude the invention of new rituals. In this respect the Solutre example is significant: here the public celebration originates in a strictly private act and participates in the construction of the presidential per- sonality and in his mythology. Secondly, the generation of signs in the ritual can either take the form of a mes- sane, as in the case of the tour of Nikvre as summarized in-the statement "the President will not insist on inau- gurating the chrysanthemums," or determine the condi- tions of enunciation of a message, conferring a special character on it: thus the conversation with the journal- ists at SolutrC appears as a natural prolongation, in both its tone and its content, of that of the preceding ascent.

These two aspects-invention and message-appear to me to be peculiar to modern political ritual, even allowing that ritual can vary greatly in form in other societies. Returning to the close relation between mes- sage and ritual, the latter should not be conceived in an instrumentalist fashion, such that political ritual serves merely as one ingredient among others within an overall strategy of communication, for we have seen that rituals generate many other meanings than those expected by their protagonists. That these practices participate in the construction of political representativity does not make of them a simple, if somewhat archaic, instrument of the political spectacle. It means, on the contrary, that ritual constructs a historic form of legitimacy, an image of the elected person which is reflected, in inevitably distorted form, in the mirrors of the mass media. Far from being a mere survival, political ritual, whether it appears in the simple nudity of a formal visitation or invents an al-

6. The fact that the intimate relation between the theological and the political was thenceforth abolished (Lefort 1986:299) in no way implies a separation of the political and the religious. Rather, we see a sacralization of the Republic and of the representations it bears.

together new costume for itself, constitutes a most effec- tive "snare for thought."

Comments

G E O R G E S A U G U S T I N S

Laboratoire d'Ethnologie et de Sociologie Comparative, Universitb de Paris x,92001 Nanterre, France. 7 x 87

One must certainly be grateful to Abeles for having tack- led what he calls "modern ~olitical rituals" with the rigour and consideration attaLhed to the study of tradi- tional societies. He seems perfectly convincing when he concludes that the political "ritual" of modern societies is staged in a context in which secularization is probably not absolute and that it is not a survival but a necessary element of the definition of an individual legitimacy.

His contention is that two features are necessarv to characterize political "ritual": a dependency between formalization and emotion and a necessary relation be- tween the "rite" itself and its incorporation into a wider political context. His analysis concerning this second point is particularly illuminating and constitutes an es- sential intellectual tool for his successors. The relation between formalization and emotion seems to me more complex than he presents it: many rituals, including re- ligious ones, put up with disbelief; they may or may not generate emotion in a particular participant, but to what extent this emotion is related to belief is a particularly difficult question.

This brings us to the central issue that AbClbls article most judiciously raises: obviously it is deliberately that he uses the word "ritual" and not the word "ceremo- nial." The use of the word "ritual" is justified by the reference to an alleged "symbolic efficacy"; one way of understanding this expression might be as a particular impact of certain formalized gestures or words on the unconscious of the participant, who sees them as action upon the world. I do not know if Abeles would agree with this definition, but if what is described is actually a ritual one might expect a description of the mental pro- cess bv which it becomes a "snare for thought." The

u

whole problem of rituals is to make explicit this concept of "symbolic efficacy," to elucidate the relation between ritual act and emotion. What Abeles describes are cere- monials, which in and of themselves are discourses in action about legitimacy; he explains, convincingly, that they are something more than ordinary discourses, something in which legitimacy is reasserted by means of symbolic evocations, but the emotional involvement and involuntary adherence of the individual spectator are probably far less important than in the case of a be- liever attending a religious rite. In other words, is it sufficient to say that there is symbolic efficacy because a conjunction between formalization and emotion possi- bly occurs? How are we, in this particular case, to under- stand symbolic efficacy? This must be considered sim-

A B B L B s Modern Political Ritual 1 399

ply a question, perhaps to remain unanswered, rather than a criticism.

