Modern Political Ritual: Ethnography of an Inauguration and a Pilgrimage by

President 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 at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the 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 at
http://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 printed
page of such transmission.

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

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

CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
Volume 29, Number 3, June 1988
O 1988 by 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~oisMitterrand.
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 underline 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 participate 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 ( 5 2 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: Editions Complexe, 19781, Le lieu du politique (Paris: SociCtC d'Ethnographie, 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'anthropologue 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 publisher.

That the governance of traditional societies is characterized by the commingling of politics and ritual is a commonplace 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 commentators nowadays refer freely to the "charisma" associated with certain political leaders to the extent of comparing them to real kings, such parallels are generally
proposed metaphorically-either realistically or satirically, in accordance with the author's particular standpoint. 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 appearances 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 modern civilization: witness the vivid political dramas enacted in African kingdoms such as the S w a ~ iIt. ~will
doubtless be argued that between modern politics and
the customs of African monarchies or even of preRevolution kingship in France there intervenes the process 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. According 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 political seems unduly schematic. One can certainly admit,
with Habermas (1986[1962]:241),that the "public political 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 excluded." But does the analogy between political competition and a great market in which new "products" are
paraded before the public according to the latest commercial and advertising techniques adequately describe
relations between professional politicians and their fellow citizens? And should these latter, at least in democratic societies, be equated with consumers, albeit fickle
ones?
Evidently, the question of political drama is inseparable from the complex question of political representation 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

CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

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 examine political ritual in present-day France, we find ourselves dealing with relations of abiding complexity, as
Lefort (1986)has emphasized, between the political and
the religiou~.~
That is why I have chosen to consider
from an anthropological perspective two rituals performed by a particularly typical statesman, namely, the
President of the Republic, Fran~oisMitterrand. The first
ritual relates to a well-established custom, that of inaugurations and commemorations such as are regularly attended 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 personal history of its protagonist. Analysis of the characteristics 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.

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 political 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 newspapers: "The Premier According to Fran~oisMitterrand"
(Le Monde, February 17); "I Remain Very Much in Advance of My Predecessors" (La Montagne, February I S ) ;
"Mitterrand: Diplomacy a Job for the Prime Minister"
(LeMatin, 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 president 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
A Presidential Day
and finance), the president of the department's General
On February 14, 1986, President Mitterrand went to Council, another deputy for Nievre, the regional prefect,
Nievre, a department for which he had been the elected and the departmental prefect. The red carpet had been
representative for more than 30 years, right up to his duly rolled out, and the president emerged into the staaccession to the supreme office. The official purpose of tion courtyard, where he reviewed a detachment of the
this journey was to inaugurate the new railway station Seventh R.A. To the applause of the crowd, estimated by
at Nevers (the principal town of the department). The the journalists as close on a thousand people, he moved
remainder of the day was to be devoted to other acts of towards the station entrance. For a moment, together
commemoration and inauguration, such as the bestowal with the stationmaster, he contemplated the building.
of decorations on various local personalities: a full day Then he cut the symbolic red ribbon and unveiled the
that was to take the president all over the department. plaque commemorating this inauguration. Followed by
Let us now follow M. Mitterrand and his entourage: we several hundred invited guests, M. Mitterrand was
shall also take note of the various local and national shown around the premises by the regional director of
press commentaries that marked this visit and effec- the railway corporation. ~ w e l v eminutes later, he retively made an event of it.
turned to the grand concourse, where he made a speech
On this Friday a special train conveyed the president, on a modest platform specially constructed for this puraccompanied by the state secretary for transport and the pose. The president spoke after listening in turn to the
president of the state railway corporation, from Paris to words of Nevers's deputy mayor and the president of the
Nevers. The journey became the occasion for a free- railway. The speeches were relayed through loudspeakwheeling discussion with journalists, and inevitably in- ers to the crowd gathered outside the station. His adterest focussed on the legislative elections, due within a dress concluded, M. Mitterrand laid a wreath in memory
month; on this topic M. Mitterrand observed that his of the railwaymen who had died for their country, in the
pronouncements placed him "very much in advance" of Dresence of the veterans' standard-bearer. He next
his predecessors. According to him, the elections would moved towards the buffet, where refreshments had been
follow a pattern already laid down by the presidential prepared for the guests, pausing on the way to sign two
campaign: "Undoubtedly the legislative elections will copies of his recently published book, Rkflexions sur la
take just that shape." As to a possible "deal" over the politique extkrieure de la France, and present them to
premiership, the president emphasized that he would the station library. Without pausing at the buffet, the
choose "whomever he wishes" as prime minister. This president went out into the courtyard and mingled conconcern over the proper preeminence of the head of state 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 di3. Lefort rightly emphasizes the interrelation of the political and
religious dimensions, noting i n this connection that "it is impossi- rector of the exhibition. M. Mitterrand visited the nearlv
ble to separate what belongs to the elaboration of a political form completed new hall. This visit provided an opportunity
. . . from what belongs to the elaboration of a religious form" (p. for several minutes' conversation with the former mayor
261).
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 investiture of the general councillor of Lormes with the Legion 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 attachment to the land of Morvan were signalled in the president's assertion, "If I were in need of reassurancewhich I must hasten to add I am not-it is to this place
that I would come for it" (LeJournal du Centre, February
I S ) . With this ceremony the morning's business concluded 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 personalities accompanied the president, including the deputy mayors of Nevers and Cosne-sur-Loire, the local director of housing, and the local senator. The press
photographers recorded the "affectionate gesture" with
which M. Mitterrand embraced a little girl before cutting 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 investitures: two general councillors and a mayor were
made respectively officer and knights of the Legion of
Honor. "A signing of the goldw book, several autographs, a kiss for the little girl, a warm handshake for
Adrien Langumier who has come from Saint-Amand-enPuisaye for this little exchange of civilities . . . the Presidential 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 coming 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 answering questions from the press. It fell to a young
woman to have the privilege of questioning M. Mitterrand, 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. LCviStrauss 197 I :600)brings into play the symbolism of relations between political power and civil society. We see
here the bringing together of an ensemble of coded behaviors, whose meaning is well understood by the different participants, around certain "focalizing elements"
(blbmentsfocalisateurs) 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 degree of formalization, given that all the acts are thoroughly 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 degree 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 "artificiality" in certain types of behavior adopted by the
principal protagonists, behavior expressive of respect,
meditation, emotion, etc. In this sense, the ritual functions 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 unveiled the plaque in memory of his old deputy. Moreover, 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 necessary 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

