Ethnographer-Africanist, foreign member of the Academy of Sciences of the Overseas Territories (Paris, France)

In October-November of last year, the glow of night fires burned over Western Europe. The myth of the well-being and prosperity of Europeans was crumbling before our eyes, and in all its unsightliness a bitter truth emerged that deprived us of hope. What started in France in the last week of October, the last week of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, never ceases to amaze the imagination... uninformed people. What happened was something that had been brewing for a long time, which was bound to come to the surface sooner or later in the form of an explosion, in the form of violence, in the form of an outburst of emotions, where there is both prowess and anger, and ... a game.

* * *

Much has already been written about how events unfolded in France. A lot of comments were also made about them, the reasons were revealed, forecasts and recommendations for stabilizing the situation were given. It is not easy to add something new to this information wave. However, my attempt to understand the "revolt of the poor suburbs" is caused not only by the shared pain for France and not only by the specifics of my profession as an ethnographer, which provides clues to many aspects of what was happening, but also by the fact that, due to circumstances, I spent the last year (almost) in France and in one of the former colonies of France - Republic of Mali.

It was there-in Africa - in April 2005. I began writing the still unfinished book "Black Africa: what to do?", in which I tried to uncover the causes of deadlocks not only in relations between the former metropolis and the former colonies of France, but also to identify prospects, as well as offer solutions to the problems hanging over both Africa and France. At the end of June, when I was in Paris, I handed over a small text-a "Memorandum" - on the state of Franco-African affairs to the French side during meetings at the French Foreign Ministry and at the Academy of Sciences of the Overseas Territories, which acts as the French government's collective adviser on relations with the "third world" countries or, as they now say,"South". The main thesis of this document is "Africa is now located in France itself, so ignoring its presence and its interests is unacceptable, because it threatens the vital interests of France itself." It is this personal experience as a participant and co-participant, as well as my involvement in Franco-African relations, that gives me a certain additional right and even a duty to speak out in connection with the catastrophe that has broken out.

WHEN THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE IS ON FIRE...

Today, many people say that France, and now other countries of Western Europe, are paying for the colonial past, some for the neocolonial one, and some for the short-sighted policy of the 1960s and 1970s, when the borders of Europe were opened to the influx of" cheap labor " from the Arab Maghreb, former African possessions, and Turkey. They were followed by immigrants from China (primarily Taiwan), Indochina, India, Pakistan, and Latin America. European entrepreneurs needed not only healthy and, as it seemed, unpretentious workers who were ready to provide the economies of Western Europe in the most difficult and low-prestige areas for minimal remuneration. There was also the task of disrupting the class struggle of European workers, undermining the influence of left-wing parties, and bringing down the revolutionary wave that was particularly acute in 1968-1970.

The calculation was also made that foreigners would willingly and without much remorse play the role of strikebreakers. And the fact that there will be a new confrontation among the working class of Europe: the "old" (indigenous) and "new" (immigrant) groups of workers. Moreover, it was assumed that this confrontation would be reinforced by cultural differences both between the "old" and "new" ones, and within the " new " ones themselves due to the diversity of cultures in their countries of origin. In addition, the ruling circles of the same France solved, as it seemed to them, the demographic problems of the country.

In the 1960s, France was actually an endangered country due to the excess of mortality over the birth rate due to the reluctance of the French to have more than one or two children in a family. In this sense, immigrants gave an almost instantaneous jump, which allowed France in a short time not only to exceed the number of 50 million people, but also to begin a sharp demographic rise. There are millions of immigrants in the country, and today, taking into account the real two generations, including those born directly in France, they make up about 10% of the total population. It seems that everything was well planned.

The problems turned out to be hidden for the time being: both the novelty of the situation and the initially timid behavior of the "new French", their satisfaction with the transition to qualitatively new living conditions, social and medical support, education, etc.One can even talk about a certain gratitude of the first generation of immigrants to their new homeland. The French "left", having exposed the social and cultural intrigues of the patronage, found a way to immigrants, achieved guarantees of their social rights. In addition, public opinion among ordinary French people in those early years felt a sense of shame for the previously imposed colonial past of these immigrants, for the exploitation of the human and natural resources of the former colonies, for the cultural and social "backwardness" of these peoples.

In addition, the ethic that prevailed in France in the second half of the twentieth century, associated with the consolidation of liberal values, made, as they now say, "not politically correct" any critical views that cast doubt on the cultural compliance of immigrants with the norms of life that have historically developed in France itself - in all its social strata. Nevertheless, the facts showed that a significant part of immigrants become "French" only by passport, only as citizens of France, but not as heirs of its culture, its values, its stereotypes of everyday and social behavior.

The "old French" preferred to babble to the "new" ones, to stop any manifestations of dissatisfaction with the inadequate forms of behavior of immigrants or to pretend that they did not notice them. Accusations of racism, nationalism, and xenophobia are so frightening to the French public.

page 50

the intelligentsia, the ordinary French philistine, which is considered simply indecent to even touch on these topics in conversations-even among "their own". As a result, the French developed a "double mind", a double morality and, ultimately, a certain doom, fatalism, mixed with the fear of finding out and admitting the truth about the true state of affairs.