MAURICE B L O C H

Department of Anthropology, London School of Economics, Houghton St., London WCzA zAE, England. 5 x 87

The comparison made by AbCles between the largely unformulated ritual of Mitterrand's annual ascent of the Solutrean rock, the inaugurations of the provincial visit, and African royal rituals is most thought-provoking. It raises questions about the nature of the sacred and whether this folk concept from our religiolacademic culture has any analytical value. It also makes us ask whether there really is a fundamental difference be- tween "traditional" and modern society. To get fuller answers to these central questions it would be necessary to follow up similarities and differences in more detail than is possible in an article, but we can be grateful to AbCles for having formulated the problem so engagingly.

I was particularly struck by the crucial importance of the familiar themes of aging, death, and continuity in the two examples, and I wonder if it is perhaps this con- tent, rather than the formal aspects by which ritual is usually defined, that makes us so readily concur with AbClks in his feeling that there is something in common between these acts of Mitterrand and rituals such as the Swazi Ncwala and the celebration of Pentecost. The Ncwala is a ritual of renewal, and at its heart lies the svmbolic death of the king. who is then able to com-

u,

mung with his timeless ancestors and so regain political and military strength. Similarly, Pentecost is the cele- bration of returned vitalitv to the church after the earthly death of Christ. ~ i t tk r rand too, by returning to a point of departure and so symbolically completing a journey, is willingly for the moment accepting aging and dying, aligning himself with the old and the dead. But this is only the beginning of the ritual. Mitterrand then declares that the death of his predecessors was not truly final, and so by implication neither is his; like them he will continue revitalized and purified by his short period in another world on the summit of the rock halfway to heaven, in a place where beginnings and endings meet. He thereby powerfully legitimises his promised political return as a strengthened rejuvenator of himself and others.

There is something repulsively facile about such familiar performances, but perhaps one of the most in- teresting points made by AbCles is his reference to the participants' simultaneous recognition of this facile ele- ment and their apparent inability to escape a sentimen- tality that, in more discursive contexts, they would despise. The possibility of having such apparently con- tradictory attitudes to a ritual and the feeling of being trapped by the performance is not exceptional but typi- cal not just of rituals in the West but of all rituals. I therefore do not believe that there is any fundamental difference between what Abeles describes and more familiar anthropological cases.

400 1 C U R R E N T A N T H R O P O L O G Y Volume 29, Number 3, June 1988

Nonetheless, there is a difference, and it lies in the degree to which the participants believe that they are creating or inventing what they are doing. In traditional African societies the participants see themselves as merely following the "custom of the ancestors," but of course they are also, to a degree, reinventing the ritual they perform. They thereby delude themselves in mini- mizing the significance of their intentionality. In the French case the participants delude themselves in be- lieving that they are creating anew, ex nihilo, whereas in fact, as we have seen, they are following familiar pat- terns. They, by contrast, are 'overestimating their inten- tionality. Perhaps the familiar contrast between individ- ualism and holism, often linked to a contrast between "traditional" and "modern" societies, is nothing more than this-different misleading folk evaluations of the nature of actions which are in themselves very similar.

RALPH G R I L L 0 School of African and Asian Studies, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, Sussex BNI 9QN, England. 14 x 87

This paper addresses in an interesting and thought- provoking way some important questions. The nature of ritual in contemporary Western society, especially polit- ical ritual of the kind AbCles examines, is a neglected subject in anthropology, though perhaps not as neglected as he suggests. The ethnographic detail is valuable, and the commentary on the two rituals makes a number of interesting points which illuminate, for me, certain as- pects of French political life (e.g., the importance of place and roots). Some suggestions for ways in which this work could be extended are in order.

First, the two rituals which AbCles discusses are of similar types and a particular kind. Without a wider range of data, analysis of the significance of these rituals can be only partial and suggestive. Both are minor local ceremonies, albeit ones graced by an important person- age. A broad review of a wide range of comparative, con- temporary and historical, French material (which may or may not be available) is necessary to allow their full significance to emerge. For example, I would like to see a similar (contemporary) analysis of the great (Parisian) occasions of state, followed by an examination of con- tinuity and change in French state ritual from Louis XIV through the Revolution and Napoleon to De Gaulle and Mitterrand. The extensive sociohistorical literature on political ritual in 17th- and 18th-century France should provide plenty of source material. The paper hints at some interesting differences as well as similarities be- tween the rituals of De Gaulle and Mitterrand but does little about it. (A French friend observed, "We are always trying to resurrect the king whose head we cut off!")