Volume 29, Number 3, Tune 1988

CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

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 CharitCsur-Loire, and Chatillon-en-Bazois constitute the stages
of this pilgrimage. One may further suggest that the toand-froing all over Nievre is the central "focalizing element" 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 symbolizes in itself the permanence of the exchanges represented by this political man between the abiding countryside, 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 d e ~ a r t m e n t . ~
M. Mitterrand's s ~ e e c hat 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~ortantmoments in
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 Nevers, 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 parliamentary 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 recompense." But this celebration contains a deeper concern, 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 numerous references to' his delight at being among his
faithful followers, his "old stagers." The tour of the department 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 election. As for me, I prefer that sense which refers to a
A

4. As I have noted elsewhere (AbC1i.s 1986), the marked polycentrism of the French system implies a perpetual to-and-froingfrom
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, February 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 department" (La Montagne, February I 5). This is a paradigmatic instance of political discourse, for the quasitransparency of the relationship between the elected and
the electorate in Nievre on this fourteenth day of February, 1986, also reveals an underlying uncertainty. For all
that the topic is never explicitly raised, everyone is
aware of the imminent national elections, the possibility 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 MontluGon, where he was stationmaster. All the men of my
family for the two preceding generations, my father and
grandfathers, had been railwaymen" (La Montagne, February 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 remembers 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 relationship 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. Division 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-Loirethe inauguration of the 27 apartments includes in succession the
greetings to those responsible for the operation, the architect'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 orchestra, a motorcade to the festival hall, a visit to a
museum, a reception comprising the senator's address

A B ~ s LModern
~

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 collective interest, concrete gains accrued by reason of the
eminent political role acquired by Nikvre's political representative; 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 conjuncture 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 "sovereign," 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 followers, sometimes slightly in front, his eyes on the horizon, 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 official 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. Mitterrand's tour of Nievre on French politics. I have quoted
several newspaper comments which dwelt on the prospect of the elections. As far as the journalists were concerned, 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 interpretation distinguishing two kinds of messages according to

