A Community of Work and Thought
This interview explores the philosophy and mission of G.R.E.C.E., emphasizing its commitment to cultural and metapolitical work rather than direct political engagement. The interview was conducted with Jean-Claude Valla in 1977 and comprises the second chapter of “Pour une renaissance culturelle” (For a Cultural Renaissance), titled “A Community of Work and Thought.” Jean-Claude Valla explains that G.R.E.C.E. seeks to identify and address the deep-rooted causes of societal crises, particularly the influence of egalitarianism and cultural subversion. The organization positions itself as a center for intellectual exploration and the renewal of European values, aiming to foster a robust cultural foundation as a prerequisite for societal transformation. While rejecting dogmatism, it strives to harmonize diverse ideological influences and emphasizes the integration of ideas into daily life through ethical and aesthetic practices. Ultimately, G.R.E.C.E. aspires to create a model counter-society that embodies its principles and serves as a catalyst for the envisioned European renaissance.
Translated by Alexander Raynor
— The G.R.E.C.E., which has set itself significant objectives, has taken a noteworthy place among contemporary intellectual movements since its creation. It aims to represent new positions and offer original proposals. When was it founded, and why?
— Jean-Claude Valla (JCV): The G.R.E.C.E. is a society of thought, effectively established at the beginning of 1968. That year, as everyone remembers, was marked by unexpected events and a violent wave of dissent, which many saw as a symptom of a certain malaise. At that time, the crisis affecting developed societies began to be clearly perceived by the majority of intellectual currents, starting with the one expressed through our association.
Of course, this does not mean that we align ourselves with the spirit of what has been called the "May Movement." In many respects, we even position ourselves in direct opposition to it. However, it is undeniable that the founding of G.R.E.C.E., though stemming from different motivations, was also a result of the unease of the late 1960s. A very telling coincidence, moreover, was that the first national meeting of the association's organizers took place on May 4 and 5, 1968, in Lyon.
Those who took this initiative were eager, in light of the widespread questioning they were witnessing, to initiate a process of clarifying ideas. They intended to do so based on the fundamental values inherent to European culture, to which we belong.
The founders of G.R.E.C.E. were mostly young men. Some were still at university, while others had only recently entered professional life. A few had previously been personally involved in political or union activities, which they had constructively critiqued. All were convinced that the solution to the crisis lay, on the one hand, in a renewed awareness of our civilizational heritage and, on the other, in the determination to address issues at their core, distancing themselves from the contingencies of current events.
— What exactly do you mean by an examination "at its core"?
— JCV: In times of crisis, the symptoms are generally perceived by many people. Common sense allows one to observe that there is an imbalance in society and that this imbalance produces certain effects. However, when it comes to identifying the causes, things become much more complex. A superficial examination of phenomena leads to excessive simplifications and unproductive identifications. Certain "blockages," whether ideological or otherwise, often prevent people from tracing back to the ultimate causes. Yet, it is clear that no effective action can be taken on the effects without also addressing the causes. Therefore, these causes must be identified. This can only be achieved through study and analysis that remains focused on its objective, undeterred by the pressures of circumstances and events.
On the other hand, we must admit that our intellectual tradition has, until recent years at least, been poorly equipped in terms of a cohesive system of thought. Over time, its worldview has frayed, and one might even question whether it was ever truly formed in a coherent manner—aside from instinctive reactions, which were sometimes fortunate and sometimes not. It was therefore essential to take stock of what could be preserved and what needed to be abandoned and to build upon these foundations, creating in an intellectual crucible a renewed, clear doctrine that was fully coherent with its objectives. G.R.E.C.E. has had—and continues to have—the ambition to be that crucible.
— The association was therefore founded in 1968. It gradually gained momentum and experienced significant growth. You are now in a position to provide a preliminary assessment. First of all, how would you define G.R.E.C.E.? Is it a movement, a party, or a pressure group?