Secondly, the paper also hints at a comparative task, but briefly in its reference to Swaziland. Equally if not more illuminating would be a comparison with other European and North American state systems (for ex- ample, a comparison on a line taken from Washington through Lincoln to Kennedy and Reagan). There is a

small literature in anthropology which might enable this task to be begun (e.g., the work of Lane [1981] and Binns [1979] on the Soviet Union or that of Mass Obser- vation on England [Jennings 19371).

Finally, I wonder if AbClks underestimates the con- scious way in which contemporary politicians and their advisers-possibly since the late fifties-have increas-ingly set out to create images and effects for the "media," e.g., for consumption on the evening news on TV.In Britain we know that in the 1983 election Mrs. Thatcher's itinerary was planned months in advance, with camera shots and "photo opportunities" worked out in detail-something which all parties were doing by 1987.

There is always a danger that ethnography of this kind will be seen as little more than good journalism. That would be unfair, as the paper has in an unobtrusive way much to say of analytical and theoretical interest. There are gaps, and in various respects it is deficient, but I am glad to have seen it published.

J A M E S LETT

Department of Anthropology, Indian River Community College, 3209 Virginia Ave., Ft. Pierce, Flu. 33454, U.S.A. 5 IX 87

AbCl&sls description of political ritual in the Mitterrand presidency is ethnographically rich and interesting. He offers a compelling demonstration of the important role that symbols and ritual play in the political organiza- tions of contemporary industrialized societies. I believe he errs, however, when he argues against "the notion of total secularization of political life" in France. I do not think, as AbCles does, that we are "dealing with rela- tions of abiding complexity . . . between the political and the religious" (emphasis added). The Mitterrand rituals that he describes are essentially devoid of any super-natural allusion or symbolism. Perhaps I am simply quibbling over semantics, but I think not. Most anthro- pologists accept the notion that the "supernatural" (i.e., the nonempirical) lies at the heart of any definition of "religion." The Mitterrand performances are assuredly symbolic and inescapably ritualistic, as AbCles ably demonstrates, but they are not religious-and that is precisely what is interesting about them.

AbCles correctly observes that magico-religious sup- port of political institutions is ubiquitous in "tradi- tional" societies. Certainly contemporary industrialized state societies do claim supernatural support for their political institutions, but, from an evolutionary perspec- tive, they are doing so less and less. Political organiza- tions in state societies continue to rely heavily upon highly charged symbols and powerful rituals, but those symbols and rituals are quickly becoming secularized. This is what Wallace (1966) realized years ago when he wrote about the preeminence of ritual over belief. Con- temporary industrialized societies continue to have rit- uals of technology, therapy, ideology, salvation, and revitalization just like band, tribal, chiefdom, and nonin- dustrial state societies, but all five forms of ritual are

A B B L E S Modern Political Ritual I 401

losing their supernatural ideology. The form remains the same, but the content has changed dramatically.

Abeles's interesting article does nothing if not demon- strate this. The evocative symbols manipulated by Presi- dent Mitterrand at the inauguration in Nevers are all secular: the laying of the memorial wreath, the awarding of the Legion of Honor, the reverential allusion to "the land of Morvan," the affectionate embrace of a little girl-these are all symbols of group identification, of nationalism and cultural heritage, and as such they do not depend upon any supernatural associations. They are powerful symbols and they are expressed in a ritual con- text-and their form and function are identical to reli- gious symbols expressed in religious rituals-but they are not religious symbols, nor is the inauguration a reli- gious ritual. The same is true of Mitterrand's "pilgrim- age" to SolutrC. Here, as AbCles observes, what Mitter- rand symbolically affirms is his "unswerving loyalty to a land and a people," not to a god or a transcendent force.