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 inauguration. For its part, Le Monde, while satisfied with a summary of the remarks of the president during his interview 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 something 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 'inaugurated 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 (LeMonde,
February 17): "I am not particularly keen on inaugurations"?
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 opposition 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 representative 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 undoubtedly derive in part from the multiplicity of registers employed, in part from this insertion of the sacralized 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

CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

Volume 29, Number 3, June 1988

of communication, never showed much interest in the

classical duties of a president (inauguration, commemoration, etc.). Certainly the general did not neglect provincial 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 timeconsuming 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 breakneck 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 conference: "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 cultivate this medium. Less at ease than his predecessor
when addressing the French directly, he has, contrariwise, become master of the art of communicating his
ideas, of lightly suggesting his intentions, in contexts
where a few words (conversational, reflective, confessional) 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 constraints 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. Mitterrand. Here we have a case of a national political ritual
with the peculiarity of having been to some extent invented by its principal protagonist. The rock of Solutre is
a prehistoric site5 in the heart of Bourgogne that dominates 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 traditions.
Since 1946 M. Mitterrand has made an annual pilgrimage 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 knowledge 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. According to legend, these prehistoric horses threw themselves, for unknown 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 significant 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 moment of escape from the distractions of public life.
Once become President of the Republic, M. Mitterrand remained attached to the ritual he had created. This
indeed continued substantially unchanged, except that
journalists were invited to follow the presidential progress. 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 photographers 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 clothing 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 illuminating in this respect. Whereas in previous years the journalists had reported the president as wearing plimsoles,
M. Mitterrand informed them during the 1985 pilgrimage that his shoes were of another kind, "made at
Chateau-Chinon in a factory called Morvan-Chaussures,
I think" (LeMonde, May 25, 1985).The choice of a local
product made not far away, in the president's old constituency, is eloquent testimony to the territorial meaning 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 Solutre 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 children, the atmosphere of a spring outing, in all this the
ritual presents the image of a shared well-being. It is