— JCV: According to its statutes, it is a "society of thought with an intellectual vocation." This means that G.R.E.C.E. has a dual purpose. On one hand, it serves as a center for reflection, which, building on the awareness of European values that I just mentioned, strives to offer solutions and explanations to current problems. As such, it disseminates various publications, organizes meetings, colloquia, and so on. On the other hand, it brings its members together in an organic form, with the hope of establishing a community of work and thought.
— I notice in your statutes a reference to "mutual assistance"...
—JCV: Mutual assistance is a natural consequence of this aspiration.
In an intellectual community, many connections are formed among individuals, shaped by affinities and a clear understanding of shared values. By mutual assistance, we mean mutual support in daily life, professional opportunities, and even a certain duty of solidarity. It is, if you will, the practical application of the adage: "Birds of a feather flock together." But it also involves the gradual establishment of a genuine network, which will be less vulnerable to changes in circumstances. In short, we wanted G.R.E.C.E. to be more than a mere aggregation of individuals sharing only the act of signing a membership form. Instead, it aspires to transform itself, while respecting individual personalities and temperaments, into a true community.
— The acronym of the association might be intriguing. Why do its initials spell "GRECE"?
—JCV: Quite simply, we wanted the acronym to evoke our intention to place ourselves under the spiritual patronage of the ancient Greek world, that Greek "miracle" which was one of the cradles of our culture. It was in Greece that the scientific spirit was born—a spirit that, as Jules Monnerot reminded us, is the antithesis of the messianic mindset found today in subversion. This is not exclusive in any way. The heritage we claim is, of course, the entirety of the European heritage, stretching back to its emergence on the world stage after the Neolithic Revolution, four or five thousand years ago. We are as attached to the Latins, Celts, and Germanic peoples as we are to the Greeks. Nevertheless, since a choice had to be made, this "allusion" seemed sufficiently evocative both intellectually and historically. That is why we adopted it.
— Do you align yourselves, as a society of thought, with a particular theorist?
—JCV: We are, in principle, quite opposed to this approach. It is a matter of methodology. We propose a maieutic approach: examining contemporary issues in light of a specific heritage. This heritage is very rich, and we believe it would be diminished by reducing it to the contributions of any one thinker, however eminent they might be. Furthermore, this approach risks leading to an impoverished view of the world’s diversity—a kind of unilateralism that underpins all those reductionist doctrines claiming to interpret the entirety of existence and history through the lens of a single arbitrarily isolated factor.
On this note, I would point out that Marxists, who claim that only the masses make history, call themselves Marxists rather than “massists.” This reference to a specific name is, in itself, already a tacit contradiction of their assertions.
For our part, we aim to bring the entirety of our heritage into the present, giving, of course, special weight to those—Nietzsche’s name immediately comes to mind—who have done the most in the past to define the path we are now following.
— Is G.R.E.C.E. open to everyone, or are there restrictive conditions for membership?
—JCV: There are no restrictive conditions. G.R.E.C.E. is open to both men and women, to young people and students as well as adults. The only requirement, as in any association, is to share our aspirations and to act in accordance with our statutes and internal rules.
— What is the recruitment method?
—JCV: From its inception, G.R.E.C.E. decided to adopt an extremely selective recruitment policy. As I mentioned earlier, we are neither a party nor a movement. Therefore, we are not seeking to amass large numbers of members recruited on any arbitrary basis. Our strength does not lie in numbers or the "electoral weight" of our members. This does not mean that the influence we exert is negligible—on the contrary. But our influence is exerted directly on minds; it does not stem solely from administrative membership.
At the same time, we do not limit our activities to the circle of our members alone. A significant number of sympathizers participate in our meetings and public events—individuals who belong to other organizations or independents who feel they have something to learn from us.
A political party is compelled to prioritize gaining members. As a result, it suffers from the disadvantages of large membership: hastily acquired adhesions, heterogeneous coalitions of differing opinions, incessant dissensions, divisions, and so on. We seek to avoid such drawbacks, and we believe the approach we have chosen will help us do so.
This is why each membership application is processed according to very specific rules (involving candidacy and sponsorship), allowing us to recruit high-quality members whom we know relatively well and who we believe will benefit from their interaction with us just as much as we will benefit from ours with them.