I recall a meeting in the Central Committee of the French Communist Party with representatives of the African communities of Paris in early 2003-a meeting that was reduced to heated rhetoric condemning colonialism and with a mutual reminder of France's debts to the former colonies. But it's been more than forty years since the colonial era, two full generations! How long can we cultivate this guilt complex of some people and the complex of the right to historical rent and the right to idleness of others? It's time to realize that no one owes anyone anything! This is the first condition for equal relations, respect and business spirit.

Yes, immigrants contribute to the development of the French economy. Yes, they are, to a large extent, a source of additional super-profits of the patronage, the well-being of the French inhabitants. We can say that they were partly driven into this economic and social structure as a kind of closed niche, a reservation. But on the other hand, no one forcibly brought them to Europe, did not promise equal opportunities with the indigenous population, and with them - and the cordiality of this population. When people left their countries, they took risks consciously and voluntarily. As a rule, this risk was associated with economic motives, with the desire for a more well-fed life, but in a different, foreign country. This life, in general, was found. No matter what.

But the migrants managed to transfer their culture, their way of life, their customs, their ways of spending leisure time and socializing, which often differ sharply from the customs of the French. They are most often little occupied by the historical and cultural monuments of cities and rural areas of France. For example, among the caretakers of the halls and technical staff of the Louvre in Paris, immigrants make up a significant proportion. But this is in no way a consequence of the craving for the treasures of world culture. However, this does not mean that they are completely deaf to this wealth. But different codes of cultures can be overcome only through desire, through effort, through training. And here-indeed, unemployment in France is very high...

Why is it customary to talk a lot about the hardships of immigrants, but almost never say that the ethnic French themselves have many everyday reasons to doubt what country they live in? After all, someone's recent joke about the "Mosque of Our Lady of Paris" is not so absurd! There are entire neighborhoods in Paris, where for many years you can already meet with "black", "yellow" and other colors of racism: unmotivated aggression towards a stranger (for this quarter). And this is not just hooliganism. This is the protection of the cultural identity of the territory inhabited by recent immigrants. It has its own cafes, its own shops, its own customs, its own bars and gambling halls, its own rules of conduct. There are "corners" - streets stretching for kilometers along the northern half-ring of the Paris metro-where you simply can not understand French, where they live by themselves, on the street: with hookahs, beds, spices and fruits, with "boutiques" filled with bathrobes, grandmothers, fabrics and incense of the East. And when you walk into any store in this long line, they look at you, at best, with bewilderment, as if you are an alien.

If politically correct France refers to this as "cultural diversity," it simply doesn't want to admit that it is a different France. This is not the France of the French, although it may be the France of " French citizens." However, the" French citizens "of the second generation are no longer so loyal to the "France of the French". A significant part of them, who grew up in small communities of their parents '"homelands", transferred to, say, Ile-de-France, perceive France not as a mother, but as a stepmother. And the fact that they feel like an unloved child of this very France is, first of all, their misfortune. This is a consequence of the fact that circumstances allowed parents to preserve their cultural identity with their first homeland and pass it on to their children - including in forms of domestic behavior that differ from the behavior of ethnic French people themselves. To create such a "different France" on the territory of France proper is a dangerous illusion, a terrible utopia. Ultimately, it will deal a blow to the "rebellious teenagers" themselves. For they have no other homeland but France!

...BUT THE NEIGHBOR IS SLEEPING...

The tension, the accumulation of explosive potential, has been felt for a long time. J.-M. Le Pen's National Front did not appear out of nowhere. It is no coincidence that in the 2002 presidential election, the leader of Ultra wins almost 20% of the vote and goes to the second round, beating candidates from influential left-wing parties. The French are beginning to worry about their cultural leadership in their own country. But the authorities are asleep. President-elect Zh. Chirac only pays lip service to the national (in this case, in the interests of the French state) oriented policy of France. In fact, the "globalist" and "pro-European" courses continue, leading to the loss of France's own face in world and European affairs. Identity turns out to be only an insignificant fronde to the United States in connection with the war in Iraq, and even then - because of the special oil interests of French capital. The country's leadership does not seem to notice that " Europe "is no longer what it was in the days of General Charles de Gaulle: there is no USSR, no" Eastern Bloc", which gave France the opportunity to maneuver in world affairs. The countries of the former Soviet zone of influence have become satellites of the United States and NATO. France is losing its foothold in foreign affairs, continuing to de facto play along with Russia's enemies, harming its geopolitical interests, and thereby contributing to increasing self-isolation even in European affairs.

At the same time, the French leadership is practically losing interest in African countries - its former colonies. The situation today is so serious that any attempt by France to recall its "special role" begins to cause a strong rejection from very influential political forces in African countries, often seeking patronage from the United States.

The issue is becoming so acute that the African elites are becoming increasingly convinced of the need for linguistic and cultural distancing from France through the transition to English in public affairs. Which would mean the loss of French influence in Africa. In practice, such a transition is quite possible within the lifetime of one generation (20 years), especially if the United States and England show interest in it and provide material and technical support. And that would be a complete collapse for France - especially given the turn of events in the country.

page 51

In the autumn of 2005, France will be left alone with its "inner Africa" or "second / parallel France".