A B ~ L Modern
E ~

Political Ritual I 397

thus described by one of the journalists present (Libera- pen in his case [Giscard won the legislative elections of
tion, June 11, 1984):
19781. Why do you want it to happen in mine?" (Le
Monde, May 27, 1985). One could well evoke other
Gilbert Mitterrand and the children, Mme. Hernu and statements by the president, other throw-away lines
other friends from the rue de Bievre sun themselves
which delighted the journalists. The inimitable tone of
at the summit. Towards 12:30 P.M. the advance guard
the SolutrC conversations, a mix of reflections on the
arrives. The sunburned Roger Hanin, Mme. Lang and
solitary exercise of power and very concrete observaher daughter, Georges Fillioud, Jean Riboud. For secu- tions about the immediate concerns of the French, have
rity reasons, they are not without a following. The
made this pilgrimage a veritable "present-day classic."
party breaks up to allow Fran~oisMitterrand to arrive
This is a strange evolution of this intimate ritual that
incognito. Riboud, sporting big sunglasses, takes Filafter 30-odd years has become an element in a comlioud by the arm, he wearing zip-fastened slacks:
municative strategy. Having become substantially polit"Georges, what has happened to our things?" At
ical, this ritual might seem in some way "denatured," a
12:30 P.M. the president is announced. Fran~oisMitmere pretext for the media operations beloved of presterrand in the lead, then Hernu, Attali, Francheschi.
ent-dav commentators. But to dwell exclusivelv on this
. . . the president tells the children: "Be careful, don't
latter aspect of the presidential day would be ;o go too
take risks!" To the journalists who surround him:
far, reducing the message of the ritual to what the presi"You are blocking my view!"
dent says. While keeping track of the president, the anThe second phase of the ritual brings the participants thropologist must contest the type of approach that
together in a nearby restaurant, La Grange au Bois. Here tends to impoverish the significance of the event as a
we again find the good-natured atmosphere of SolutrC. whole. What we have seen is first an ascent, and the
On the menu card is inscribed: "The Mitterrand familv theme of verticalitv has its im~ortancein Mitterrandian
relax over lunch in the wine country." After this meai, symbolism. At the'time of hisAinstallationin May 1981,
shared by those described by the press as "close friends the head of state went up, followed by many Parisians, to
and neighbors" of the president, there comes the great the top of the Montagne Sainte Genevieve to meditate
communicative moment of the day. Neither formal con- inside the Pantheon. The ascending character of this
ference nor anodyne dialogue, the conversation between kind of movement partly reflects the protagonist's posiM. Mitterrand and the representatives of the press seated tion in the political hierarchy. We have seen that the
around him provides the president with an opportunity descent from SolutrC provokes no comment, being
to express himself on current matters of concern in an merely the necessary complement of the presidential
outing. The ascent gives evidence, as we have seen earatmosphere of calm and, even, confidentiality.
It will be seen that SolutrC is also the occasion to de- lier, of the resident's state of health. The ritual thus
liver certain anticipatory messages about likely political makes visibie the man invested with supreme power,
developments. During the 1986 pilgrimage the head of exposing a president walking with his family and
state indicated how he intended to coexist with the new friends. But it is also apparent that the ascent not only
majority, and he let it be understood that the signing of tells us about the man but equally serves as the prelude
ordonnances on denationalization and the redrawing of to deeper reflection. As at the Pantheon, though in a
electoral boundaries would pose problems. Several very different mode, the president has a rendezvous with
months later the French could appreciate the continuity history at the summit: a very ancient history being exof presidential policy in these matters. Other statements posed by the local archaeologists and much more recent
by M. Mitterrand in previous years were also predictive; events to do with the Resistance, but in both cases conthus, in 1984, when asked about the head of the govern- cerning France and its greatness.
Here we come upon the authentically religious dimenment, the president replied: "The prime minister has
plenty of qualities, much merit, much courage and sen- sion of the political ritual: exactly as during the tour of
sitivity. He works a lot. It would not be easy to find Nievre, the sacred is here invoked. But at SolutrC we are
another with such qualities. But such exist, I hope" (Le dealing with a dialogue between Mitterrand the man and
Monde, June 12, 1984). A month later Laurent Fabius the transcendent history of France, whereas the first
replaced Pierre Mauroy, who was certainly accumulat- ritual concerned the elected one and the Republican
ing a great many superlatives. The headlines of the tradition. While it is true that the tour of Nievre and the
newspaper reports on the SolutrC pilgrimage indicate SolutrC pilgrimage participate alike in the construction
rather clearly how these forecasts are understood: "Mit- of the president's legitimacy, the second ritual has a parterrand: What I Know About Post-1986" (Liberation, ticular originality, introducing a new tradition made enMay 2, 1985); "Mitterrand on His Rock: He Refuses to tirely of symbols created by M. Mitterrand himself: the
Give Up Any of His Rights" (Le Q u o t i A e n de Paris, May place, the kind of movement, the meditation at the sum27, 1986). The year 1985 provided the president an op- mit, etc. By combining the registers of the mundane and
portunity to loose several shots at his political oppo- the sacred, the ritual provides an arresting summation of
nents. For M. Giscard dlEstaing,
the different facets of Mitterrand's personality, at the
-, who would certainly see
the president of a future coexistence retiring to Ram- same time as it tends to establish him as a mythological
bouillet: "I believe he liked Rambouillet [an allusion to hero in an arresting face-to-face with the nation and
his predecessor's passion for the hunt]. That didn't hap- with history. No pomp or fanfare here, but the represen-

398 1

CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

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 cman 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 country, 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 invitation to a conversation with journalists might appear
somewhat artificial, destroying in some sort the harmony of this "family outing," or to reintroduce the contingency 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 miracle 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 reference 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 &ormation media was intentional, it still takes on a particular 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 transcendence, the reference to the miracle of Pentecost introduces ;true continuity between the different moments of the presidential day. More, it generates a
context of enunciation propitious to the mode of communication adopted by the head of state: confidential
and at times, if not prophetic, at least inclined to prediction.

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 decreeing the separation of church and state, secular
France has not effaced a religious dimension which is
. ~ visits of M. Mitone with the Republican p r ~ j e c tThe
terrand to Nievre and SolutrC afford the opportunity to
evoke those transcendent values called Nation, Republic, Land, Family, History. There is thus no difference 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 government 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 societies 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 personality and in his mythology. Secondly, the generation
of signs in the ritual can either take the form of a messane, as in the case of the tour of Nikvre as summarized
in-the statement "the President will not insist on inaugurating the chrysanthemums," or determine the conditions of enunciation of a message, conferring a special
character on it: thus the conversation with the journalists 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 message 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 al6. 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.