— Are you saying that, to join G.R.E.C.E., one must be "loaded with degrees" or at least capable of making a high-level personal contribution to the work you’ve undertaken?
—JCV: Not at all. Our selection process has nothing to do with a "bourgeois" conception of elitism that would lead us to recruit members based on their university degrees, IQ, or similar criteria. Some members of G.R.E.C.E. have no formal qualifications, and many do not directly participate in the work we carry out.
The selection I referred to is of a different nature. What we aim to exclude are the fickle individuals who "flit" from one association to another, treating them like a form of "tourism." In our view, membership is not merely a signature—it is a commitment, an act rooted as much, if not more, in ethics than in legality.
A commitment demands a certain level of loyalty—first and foremost to oneself, and consequently to those with whom one has made that commitment. Our selection process seeks to encourage greater rigor and fidelity.
— Given this selective recruitment policy and, moreover, the large number and high quality of G.R.E.C.E.'s initiatives, one might wonder how you finance the association?
—JCV: We have adopted autonomy and the profitability of nearly all our activities as a guiding principle. The major mistake of some organizations, in my opinion, has been twofold: underestimating the material effort that can be made by members and—most importantly—creating structures without being certain of their financial sustainability. In contrast, we have taken the exact opposite approach.
G.R.E.C.E. began without any triumphalism, and even modestly. Our publications, which today are of excellent quality, started as simple mimeographed bulletins. The expansion of our activities and the increasing complexity of our organization have consistently kept pace with the growth of our actual resources.
This caution has always been accompanied by rigorous management—something that, it must be said, is not particularly common in organizations like ours. I believe it is fair to say that in this regard, G.R.E.C.E. stands out positively compared to other ventures.
On a practical level, each of our activities operates with its own dedicated budget. Only the central structure functions across multiple budgets (due to the overlap of activities). For parallel and subsidiary activities, the rule we have established is to give each a set period of time—one year, eighteen months depending on the case—to achieve profitability and autonomy. When it becomes clear that this profitability is not achievable, we never hesitate to terminate the activity in question. In other words, we refuse to pursue costly and inefficient initiatives simply because they have started and continuing them might be personally gratifying.
The same principle applies to the organization of G.R.E.C.E. itself. All our activities and regional delegations have financial autonomy. It is their responsibility to adjust their level of activity to the resources they actually have at their disposal.
A selective recruitment policy is by no means an obstacle to financial contributions. On the contrary: a highly motivated member is one who will, on their own, respond much more consistently to the efforts required of them, because they understand the purpose of these efforts and how the resources gathered will be used.
This is why the annual membership fee for G.R.E.C.E. has always been relatively high. We believe that convictions not translated into practical commitment on this level are weak convictions indeed—and that those who hold them are more of a burden than an asset.
In addition to the regular membership fees paid by all members, voluntary contributions play a crucial role in our financing. These include, first and foremost, contributions made within the framework of the Club des Cent. These contributions are never less than 1,200 francs per year. Added to this are even greater personal commitments. A number of association members have pledged to contribute 10% of their monthly income. Additionally, some of our regional units receive subsidies from municipal or departmental authorities.
The remainder of our financial income comes from subscriptions, single-issue sales, advertising revenue, contributions toward the costs of organizing meetings and conferences, and similar sources. The entirety of these various revenues fully covers our budget, which is managed and monitored by a Financial Commission.
— More generally, what are your means of action?
—JCV: It is important to distinguish here between activities at the federal level and those at the regional or local levels. The latter are managed by regional units and delegations, as well as local groups or circles, in coordination with the General Secretariat.
First and foremost, we must mention our publications, which currently form a significant body of work: the newspaper Éléments,1 the Internal Bulletin, books and brochures, as well as more specialized publications, such as Nouvelle Éducation.2
Next come the events themselves, whether public or private. Since its creation, G.R.E.C.E. has organized several hundred meetings, debate conferences, training cycles, study days, colloquia, seminars, and so on. Added to these are leisure activities, such as vacation hikes and group trips, as well as an annual Summer University, a film club, and more.