What I find most interesting about AbClesls article, though, is the paradigmatic issues that it suggests. His analysis follows fairly closely the point of view taken by symbolic anthropologists (Geertz 1973, 1983)) with ad- ditional inspiration drawn from structuralists (Levi- Strauss 1963, 1976). Both of these paradigms are cen- trally concerned with the role that symbols play in human life, and both recognize that the most power- ful symbols often find expression in ritual behavior. AbClesls article is further validation of the utility of symbolic anthropology-the paradigm does in fact lead us to interesting insights about the world. He has offered us one more illustration of how symbolic anthropology can be put to use, in effect performing what Kuhn ( I970:25-28) calls "normal science1'-examining the facts at hand, comparing them with his paradigm's theo- retical predictions, and demonstrating the paradigm's theoretical principles. As I have argued elsewhere (Lett 1987)) however, symbolic anthropology and structural- ism do not, at the present time, need further demonstra- tions of their application. Instead, both paradigms need a more rigorous formulation of their theoretical princi- ples. I do not fault AbClks for failing to address this issue (I do not expect him to be interested in the issues that interest me). On the whole, however, my reaction to his article is yes, that is intriguing; yes, I generally agree; but there is other work to be done.

TULIAN P I T T - R I V E R S

3, rue de l'universite, 75007 Paris, France, 17 x 87

During the last decade we have witnessed an expansion in the definition of ritual to include actions and institu- tions not formerly recognized as such. This development is connected with an increase in the number of ethno- graphic studies of civilised, supposedly rational societies and the breakdown of the conceptual distinction be- tween them and those of supposedly magical mentality. The old opposition, dating from Tylor, between ritual and rationality has (at last!) been dissipated. The whole notion of rationality has, in fact, taken a knock, even

among philosophers. At the same time, symbolic values have acquired greater importance in the understanding of power and legitimacy. The function of ritual is, as I have explained elsewhere (1987)~ to establish consensus with regard to legitimacy, and therefore it is as necessary today as it was when the kings of France had to be crowned at Rheims and annointed with oil from the Holy Phial to be legitimized. The rites have changed; the need for them remains.

Abeles's meticulous ethnographic description of the symbolic activities of President Mitterrand comes, after various studies of ritual in industry and ludic rites such as football matches (cf. AbCles 1987)) to reinforce these tendencies, looking for the hidden meanings behind the explicit justifications of our collective practices. Thus he opens the road to a redefinition of "ritual" and per- haps also of "the sacred," which covers much more to- day than religious ceremonies. The distinction between politics and religion, tainted with ethnocentrism at the best of times, becomes untenable for anthropologists once God is no longer the unique referent of sacrality.

President Mitterrand's success did not depend upon any firm doctrinal commitment. He denies being a Marxist (whatever that means these days), and he came to socialism late in life. Nor was it due merely to his ability in political manoeuvre (though this has always been masterly) or his charisma (for he is a secretive and mysterious figure [see the film about him "Certains l'ap- pellent 'Franqois' "I). In large part he owes his popularity as chief of state to his handling of symbolic values and (for want of a better phrase) his "sense of the ritual sig- nificance" of his actions and words. Abeles's subject is certainly well chosen for such a theoretical demonstra- tion.

P E T E R H. S T E P H E N S O N

Department of Anthropology, University of Victoria, P.O. Box 1700, Victoria, B.C., Canada V8W 2Y2. 20 x 87

AbCles's thought-provoking description and interpreta- tion of modern political ritual in France under the wan- ing presidency of Mitterrand poses many lines for further commentary. I shall restrict myself to his essen- tially "monistic" point of view and the conceptual limi- tations imposed on his interpretation by France's being a republic. These two issues are related, in my view, be- cause both yield the same blind spot.