A B BLB s

Modern Political Ritual 1 399

together new costume for itself, constitutes a most effec- ply a question, perhaps to remain unanswered, rather
tive "snare for thought."
than a criticism.
MAURICE BLOCH

Comments

Department of Anthropology, London School of

Economics, Houghton St., London W C z A zAE,
England. 5 x 87

GEORGES AUGUSTINS

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
One must certainly be grateful to Abeles for having tack- raises questions about the nature of the sacred and
led what he calls "modern ~oliticalrituals" with the whether this folk concept from our religiolacademic
rigour and consideration attaLhed to the study of tradi- culture has any analytical value. It also makes us ask
tional societies. He seems perfectly convincing when he whether there really is a fundamental difference beconcludes that the political "ritual" of modern societies tween "traditional" and modern society. To get fuller
is staged in a context in which secularization is probably answers to these central questions it would be necessary
not absolute and that it is not a survival but a necessary to follow up similarities and differences in more detail
than is possible in an article, but we can be grateful to
element of the definition of an individual legitimacy.
His contention is that two features are necessarv to AbCles for having formulated the problem so engagingly.
I was particularly struck by the crucial importance of
characterize political "ritual": a dependency between
formalization and emotion and a necessary relation be- the familiar themes of aging, death, and continuity in
tween the "rite" itself and its incorporation into a wider the two examples, and I wonder if it is perhaps this conpolitical context. His analysis concerning this second tent, rather than the formal aspects by which ritual is
point is particularly illuminating and constitutes an es- usually defined, that makes us so readily concur with
sential intellectual tool for his successors. The relation AbClks in his feeling that there is something in common
between formalization and emotion seems to me more between these acts of Mitterrand and rituals such as the
complex than he presents it: many rituals, including re- Swazi Ncwala and the celebration of Pentecost. The
ligious ones, put up with disbelief; they may or may not Ncwala is a ritual of renewal, and at its heart lies
generate emotion in a particular participant, but to what the svmbolic death of the king. who is then able to comextent this emotion is related to belief is a particularly mung with his timeless ancestors and so regain political
difficult question.
and military strength. Similarly, Pentecost is the celeThis brings us to the central issue that AbClbls article bration of returned vitalitv to the church after the
most judiciously raises: obviously it is deliberately that earthly death of Christ. ~ i t t k r r a n dtoo, by returning to
he uses the word "ritual" and not the word "ceremo- point of departure and so symbolically completing a
nial." The use of the word "ritual" is justified by the journey, is willingly for the moment accepting aging and
reference to an alleged "symbolic efficacy"; one way of dying, aligning himself with the old and the dead. But
understanding this expression might be as a particular this is only the beginning of the ritual. Mitterrand then
impact of certain formalized gestures or words on the declares that the death of his predecessors was not truly
unconscious of the participant, who sees them as action final, and so by implication neither is his; like them he
upon the world. I do not know if Abeles would agree will continue revitalized and purified by his short period
with this definition, but if what is described is actually a in another world on the summit of the rock halfway to
ritual one might expect a description of the mental pro- heaven, in a place where beginnings and endings meet.
cess bv which it becomes a "snare for thought." The He thereby powerfully legitimises his promised political
whole problem of rituals is to make explicit this concept return as a strengthened rejuvenator of himself and
of "symbolic efficacy," to elucidate the relation between others.
There is something repulsively facile about such
ritual act and emotion. What Abeles describes are ceremonials, which in and of themselves are discourses in familiar performances, but perhaps one of the most inaction about legitimacy; he explains, convincingly, that teresting points made by AbCles is his reference to the
they are something more than ordinary discourses, participants' simultaneous recognition of this facile elesomething in which legitimacy is reasserted by means of ment and their apparent inability to escape a sentimensymbolic evocations, but the emotional involvement tality that, in more discursive contexts, they would
and involuntary adherence of the individual spectator despise. The possibility of having such apparently conare probably far less important than in the case of a be- tradictory attitudes to a ritual and the feeling of being
liever attending a religious rite. In other words, is it trapped by the performance is not exceptional but typisufficient to say that there is symbolic efficacy because a cal not just of rituals in the West but of all rituals. I
conjunction between formalization and emotion possi- therefore do not believe that there is any fundamental
bly occurs? How are we, in this particular case, to under- difference between what Abeles describes and more
stand symbolic efficacy? This must be considered sim- familiar anthropological cases.
Laboratoire d'Ethnologie et de Sociologie
Comparative, Universitb de Paris x,92001 Nanterre,
France. 7 x 87