The large number of these events, the scale that many of them have reached, and the quality of the personalities who have lent us their support have greatly contributed to increasing awareness of G.R.E.C.E. and fostering its growth.
— Let’s now turn to the analysis developed by G.R.E.C.E., which inspired its foundation. At the beginning of this interview, you spoke of a "crisis" in society. What exactly do you mean by that?**
— JCV: Crises are a part of world history, and perhaps especially of the history of European nations—those "hot" nations, as Mr. Lévi-Strauss calls them. By "hot," he means nations with a high coefficient of historicity, which, from their origins, have never ceased transforming themselves. It is true that people always tend to emphasize the importance and "uniqueness" of the era they are living in. Nevertheless, it seems undeniable that Western society is currently experiencing a profound crisis. The crisis is evident, and it is inevitable that societies of thought, too, should seize upon it and find in it the primary material for reflection.
What, then, does this crisis consist of? First and foremost, it lies in the culmination of a certain kind of positivity. Humanity has discovered and then conquered nearly the entirety of the planet. It has mastered its environment in a powerful way. For nearly thirty years, virtually all the peoples of the world have actively participated in global politics, making their voices heard in the concert of nations. It is at the very moment when humanity seems to have reached the pinnacle of its power that it begins to doubt itself—to become frightened by its own audacity.
This doubt takes the form of negativity—a generalized questioning that, step by step, spreads to all domains. This is a new phenomenon. Only half a century ago, factions might oppose each other in certain areas, particularly in politics, which then appeared to be contained within relatively narrow boundaries. But implicitly, they most often agreed on the fundamental structures of society; only the modalities of those structures were the subject of serious debate.
Today, we have gone much further. Pursuing—though not without logic—a subversive agenda, certain members of the intelligentsia have realized that within a society, all elements are interconnected. This means that these elements influence one another, and it is impossible to modify one in isolation without altering the arrangement of the whole. Consequently, transforming society requires a complete change in its foundations and the implicit values upon which it was built.
Thus, successive attacks have been made on the principles of authority, hierarchy, and the order of beings. Madness has been rehabilitated by declaring the "normality" of the existing order to be "mad." The rights of all categories of outcasts and delinquents have been exalted. What was once low has been elevated, and what was once high has been brought low. Ultimately, it has been decreed—following Roland Barthes' claim—that all language is "fascist" because it "forces" thought into a particular form.
We are therefore faced with a negativity that manifests itself in every domain and whose declared ambition is to abolish the very foundations of our culture. It seeks to explicitly return to the so-called "lost paradise" presumed to have existed before history, before civilization, before patriarchy, and before the "alienations" that allegedly caused the "exploitation of the humble," the reduction of certain people to objects, "sexual misery," and so on.
In other words, as Rousseau already suggested, it aims to return to a state of nature in the most literal, prehistorical sense. It is this profoundly regressive project that we denounce.
— Did the founders of G.R.E.C.E. take note of this situation?
—JCV: Let’s say they observed its effects. And above all—this was their achievement, they identified the logical connection between the various forms of dissent and clearly discerned the common denominator underlying them.
— What was this common denominator?
—JCV: It is egalitarianism. Introduced into European thought through Judeo-Christianity—via the concept of "equality before God"—the egalitarian ideology became secularized in the 18th century. Since then, its influence has grown increasingly pervasive in Western societies. It has, with a kind of inner fervor, extended its reach to all spheres, and we are now witnessing the results of this extraordinary proliferation.
What characterizes egalitarian thought is its "monotheistic" and reductive tendency. Assuming that individuals are essentially identical—and that this fundamental sameness is the basis of their equality, which generates their "rights"—it seeks to reduce everything to the One. It tends to eliminate the diversity of the world.
However, the world is diverse. In fact, it is nothing but diversity. And all diversity generates inequalities. This is the hallmark of all living systems. The evolution of life is a progression toward ever greater differentiation, ever more inequality, ever more distinction between subject and object. In other words, the great law of life is the evolution toward heterogeneity.
In this respect, living systems are opposed to physical systems, which evolve toward ever greater homogeneity and identity through a gradual loss of energy (what physicists call entropy). On one side, we are dealing with organic processes; on the other, with mechanical processes.
All doctrines that aim for the progressive equalization of life are materialist doctrines (rooted in macrophysics) and are explicitly or implicitly mechanical. The logical conclusion of this tendency is decline and disappearance—the absolute homogeneity that is death.
— So your enemy is egalitarianism?
—JCV: The enemy is all doctrines and practices that represent and embody a form of egalitarianism. Foremost among these is, of course, Marxism, which constitutes the most extreme and most terroristic form of egalitarianism. The considerable influence of Marxism on minds today—especially on the minds of those who will be the decision-makers in society tomorrow—is one of the fundamental causes of the current crisis.
However, some clarifications are necessary. First, it must be emphasized that Marxism did not appear spontaneously. It is the cause of a degradation of thought, but it is also the consequence of another cause; it was engendered by something beyond itself.
Our originality, as I’ve mentioned before, lies in the "genetic" or, if you prefer, genealogical nature of our approach: we do not merely identify symptoms and their immediate causes but attempt to trace them back to their ultimate causes—the true source of what many lament today. We assert that it is pointless to fight Marxism by name if, at the same time, one lacks the courage and clarity to fight against the cause of Marxism, against what inevitably produces Marxism—namely, egalitarian thought, mentality, and "anthropology," of which Marxism is merely a culmination.
Moreover, we also assert that one cannot effectively combat Marxism by merely pointing out its errors and most glaring weaknesses. Instead, one must oppose it with a genuine alternative: a complete ideological and theoretical corpus that offers those currently drawn to Marxism a viable replacement.
The mistake that too many people make is failing to clearly understand why so many minds are aligning with Marxism today. They do not rally to it primarily because of its intrinsic qualities, which they believe it possesses. They rally to it because, in opposition to it, alongside it, or against it, there is no (or no longer any) alternative. Marxism is "competitive" only because no one challenges it on its own ground to contest the monopoly it enjoys.
This means that, before being a false answer, Marxism is an answer, plain and simple. If one merely states that the answer is false but fails to provide an alternative answer, then all efforts are in vain. Unfortunately, this is precisely what we have observed so far: the complete ineffectiveness of those who, in the hope of achieving "unity," believed it was sufficient to simply be against Marxism while relying on vague formulas and good intentions when it came to articulating what they were for.
The truth is that the formulation of an ideological corpus capable of offering a comprehensive alternative to Marxism—even if this formulation initially seems to imply a relatively narrow "platform" for action—is the only way to effectively engage in the struggle.
G.R.E.C.E. has never hesitated to engage in the fight against Marxism on this dual front: critique and the definition of an alternative. Far from being confined to some "ideological ghetto," it has continually exerted a growing real influence and has reaped the fruits of its efforts.
— What are the foundations of this alternative?
—JCV: They are, once again, of two kinds. First, in terms of critique, we wanted—as I mentioned—to take the analysis further than it had been taken before. The result of this approach was the identification of egalitarian thought as the main cause and vehicle of Marxism, as well as the cause of the vulnerability of a Western world already influenced by milder forms of the same ideology. This has rendered it captive to a paralyzing myth, generating impotence and feelings of guilt.
On the other hand, regarding the positive aspects, it seemed logical to us—since what we are witnessing is a questioning of European culture and civilization—to attempt to closely define the specific values of the West.
This effort has taken the form of a "long march" toward the rediscovery of our most distant past. Going beyond historical contingencies and particular legacies, we have sought to uncover what deeply unites the peoples whose heirs and representatives we are, starting as far back as the Neolithic period. This explains, among other things, the particular interest we have consistently shown in Indo-European culture, its values, and its "ideology"—in the sense that Georges Dumézil has given to that term.