If one takes "monism" to mean that the universe of explanation is shared by analyst and subject and conse- quently that anthropological research methods are as useful in one's own society as elsewhere, then this is indeed a "monistic" work (see Leaf 1979). As it happens, I agree with this position, but it is not clear whether AbCl$sls conclusion that "there is thus no difference in kind between the political rituals of traditional societies and of those contemporaneous with us" derives from adherence to a monistic point of view or inheres in the manner in which he mounts his description. I suspect that it is partly the latter, because it is rather difficult to

402 1 C U R R E N T A N T H R O P O L O G Y Volume 29,Number 3, June 1988

assume the privileged position of an outsider with spe- cial knowledge when one works at home, where the elitism so opaque (and acceptable) in the cross-cultural situation becomes transparent (and intolerable). My sus- picion arises from the simple fact that AbClks only as- serts his conclusion-he does not marshal any direct evidence for it here. A brief reading list of others' re- search does not really suffice as evidence for what he describes only as "traditional" society. By "traditional" one suspects he means a monarchy of some sort and not a republic, and preferably a non-European, nonconstitu- tional monarchy. To draw the conclusion Abelks does, rather than merely presupposing it, would necessitate a careful comparison with other societies and would emerge from the data rather than overwhelm it with assertions supported with a mere handful of references to other works by other writers about other times and places.

I suspect that the case Abelb puts forward can be made, but it also entails utilizing a different set of categories than "traditional" and "contemporaneous," which simply reduce history to critically dimensionless cultural stereotypes no more satisfactory than "primi- tive" and "modern." These categories must be historical in nature: postmonarchic republic, constitutional monarchy (parliamentary), etc. For example, France is a republic that has experienced a historically wrenching division between sacred power and profane political power. Consequently, the symbols and political ritual that brush the touchstones to legitimate current office- holders must do so rather differently than for political leaders still encumbered with monarchs whose sole function is to personify the state.

Mitterrand has his Solutre, American presidents their folksy trips to the ranch or fireside chats. In both in- stances the "personalized rituals" seem to have become extremely important to the public, the media, and the presidents themselves. Perhaps this is because the deeper values held by all in a republic can only be effec- tively communicated in the absence of the regal pomp and fanfare they have replaced. There may have been times and places in which kings and queens were obliged to do something similar in order to earn the privilege of asserting their power, but in today's constitutional monarchies that time has long past. Today's mon-archs-one has only to think of Elizabeth and Beatrix- may represent both the state and history in their very persons. Perhaps this explains in part the public obses- sion with what they wear rather than what they say. Prince Charles, for example, may give an address on re- building Britain's inner cities with a great deal of scope for political interpretation by the media, but the latter will describe at length what his wife wore for the occa- sion and not report a word he uttered. Mitterrand's and Reagan's attire gains symbolic value during "personal ritual moments" as well because in the absence of a monarch they too may personify the state, but this can be taken only so far without offending democratic sen- sibilities. The prime minister in a constitutional monar- chy can never represent the state without usurping the only remaining function of the monarch. Furthermore, it

is my strong impression, given the recent events in the presidential selection process in the United States (the retreat from the fray of several candidates in "personal" disgrace) that the lives of politicians tend far more to- ward crucial symbolic interpretation in a republic than in a parliamentary democracy with a monarch such as Britain, Holland, or Canada. Several Canadian prime ministers have had very difficult personal lives that were well known to the public but had little if any conse- quence for their political lives.

Just a week ago, Queen Elizabeth visited Victoria, Brit- ish Columbia, where I live. She only stayed an hour at the airport, and her visit was described by the press as "short but sweet." Since Victoria was her point of entry into the country, the presence of both the governor general (her appointee) and the prime minister (her "servant") was required. The press went into the usual rhapsodies about her attire and quoted snippets of con- versation with old soldiers and children, totally ignoring the prime minister, whose political interests seemed submerged in the wake of the travelling monarch. In fact, he had every reason to be over 3,000 miles away in Ottawa, where his government was at a critical juncture in Canadian-American trade talks, but "pomp and cir- cumstance" required his presence and his formal silence on Vancouver Island.