I will not hide the fact that I, as a foreigner, was not very adept at telling all this to those involved in French politics and responsible for it. It is enough to recall a conversation in the French Defense Ministry, when in response to my doubts about the clarity of the French foreign policy strategy, I was told, not without a challenge:"What do you understand about strategy?" However, if we take into account that the events that occurred were generally predicted even then, then I am afraid that no one understands this strategy!

In connection with the "French affairs", many assumptions were made. In particular, they discussed the organization of events and their planning. There were even speculations about the interests of third countries, the CIA, MOSSAD, perhaps even the ubiquitous and elusive Al-Qaeda. But I think that this is idle speculation. The potential for an explosion had been building up for too long and steadily. It doesn't matter who lit the match, who threw the torch, how the two teenagers got into the transformer box in the Paris suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois - alive or already dead, whether it was a provocation or not. The already existing result is important: a direct collision of the two "Frances"and the transfer of the fire to other countries of the recently prosperous Europe. The fuse is lit not only for the French Civil War, but also for the kick-out charge of the civil war in a United Europe.

Perhaps, therefore, it is appropriate to say that the French government received an unequivocal signal from its own population on May 29 last year, expressing concern about the national fate of France. This population rejected the draft European constitution, doubting its benefits for the country. But this signal was not understood either. And now-a sad sobering up.

...TIME TO WAKE UP

There is no doubt that a way will be found to get out of the acute phase of the crisis, which was more socio-cultural than socio-economic. This is a clash of civilizations within one state, within France, within the European Union. And this is precisely what imposes special responsibility for actions of a stabilizing nature, and especially for conclusions and measures for a more or less distant future.

Everyone is to blame. But France as a state and as a culture must be preserved. In the course of the conflict, a new "French project" must be found that cannot break with the past, but must rethink and restructure the past.

Pride, which turned into incompetence, led the French state to a dead end. Pampering, promiscuity, and irresponsibility have led the youth of the "suburbs" to a destructive outburst of anger and hatred for the world that they cannot remake, but in which they are doomed to live. In part, this is a conflict between fathers and children, a conflict between a teenager and the surrounding reality. But this is only part of it. Because it is both utopian to come to the same forms of culture for the whole world, and it is unpromising to carve out islands of "little Morocco", "little Algeria", "little Gabon", etc.in the cultural space of France - such enclaves, ghettos, reservations. Like the Russian diaspora in France, it is neither France nor Russia. This is "Russian France" or "Moroccan France". But if they do not turn into a "French France" over the generations, they will be cut off as a foreign body or driven into self-isolation, into marginalization. And there will be no need to shed tears about it. They fight for it themselves!

But France should also remember its former colonies, which it dragged into European civilization in its own interests, no matter how great ideas in the middle of the XIX century. it wasn't covered up. If this happens, then on the basis of the structures of the francophone community of states that focus on cultural, linguistic, and educational forms of cooperation with France, consolidation is possible with the formation of a confederate supranational structure based on partnership relations between the former colonies of France and France itself, where France would assume the role of coordinator rather than leader. But for this to happen, many things in France must change - including in terms of humility and French pride.

One of the laws regulating the movement of citizens of the member states of such a confederate structure could be the joint responsibility of France and its former colonies for the fate of immigrants from these countries on the territory of France, say, for four generations from the moment of continuous settlement in France with the possibility of deportation and repatriation in controversial situations. The joint recognition of the sovereignty of these States would also extend to the recognition of cultural sovereignty as an inalienable right of any of these countries, including France.

Finally, if France is to survive as a specific cultural, social, and political reality, it must redefine its geopolitical interests and their respective alliances. In this respect, a sincere and consistent alliance with Russia would be the best guarantee of ensuring the global strategic interests of both France and Russia. I have often told the French that if France is looking for an increase in its country's influence, it largely depends on its relations with Russia. But in this case, France needs a strong Russia, which, in turn, France could contribute to.

WHEN THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE IS ON FIRE, IT'S TIME TO THINK ABOUT YOUR OWN

Speaking about the current French problems, I have to draw the attention of my compatriots to the fact that, since the collapse of the USSR, the Russian Federation has persistently reproduced the worst aspects of the already obviously erroneous immigration policy of European countries. Guest workers will not solve either our economic or demographic problems. Even now, they export a significant part of their income in one form or another to their countries of origin. Not to mention the fact that migrants are usually low-skilled and poorly educated personnel. In addition, a significant number of them seek to import their relatives and friends to Russia, with their families and, accordingly, with the burden of purely social and cultural problems that fall on the shoulders of various authorities of the Russian Federation. But what is the main thing: As in Europe, the displaced people are closing in on their respective diasporas and maintaining a lifestyle that is atypical for Russia, laying the same potential for problems in the future as the one that has now come to the surface in France.

It would be nice to draw conclusions and understand that a rake can be dangerous if you step on it. Moreover, the French and European example is right before your eyes!

Permanent link to this publication: