Political Myth

Christopher Flood

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9780815300960
• eBook ISBN: 9781135347956
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

First Published in 2002. Myth theorists characterize myths as stories that possess the status of sacred truth within one or more social groups. Flood discusses how political myth is an ideologically marked narrative that purports to give a true account of a set of past, present, or predicted political events, widely accepted as valid in its essentials. Among the topics explored are: the historical line of political myth in nineteenth- and twentieth-century Western political discourse; the characteristics of political myths and the forms they take in political life and the ends they serve; and the features of political ideologies that are most useful for understanding the nature of political myth.

CHAPTER VIII

CASE STUDIES IN MYTHOPOEIC NARRATIVE: (1) DE GAULLE’S “BAYEUX CONSTITUTION”

This chapter is devoted to a case study, as are the two chapters that follow. The aim in all three analyses is to provide illustrations of entire texts to complement the more piecemeal approach adopted in earlier chapters. The first case is a speech given in the course of a ritual. It provides the opportunity to examine how the discourse and the ceremony fit together. The speech is one of the most famous delivered in France this century. It was given by General Charles de Gaulle. Former leader of the Free French movement during the Second World War, de Gaulle headed the Provisional Governments of France from the Liberation in 1944 until January 1946. He campaigned against the Constitution of the Fourth Republic adopted in 1946 and led a mass movement of opposition from 1947 to 1953. He was the first president of the Fifth Republic from 1958 to 1969. Delivered at Bayeux on 16 June 1946, the speech shows de Gaulle combining mythopoeic narrative with theoretical argument to sketch a distinctive ideological position which was itself linked to a bid for political power.

The Historical Context

Historians of post-war France have regarded de Gaulle’s speech at Bayeux on 16 June 1946—often labelled the “Bayeux Constitution”—as a seminal text. It defines the constitutional principles which de Gaulle was to advocate during his years of opposition to the political system of the Fourth Republic until they were embodied in the Constitution of the Fifth Republic in 1958. André Astoux, one of de Gaulle’s followers at the time, recalls that the speech had served as a reference point for his supporters throughout the long period of opposition (1974: 90–1). As Jean Lacouture puts it in his comprehensive biography of the General, it can be viewed as the monument inaugurating the second phase of Gaullism, just as de Gaulle’s radio appeal from London on 18 June 1940 had been for the first phase, in which de Gaulle had presented himself as the embodiment of French resistance to Germany (1985: 269).

There is nothing new in considering de Gaulle as a myth-maker. For example, Alan Morris and Colin Nettlebeck have discussed the way in which the Gaullist myth was established in the post-Liberation period but came under attack from the late 1960s onwards (Morris 1985, 1992; Nettlebeck 1985). Morris uses the term myth to connote historiographical and hagiographical distortion through quasi-religious transfiguration of persons and events in relation to objective historical truth. He argues that de Gaulle was using myth during the war, when he gave exaggerated accounts of the extent of French resistance to Germany or of the degree of popular support for himself. The Gaullist myth was reaffirmed after the Liberation—for example, at Bayeux—and came to embody a series of propositions which Morris lists as follows:

… first, the number of real collaborators [with the Germans] was minute; second, the vast majority of French people were basically patriotic, even if some were misled; third, the true cause of France was actively expressed by an élite of heroic résistants; and finally, the Resistance was incarnated by de Gaulle. (1985: 75)

Nettlebeck summarizes the myth in broadly similar terms (1985: 79–80). This kind of analysis is all right as far as it goes, but de Gaulle’s mythmaking was far richer and more complex than is suggested by the usual summaries of questionable claims which he propagated on the subject of the Resistance. The speech at Bayeux illustrates how mythmaking can function in relation to ideological production by underpinning theoretical principles with historical narrative.

If a climate of uncertainty is especially conducive to the production and circulation of political myths, as Cassirer and others have argued, it is worth recalling that the political situation in France during the summer of 1946 was by no means stable. To understand the context it is necessary to outline some of the major factors affecting French political life over the previous six years.

The success of the German invasion in May-June 1940 had led to the collapse of the Third Republic under which France had been governed since 1870. The Republic was replaced by the authoritarian Vichy regime, dominated by sections of the extreme right and headed by Marshal Philippe Pétain, whose government adopted a policy of official collaboration with Germany. The German retreat in face of the Allied advance after the Normandy landings in June 1944 led to the end of the Vichy regime. The liberation of the country had been accomplished, in part, by French forces of the external or internal Resistance, under the overall control of General de Gaulle, the man who had set up the Free French movement after broadcasting his call to resistance on the radio from London on 18 June 1940 (de Gaulle 1970a: 3–4, for the text).

From the liberation of Paris in late August 1944 through to November 1945 de Gaulle had been head of the first Provisional Government. Civil order was slowly restored, while communist moves to foment revolution were countered, and the long process of economic reconstruction was begun. France also contributed to the continuing Allied war effort. In keeping with the objective of restoring republican democracy, the first national elections were held on 21 October 1945, concurrently with a referendum to determine the functions of the elected assembly. The new body, which was massively dominated by two left-wing parties, the Communists (PCF) and Socialists (SFIO), and the centre-left, recently formed Christian-democrat MRP—all of which were closely associated with the Resistance—was given the remit of drafting a new constitution within seven months. It unanimously elected de Gaulle to head the second Provisional Government, which contained ministers from the three major parties plus some of the General’s personal appointees.

However, within a mere two months, on 20 January 1946, the General had resigned his post amid tensions and frustrations in his dealings with the Constituent Assembly. The testimony of those who knew him at the time points strongly to the view that his resignation was intended as a tactical withdrawal pending a return to power under more favourable conditions, though it is not clear whether he anticipated that his return would be almost immediate (Charlot 1983; Lacouture 1985). For some months he had withdrawn from political life, and although there had been hints in a previous speech on 12 May 1946 (see de Gaulle 1970b: 3–4; Charlot 1983: 53–4, for the context), the Bayeux speech was his first major intervention in public debate since January. Meanwhile, government continued on the basis of a tripartite division of ministerial posts between the PCF, SFIO, and MRP.

On 5 May 1946 a draft constitution was submitted to referendum. Supported by the PCF and by a majority of the SFIO but opposed by the MRP as well as by the parties of the political centre and right, it proposed a system of which the lynch-pin would have been a single-chamber legislative assembly with very extensive control over the executive. Fear that the PCF could potentially dominate such a system contributed to rejection of the proposal by the electorate with a vote of 10.3 million against, versus 9.1 million in favour of the draft. At the time of de Gaulle’s Bayeux speech the second Constituent Assembly elected on 2 June, with the MRP as the largest party but closely followed by the PCF and the SFIO, had not yet arrived at a new draft. There appeared to be no immediate prospect of reaching a solution which would satisfy all three of the major parties. Public dissatisfaction with the drift and deadlock at the centre of power was growing. In Le Monde (18 June 1946) the moment was described as “particularly difficult,” and in Le Figaro (18 June 1946), comparing the present time with the situation which had brought de Gaulle to Normandy during the war, Michel-P. Hamelet remarked that although the country might now be at peace, “France’s destiny is still threatened.” As if to emphasize the point, France was, in effect, without a government on the day of the speech, since it fell between the resignation of the outgoing premier, Félix Gouin, on 13 June and the investiture of his successor, Georges Bidault, on 19 June.

As for the immediate context of utterance, the date and site of the occasion carried a heavy symbolic charge. 16 June 1946 was two days before the sixth anniversary of de Gaulle’s historic appeal from London which had led to the formation of the Free French movement. It was also two days after the second anniversary of de Gaulle’s entry into Bayeux following the Allied landings on the Normandy beaches in June 1944. In other words, the timing and location indexically evoked both de Gaulle’s withdrawal from France to begin the long battle to free his country and his subsequent return to France as the liberator. Each of these factors was a vital element in the mythopoeic narrative which de Gaulle included in his speech.

Description of the Ceremony

The staging of the ceremony was elaborate. While the speech was no doubt the most important event of that day, it was incorporated within a ritual which provided a highly charged dramatic and symbolic context for it. According to Lacouture (1985: 264), de Gaulle had accepted the invitation to Bayeux precisely because the symbolism of the place where he had returned to France after four years of exile made it seem particularly appropriate for launching a spectacular return to the political scene six months after his resignation from the premiership. Revealingly, in a calculated snub to the political leadership of the country, de Gaulle had declined to attend the official state celebration of the anniversary of his historic appeal on 18 June 1940, which was to be celebrated in Paris two days after the Bayeux speech. He chose instead to attend an unofficial ceremony at the fort of Mont Valérien just outside the capital, at which he was tumultuously acclaimed by the crowd (Mauriac 1978).

The ceremony at Bayeux on 16 June was not an official state function, even if its scale and the status of many of those attending made it much more than a local civic ceremony. It was organized by the town council, undoubtedly in co-ordination with de Gaulle’s representatives. Nevertheless, it was attended by M. Martin, the Prefect of the département of Calvados. The military participation in the ceremonies was reported by the satirical newspaper, Le Canard enchaîné (19 June 1946), to have been organized by Edmond Michelet, Minister for the Armed Forces. It was the subject of detailed reports in major newspapers, such as Le Monde and Le Figaro as well as being broadcast on radio by Radiodiffusion Française and Radio Luxembourg.