My point is simply that where political power must be gained and subsequently reaffirmed by a solitary leader (whether president or king) in a ritualized performance, the personal stake of the leader is such that he must continue to invoke sacred powers and trusts in ways which personify the condition of the people. Where a monarchy continues but can no longer be gained by political leaders other than through a regicide which the political impotence of the monarch could never warrant, the only expression a prime minister can make is one of loyalty of varying degrees. The symbolic potency of the monarch and the political power of the prime minister are to be kept separate, and infringement by either is regarded by the press and the people as dangerous. Impe- rial presidents may edge cautiously in the direction of "llCtat c'est moi" in the absence of a monarch in ways that parliamentary representatives in a monarchy could never even attempt. Ironically, then, if there is little to separate imperial presidents from earlier kings-as AbCles suggests-there is still plenty to separate leaders in today's constitutional monarchies from both.

M A R C A B E L E S Paris, France. 24 XI 87

The comments on this analysis of modern political ritual tie in with questions that I myself have been pon-

I . Translated by Mary Turton.

dering and am far from having resolved. Therefore I shall not pretend to solve the often very complex problems that my colleagues so kindly help me to formulate.

It may seem somewhat "thought-provoking" to treat the excursions of the President of the Re~ublic as exotic rituals, but there is no legitimate objectibn to this kind of comparison. On the contrary, it seems to me that when we are studying our own societies it is important to distance ourselves somewhat from events that seem all the more natural to us because we are accustomed to observing them every day. This is one of the major difficulties encountered in the anthropology of modern societies: not to become ensnared by the image of itself that our society projects. To overcome the obstacle raised bv this overfamiliaritv with our subiect, a reso-

1 r

lutely comparative approach is essential. It was with this in mind that I referred to the Swazi ritual so well analvzed bv Hilda Ku~er .

~ h l l oobserves corr\ctly that I might profitably have compared the rituals of Franqois Mitterrand with those of American presidents and, more generally, used his- toric documents relating to rites practised by the kings of France and by Napoleon. It seems to me that with such an encyclopaedic approach one would be in danger of losing sight of the real object of the work-namely, a better understanding of the function of political rituals in our societies-in a welter of historical references. It is here, as I understand it, that the difference between the journalist and the anthropologist comes into play: the former describes the phenomenon, sometimes very shrewdly; the latter tries to understand its sociological and svmbolic im~lications.

o n e of the pro&lematical aspects of this paper is the contrast between the modern and the traditional. Here I have returned to a distinction not alwavs ex~licit but always present in anthropology-one that has devel- oped, incidentally, from a dichotomy between "other" ("primitive," "exotic," "holistic") societies and our own so-called "complex, " "modern, " "individualistic, " etc., ones. Now, this dichotomy is clearly rather arbitrary: Stephenson seems to think that I could not adopt it without being prepared to accept "cultural stereotypes." He criticizes my "monistic point of view": am I really blinded by the nearness of my subject? But in that case, is an anthropology of our societies conceivable at all? When I write that "there is thus no difference in kind between the political rituals of traditional societies and of those contemporaneous with us," I am only challeng- ing a dichotomy that is merely pedagogical at best. Let us say that we must be prepared to complicate problems if it leads, given a little patience, to a better solution.

Besides, I think Stephenson is well aware of this, since he complicates my puzzle by introducing a stimulating comparison between presidential systems and constitu- tional monarchies. This seems to me a very important question, and I have tackled it in a paper to appear shortly on the symbolism of filiation in the presidential tradition of the Fifth Republic and in the functioning of the British monarchy. The role of leaders in a constitu- tional monarchy is worthy of study on its own because of the eminent and ambiguous position they enjoy.

A B E L E S Modern Political Ritual 1 403

Augustins observes correctly that I deliberately used the word "ritual" and not "ceremonial." It is true that I particularly stressed the relationship between a rite and its political context. Augustins's remarks concerning the symbolic effectiveness of ritual give full value to a point of view that I underestimated in my analysis: the point of view of those who are present at the ritual but play no direct part in it. To explain how operations such as I described can arouse a form of emotion in the public, I insisted on the multiplicity of the registers manipu- lated by President Mitterrand. But we must also bear in mind the psychological mechanisms determining the re- actions of the individual spectators. It is here that we feel the need for convincing explanatory "paradigms," to use Lett's expression.