u,

400

CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

Volume 29, Number 3, June 1988

RALPH G R I L L 0

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 Observation on England [Jennings 19371).
Finally, I wonder if AbClks underestimates the conscious way in which contemporary politicians and their
advisers-possibly since the late fifties-have increasingly 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.

School of African and Asian Studies, University of

Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, Sussex BNI 9QN, England.
14 x 87

J A M E S LETT

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 minimizing the significance of their intentionality. In the
French case the participants delude themselves in believing that they are creating anew, ex nihilo, whereas in
fact, as we have seen, they are following familiar patterns. They, by contrast, are 'overestimating their intentionality. Perhaps the familiar contrast between individualism 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.

This paper addresses in an interesting and thoughtprovoking way some important questions. The nature of
ritual in contemporary Western society, especially political 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 aspects 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 personage. A broad review of a wide range of comparative, contemporary 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 continuity 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 between 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 example, a comparison on a line taken from Washington
through Lincoln to Kennedy and Reagan). There is a

Department of Anthropology, Indian River

Community College, 3 209 Virginia Ave., Ft. Pierce,
Flu. 33454, U.S.A. 5 IX 87
AbCl&slsdescription 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 organizations 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 relations of abiding complexity . . . between the political and
the religious" (emphasis added). The Mitterrand rituals
that he describes are essentially devoid of any supernatural allusion or symbolism. Perhaps I am simply
quibbling over semantics, but I think not. Most anthropologists 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 support of political institutions is ubiquitous in "traditional" societies. Certainly contemporary industrialized
state societies do claim supernatural support for their
political institutions, but, from an evolutionary perspective, they are doing so less and less. Political organizations 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. Contemporary industrialized societies continue to have rituals of technology, therapy, ideology, salvation, and
revitalization just like band, tribal, chiefdom, and nonindustrial 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 demonstrate this. The evocative symbols manipulated by President 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 context-and their form and function are identical to religious symbols expressed in religious rituals-but they
are not religious symbols, nor is the inauguration a religious ritual. The same is true of Mitterrand's "pilgrimage" to SolutrC. Here, as AbCles observes, what Mitterrand 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 additional inspiration drawn from structuralists (LeviStrauss 1963, 1976). Both of these paradigms are centrally concerned with the role that symbols play in
human life, and both recognize that the most powerful 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
( I 970:2 5 -28) calls "normal science1'-examining the
facts at hand, comparing them with his paradigm's theoretical predictions, and demonstrating the paradigm's
theoretical principles. As I have argued elsewhere (Lett
1987))however, symbolic anthropology and structuralism do not, at the present time, need further demonstrations of their application. Instead, both paradigms need a
more rigorous formulation of their theoretical principles. 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 institutions not formerly recognized as such. This development
is connected with an increase in the number of ethnographic studies of civilised, supposedly rational societies
and the breakdown of the conceptual distinction between 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
to establish consensus
have explained elsewhere (1987)~
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 perhaps also of "the sacred," which covers much more today 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'appellent '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 significance" of his actions and words. Abeles's subject is
certainly well chosen for such a theoretical demonstration.
PETER H. STEPHENSON

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 interpretation of modern political ritual in France under the waning presidency of Mitterrand poses many lines for
further commentary. I shall restrict myself to his essentially "monistic" point of view and the conceptual limitations imposed on his interpretation by France's being a
republic. These two issues are related, in my view, because both yield the same blind spot.
If one takes "monism" to mean that the universe of
explanation is shared by analyst and subject and consequently 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

CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

Volume 29, Number 3, June 1988

assume the privileged position of an outsider with special knowledge when one works at home, where the
elitism so opaque (and acceptable) in the cross-cultural
situation becomes transparent (and intolerable). My suspicion arises from the simple fact that AbClks only asserts his conclusion-he does not marshal any direct
evidence for it here. A brief reading list of others' research 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, nonconstitutional 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 "primitive" 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 officeholders 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 instances 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 effectively 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 monarchs-one has only to think of Elizabeth and Beatrixmay represent both the state and history in their very
persons. Perhaps this explains in part the public obsession with what they wear rather than what they say.
Prince Charles, for example, may give an address on rebuilding 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 occasion 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 sensibilities. The prime minister in a constitutional monarchy 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 toward 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 consequence for their political lives.
Just a week ago, Queen Elizabeth visited Victoria, British 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 conversation 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 circumstance" 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. Imperial 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.