Thanks to a detailed report in Le Monde (18 June 1946), supplemented with material from other newspapers and from memoirs, it is possible to gain a fairly clear picture of the ceremony. The previous day, Bayeux had been draped in flags. With a fine irony, German prisoners of war had been used to mark V-for-victory shapes in the sand around the monument which was to be unveiled by de Gaulle in the course of the ceremonies (Le Figaro, 16–17 June 1946). In the evening there had been a large display of local folklore. The reporter from Le Monde, signing A.B., noted that overnight the streets and houses had been further decked with tricolour flags. There were also flags bearing the cross of Lorraine, emblem of the wartime Free French movement, as well as portraits of de Gaulle, triumphal arches, garlands, and numerous streamers carrying slogans with words such as “Honour to France’s first resister” and “You have suffered, may you be honoured.” De Gaulle arrived the evening before the ceremony and spent the night just outside the town in a residence belonging to the deputy mayor. In the morning all of the townspeople seemed to be outdoors, putting the final touches to the preparations amid an atmosphere of great excitement. The only exceptions to the festive mood were the German war prisoners, with rounded backs and lowered heads, setting off to carry out some task or other.

At nine o’clock de Gaulle’s car met with others outside the church at Vaucelles on the outskirts of Bayeux, then led the convoy of vehicles westwards from the town to Isigny, about 19 miles away. There, the General, in military uniform, alighted amid the ruins, shook hands on all sides with enthusiastic onlookers, and placed a commemorative wreath at the foot of the war memorial. The mayor of Isigny made a speech (largely inaudible because he had his back to the microphone most of the time) to which de Gaulle replied with words of admiration for the courage of the local people during the sufferings of the war. The procession of cars then drove back along its original route but skirted Bayeux and continued east-northeast to the coast at Courseulles, where de Gaulle had first reached France on 14 June 1944 during the Allied landings. Again, the General made a speech in front of the war memorial, commenting on his emotion at revisiting the historic locality which had been the first to regain its freedom. Walking to the harbour between the remains of German blockhouses, he gazed out towards the wrecked ships which still littered the water. Returning to his car, he was rousingly greeted with the singing of the French national anthem, the Marseillaise.

For his arrival back in Bayeux de Gaulle had requested to meet the members of the town council at precisely the spot where they had met as he entered the town in 1944. Accompanied by the mayor, Dr. Jeanne, and by General Préaud, he walked through the crowds to the Cathedral, at the doors of which he was met by the bishop, Mgr. Picaud, who escorted him to the chancel. In the front rows of the congregation were military and civil dignitaries associated with de Gaulle—General Koenig, Admiral Thierry d’Argenlieu, Admiral Barjot, Gaston Palewski, Pierre de Chevigné, Maurice Schumann, and Elisabeth de Miribel as well as M. Martin, the Prefect of Calvados. In the course of the High Mass the bishop referred eloquently to the events of 18 June 1940 and 14 June 1944. After the service, it was a short walk to the Place de l’Arbre-de-la-Liberté, a square where delegations of veterans from both world wars were lined up to be inspected alongside representatives of the Resistance movement. By now, de Gaulle’s entourage had been joined by more of his wartime aides, including René Capitant and Jacques Soustelle, for example. When the procession entered the town hall for lunch, the crowd remained in the square calling for de Gaulle. As he appeared on a balcony, there were cries of “Take power (Au pouvoir)!”

At half past three in the afternoon the scene was the Place du Château, the square in which he had addressed the people in June 1944. Cadets from the military academy of Coëtquidan formed the guard of honour. Generals Préaud, Schlesser, Juin, Marchand, and Koenig were there, as was Admiral d’Argenlieu, and so too were members of the commemorative order of Companions of the Liberation. Among the other French dignitaries was Joseph Laniel, Vice-President of the Constituent Assembly. There too were Henri Frenay and the famous novelist, André Malraux, both of them former ministers under de Gaulle’s presidency of the Provisional Government, and Pierre Clostermann, the former air ace, now a parliamentarian. Bells tolled, the Marseillaise was sung, and de Gaulle saluted the flag. The mayor gave a speech praising the fidelity of the local people to de Gaulle, whom he described as “the living symbol of our country’s military virtues and chivalrous traditions, the man who was right in the face of all obstacles, the unquestioned leader of the new France.” The mayor also declared that although the General had temporarily withdrawn, the people’s greatest source of security lay in their knowledge that he would be ready for whatever sacrifices were necessary when the time came. These remarks were greeted with massive applause and cries of “Take power!” De Gaulle unveiled the monument which bore the inscription: “In this place, on XIV June MCMXLIV, to the inhabitants of Bayeux as they rejoiced at their deliverance, Charles de Gaulle, liberator of the country, addressed his first words on the soil of liberated France.” Bare-headed in the rain, the General mounted the dais, and gave his speech. Rising applause greeted the crucial passages. He ended to an enormous ovation. Having returned to the town hall, he reappeared once more to greet the cheering crowd, which continued to chant, “Take power! Take power!” After he had finally been escorted from the city that evening, the celebrations continued with a concert by a naval band, a firework display, and dancing through the night.