This awareness of something lacking in anthropology does not, however, seem to me to invalidate the develop- ment of research into the symbolic bases of legitimacy, which is as much the prerogative of historians as of an- thropologists. One may marvel at the poverty of the an- thropology of modern societies in this matter, whereas the historians have ceaselessly probed the question (see, for example, Kantorowicz [1957] on the symbolism of the royal body and Duby [I9781 on the theory of orders in the Middle Ages). May we use the word "sacred" about these rituals practiced by politicians and echoed in the media? My critics take different positions on this point. Lett, in his otherwise stimulating comment, asserts that modern rituals "are essentially devoid of any super-natural allusion or symbolism." But I cannot see how the transformation of symbolic content, the substitution of notions such as the Republic or the Nation for the notion of divinity, should automatically imply the dis- appearance of belief as an expression of religion. Franqois Mitterrand is obviously no priest, and the pilgrimage to Solutre does not figure in an ecclesiastical context. But it is obvious too that an explanation that retains nothing but the "mechanical" aspects of the ritual distorts its real import. It is not by chance that historians speak of "secular worship" in connection with the ceremonies performed at war memorials: "It is secular worship without god or priest. Or rather the priest and the be- liever merge together," writes Prost (in Nora 1984:221) on the subject of the commemorations of the armistice of I9I8. In another context, we may note the significant remark of Ramsay Macdonald, a leader not suspected of any particular religiosity, on the occasion of the jubilee of George V: "We all went away feeling that we had taken part in something very much like a Holy Com- munion" (quoted by Cannadine in Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983:152).

Pitt-Rivers, a pioneer in the anthropology of modern societies, pleads for a redefinition of ritual and the sa- cred. This seems to me to be all the more sensible as the intrication between the political and the religious, an example of which I have analyzed, forces us back to pre- conceived definition~ that are not untainted by eth- nocentrism. It is no doubt one of the contributions of anthropological procedures that they call into question artificial divisions (politics, religion, etc.) that in no way correspond to the reality of social practices.

404 1 C U R R E N T A N T H R O P O L O G Y Volume 29, Number 3, June 1988

Fran~ois Mitterrand's exceptional political success since at last he took up the charge of President of the Republic can be explained largely by the skill with which he manages to harness these diffuse forms of be- lief in values whose persistence has been demonstrated in a recent book (Nora 1984). Whereas the purely practi- cal actions of the French president have never elicited a real consensus, the remarkable symbolic work he per- forms not only in his speeches but in the way he "con- textualizes" them has made him a rallying point, whence the great popularity he enjoys at the end of his second term.

Bloch's comments strengthen me in the idea that ref- erence to the Other is a heuristic element and that it is impossible to escape from a confrontation with what is different. Bloch sees in the pilgrimage to Solutrk a ritual of regeneration analogous in its significance to the Ncwala of the Swazi. The interpretation he suggests goes some way towards completing the one I myself pro- posed, a fact which bears witness to the symbolic rich- ness of the ritual.

The commentators then return to the notion of inven- tion in contemporary rituals. It is quite obvious that the protagonists in the rites practiced in African societies may behave creatively, but the essential difference seems to me to lie in the possibility of inventing new rituals that is offered to members of our societies. I do not mean the renewal of an existing tradition, perhaps deflected towards ends different from those it originally fulfilled: in that case, we are dealing with the reinven- tion of a tradition, a phenomenon observable in our soci- eties (cf. Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983) that exists in many others. In contrast, certain types of ritual are specific to us and, like the pilgrimage to SolutrC, repre- sent a creation ex nihilo even though they make use of all the symbolic ingredients familiar to the anthropolo- gist.

It is interesting to see that an ethnographic analysis of presidential rituals can raise questions as fundamental as those approached by the commentators; this does not surprise me, for anthropology can provide a wholly orig- inal approach to modern political fact. Indeed, anthro- pologists refuse, in the Maussian tradition, to adopt pre- conceived distinctions by arbitrarily separating, for example, the religious from the political. Moreover, the comparative standpoint implies a critical attitude to- wards dichotomies (e.g., traditionallmodern) that often prove problematical both in the field and in theory.