MARC ABELES
Paris, France. 24 XI 87

The comments on this analysis of modern political

ritual tie in with questions that I myself have been ponI.

Translated by Mary Turton.

ABELES

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~ublicas 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 resolutely comparative approach is essential. It was with
this in mind that I referred to the Swazi ritual so well
analvzed bv Hilda K u ~ e r .
~ h l l observes corr\ctly that I might profitably have
compared the rituals of Franqois Mitterrand with those
of American presidents and, more generally, used historic 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~licitbut
always present in anthropology-one that has developed, 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 challenging 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 constitutional 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 constitutional monarchy is worthy of study on its own because
of the eminent and ambiguous position they enjoy.
1

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 manipulated by President Mitterrand. But we must also bear in
mind the psychological mechanisms determining the reactions 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 development of research into the symbolic bases of legitimacy,
which is as much the prerogative of historians as of anthropologists. One may marvel at the poverty of the anthropology 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 supernatural 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 disappearance 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 believer merge together," writes Prost (in Nora 1984:221)
on the subject of the commemorations of the armistice
of I 9 I 8. 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 Communion" (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 sacred. 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 preconceived definition~that are not untainted by ethnocentrism. 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

CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

Volume 29, Number 3, June 1988

Fran~oisMitterrand'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 belief in values whose persistence has been demonstrated
in a recent book (Nora 1984).Whereas the purely practical actions of the French president have never elicited a
real consensus, the remarkable symbolic work he performs not only in his speeches but in the way he "contextualizes" 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 reference 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 proposed, a fact which bears witness to the symbolic richness of the ritual.
The commentators then return to the notion of invention 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 reinvention of a tradition, a phenomenon observable in our societies (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, represent a creation ex nihilo even though they make use of
all the symbolic ingredients familiar to the anthropologist.
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 original approach to modern political fact. Indeed, anthropologists refuse, in the Maussian tradition, to adopt preconceived distinctions by arbitrarily separating, for
example, the religious from the political. Moreover, the
comparative standpoint implies a critical attitude towards 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 anthropology of African societies, they faced theoretical problems that are not unrelated to those we encounter today.
They asked themselves how to construct a non-statebased model of political relationshps but refused to adopt
a reductionist attitude towards phenomena that did not fit
into the mould of modern political representations. Today the construction of a political anthropology of industrial (orpost-industrial) societies poses an identical problem 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. [ J P R ]
B I N N S , C H R I S T O P H E R . 1979. The changing face of power: Revolution 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 i n social anthropology, pp. 66-86. London: 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 Africanpolitical 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 anthropology. New York: Basic Books. [ J L ]
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 tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
I Z A R D , M . 1973. La lance et les guenilles. L'Homme 13 (3):13949.
J E N N I N G S , H . , E T A L . 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 i n

mediaeval political theology. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
K U H N , T H O M A S . 1970. 2d edition. The structure of scientificrevolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [ T L ]
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 University Press. [RG]
L E A F , M . T .1979. Man, mind, and science: A history of anthropology. New York: Columbia University Press. [ P H S ]
L E F O R T , C . 1986. Essais sur le politique ( X I X ' ~ ~ ~ - sibcle).
X P ~ ~
Paris: Le Seuil.
L E T T , J A M E S1987.
.
The human enterprise: A critical introduction to anthropological theory. Boulder: Westview Press. [ J L ]
L E V I - S T R A U S S , C L A U D E1963.
.
Structural anthropology. Vol. I .
New York: Basic Books. [ T L ]
-.
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 republique. 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," i n La fonction symbolique. Edited by M. Izard and P. Smith. Paris: Gallimard.
V I A N S S O N - P O N T B , P I E R R E1963.
.
Les Gaullistes: Rituel et annuaire. 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 ]