Analysis of the Ceremony

Leaving aside the content of the speeches for the time being, what features of the ceremony deserve comment? A particularly interesting aspect of the occasion is the way in which it evokes different, potentially contradictory sets of concepts or emotions which become complementary to one another rather than conflicting. The bunting, the flowers, the cheering, the dancing, and fireworks all contributed to a highly festive atmosphere. As the commentators noted, this was an extremely joyful celebration which nevertheless included plentiful reminders of suffering, sacrifice, and grief. The anniversary of 18 June 1940 connoted heroic refusal of a seemingly irrevocable defeat, whereas the anniversary of 14 June 1944 connoted the reward for the long years of endurance in between. The visible presence of German war prisoners in the town, even if they were not being paraded as part of the display, must surely have added to the symbolism. The losses and destruction which had made the Liberation so sweet were marked by ruined churches or wrecked ships visible on the tour of the environs as well as by the memorials to the dead and by the presence of veterans of the fighting.

This was also an occasion for a meeting of the local and the national, the province and the metropolis, within the embrace of patriotism. The display of local customs on the previous evening served as a prefatory reminder of the particularity of Normandy and of the people’s pride in their local traditions. The colourful decking out of the town also testified to its people’s civic pride. After all, Bayeux was steeped in the history and mythology of France’s past as a major power. Most notably, it was the home of the famous tapestry depicting William the Conqueror’s successful invasion of England in the eleventh century. And Bayeux in Normandy, amongst all possible places, had been the first French town liberated by de Gaulle. The mayors of Bayeux and Isigny had their day of glory, as did municipal councillors, local clergy, military personnel, and the mass of ordinary participants, some of whom had the opportunity to walk alongside de Gaulle, or be introduced to him, or at least to shake his hand. At the same time, it was an eminently national occasion. The town was packed with well-known national figures, and above all there was de Gaulle himself, in person, with the national media in attendance. Patriotic fervour was signalled and incited by the tricolour national flags hung everywhere and by the singing of the Marseillaise. It was a very French affair. The reporter for Le Monde mentioned that there were some foreign representatives present but did not deign to name them.

The celebration of national identity in relation to the birth and triumph of the Free French movement also brought together symbols of two facets of France’s past which had sometimes been viewed as opposing each other. On one level, of course, the ubiquitous tricolour flag and the singing of the Marseillaise simply symbolized contemporary French nationhood. Likewise, the flags bearing the Cross of Lorraine, which were draped all over the town and across the dais on which de Gaulle made his speech, symbolized the Free French movement formed in 1940. On the other hand, the tricolour flag had first come into use as a product and symbol of the French Revolution (see Hunt 1984: 57). Similarly, the Marseillaise had originally been composed in 1792 as a song of defiance against the Austrian forces of absolute monarchy which had declared war on revolutionary France (Schama 1989: 598–9).

The Cross of Lorraine had different historical connotations. The idea for placing the Cross at the centre of the tricolour flag had been proposed in 1940 by Thierry d’Argenlieu, a former Carmelite monk. It had made a powerful symbol of resistance by recalling the banner under which Joan of Arc had fought to liberate France from an earlier invader and by reminding people of the eastern re...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Series Editor’s Foreword
• Introduction
• I Political Ideology
• II Sacred Myth/Political Myth
• III Telling Myths
• IV Believing Myths
• V Questions of Form
• VI Ideological Meaning in History
• VII Icons, Indexes, and Rituals
• VIII Case Studies in Mythopoeic Narrative: (1) De Gaulle’s “Bayeux Constitution”
• IX Case Studies in Mythopoeic Narrative: (2) The Story of Wilma Mankiller
• X Case Studies in Mythopoeic Narrative: (3) A Note on Cassirer as Mythmaker
• Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Index