When Evans-Pritchard and Fortes (1940)~ almost half a century ago, attempted to construct a political anthro- pology of African societies, they faced theoretical prob- lems that are not unrelated to those we encounter today. They asked themselves how to construct a non-state- based model of political relationshps but refused to adopt a reductionist attitude towards phenomena that did not fit into the mould of modern political representations. To- day the construction of a political anthropology of indus- trial (or post-industrial) societies poses an identical prob- lem in a different way: how to think of the political in

our societies without falling victim to the fascination of the institutional-state model and the language of which it is a vehicle. That is why, at a time when the social sciences appear to have their vision clouded by their own history, it seems to me a very healthy thing that an extension of the field of political anthropology into the modern age should furnish material for a debate rich in stakes of an epistemological nature.

References Cited A B E L B S , M . 1986. L'anthropologue et le politique. L'Homme 26

(I-2]:191-212. -. 1987. Terrain. Carnets du Patrimoine Ethnologique 8. [JPR]

B I N N S , C H R I S T O P H E R . 1979. The changing face of power: Revo- lution and accommodation i n the development of the Soviet ceremonial system. Man 14:585-606 [RG]

D U B Y , G . 1978. Les trois ordres, ou L'imaginaire du fbodalisme. Paris: Gallimard.

E V A N S - P R I T C H A R D , E . E . 1962 (1948) "The divine kingship of the Shilluk," i n Essays in social anthropology, pp. 66-86. Lon- don: Faber and Faber.

E V A N S - P R I T C H A R D , E. E., A N D M . F O R T E S . I940 Africanpolit- ical systems. London: Oxford University Press.

G E E R T Z , C L I F F O R D . 1973. Theinterpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books. [ J L ]

-. 1983. Local knowledge: Further essays i n interpretive an- thropology. New York: Basic Books. [JL]

H A B E R M A S , T . 1986 (1962) L'espacepublic. Paris: Editions Payot. H O B S B A W M , E., A N D T . R A N G E R . 1983. Theinvention of tradi-

tion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. I Z A R D , M . 1973. La lance et les guenilles. L'Homme 13 (3):139-

49. J E N N I N G S , H . , ET AL. 1937. May the twelfth. London: Faber.

[RGI K A N T O R O W I C Z , E . 1957. The king's two bodies: A study in

mediaeval political theology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

K U H N , T H O M A S . 1970. 2d edition. The structure of scientificrev- olutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [TL]

K U P E R , H . 1947. An African aristocracy: Rank among the Swazi. London: Oxford University Press.

L A N E , C . 1981. The rites of rulers. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press. [RG]

L E A F , M . T . 1979. Man, mind, and science: A history of anthropol- ogy. New York: Columbia University Press. [ P H S ]

L E F O R T , C . 1986. Essais sur le politique ( X I X ' ~ ~ ~ - X P ~ ~sibcle). Paris: Le Seuil.

L E T T , J A M E S .1987. The human enterprise: A critical introduc- tion to anthropological theory. Boulder: Westview Press. [ J L ]

L E V I - S T R A U S S , C L A U D E .1963. Structural anthropology. Vol. I .

New York: Basic Books. [TL] -. 1971. L'homme nu. Paris: Plon. -. 1976. Structural anthropology. Vol. 2. New York: Basic

Books. N O R A , P . Editor. 1984. Les l i e u de la memoire. Vol. I . La repu-

blique. Paris: Gallimard. P I T T - R I V E R S , J U L I A N . 1987. La revanche du rituel. Le Temps

Moderne, March. [TPR] S M I T H , P . 1979. "Aspects de l'organisation des rites," in La fonc-

tion symbolique. Edited by M. Izard and P. Smith. Paris: Gal- limard.

V I A N S S O N - P O N T B , P I E R R E .1963. Les Gaullistes: Rituel et an- nuaire. Paris: Le Seuil.

W A L L A C E , A N T H O N Y F . C . 1966. Religion: An anthropological view. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press. [ J L ]