— When examining G.R.E.C.E.'s publications, one gets the impression that you place a significant—some might say excessive—emphasis on the Nordic part of the European heritage. Is this a deliberate choice?
—JCV: In truth, what matters to us above all is the rebirth of Europe's future. The entirety of Europe: South, North, West, and East. There is no bias in our approach—it would indeed be paradoxical for us to seek to divide Europe at the very moment we are striving to highlight all that unites it. The references you mention are, in fact, quite natural.
One must not forget that our culture, and primarily that of Greco-Roman antiquity, originally came to us from the North. It was in the North that the Indo-European society was formed, whose branches gave rise, three or four thousand years ago, to the historical European cultures—including, I repeat, those of the Greeks, Romans, Hittites, and Persians. Naturally, it is in the North that the specific mentality at work within these various civilizations endured the longest.
In our references to Europe's Nordic past, we are merely seeking to rediscover an authenticity that remained visible there for a longer time.
That being said, it is enough to review our publications as a whole (and not selected excerpts chosen for a particular agenda) to see the significant importance we have consistently placed on the other aspects of the European heritage.
— Doesn’t this interest in the Indo-European world also express an implicit desire to return to the past?
—JCV: Not at all. We do not engage in archaeology or the history of religions for its own sake—or to preserve dead things. We do not deny the need for the West to transform. It has always evolved. But while evolving, it consistently remained true to itself. Today, this is no longer the case. Therefore, a return to oneself is necessary.
We are no more inclined to systematically glorify the past than to engage in a frenzied adulation of the future. On the contrary, we are concerned about the tendency of contemporary societies to live in and pursue an eternal present. We believe that every moment in history contains the three dimensions of time—present, past, and future—and that these dimensions are inseparable. In other words, what we seek in the past are lessons, roots for the future.
We understand perfectly well that the most distant past inspires the most powerful future. Therefore, when we turn to the culture of Europe’s origins, it is not to “return” to it, much less to restore the image it presents to us (“one cannot bring back the Greeks,” as Nietzsche said), but rather to better understand, through the study of this privileged era when European values were still expressed in their own identity, the values that have allowed us to remain ourselves for so long while perpetually transforming.
Similarly, when we speak of the European "tradition," we are not referring to a mysterious or esoteric—and largely fanciful—"Tradition" to which one would return in order to abolish history. On the contrary, we seek nothing other than the sum of the values inherent in our mentality, whose identification will enable us to incorporate new innovations and thus continue history.
Finally, we do not forget that Indo-European thought—its “ideology”—was born essentially as Europe’s response to the "challenge" posed by the Neolithic revolution. At a time when humanity is once again confronted with a "challenge" marking the transition to a new stage of its condition, we believe that a similar effort is necessary: to rise to a higher level, meet the challenge, and once again invent a new super-humanity.
— So, one could define your initial motivations as the desire to clearly identify the adversary—namely, the one responsible for the current crisis—and, on the other hand, the determination to provide a response to this crisis, a response that updates and incorporates the specific values of our culture?
—JCV: Indeed, it is on this foundation that our reflection has developed and been constructed. It is thanks to this foundation that we have been able to arrive at the worldview that characterizes us. However, this is, of course, only a starting point. European values do not constitute an end in themselves but rather a means to achieve ends.
Our theory, therefore, is tied to a praxis.
— You have frequently used the term "metapolitics" in this context. One might think it’s a way of doing politics without explicitly saying so. What exactly do you mean by that?
—JCV: We use the term metapolitics to refer to the realm of values that do not fall under politics in the traditional sense of the word but that have a direct impact on the presence or absence of the social consensus governed by politics. In essence, to raise the question of metapolitics is to raise the question of the place and role of ideology.
In the "Dumézilian" sense of the term, ideology is nothing more than the mental framework resulting from how the different peoples of the earth view or perceive the world and act upon it. It is from the application of this ideology in history that culture emerges...
— Here is another key term from the "G.R.E.C.E. vocabulary." What exactly do you mean by "culture"?
—JCV: We obviously do not take the word in the narrow sense it is sometimes still given (culture as the domain consisting of arts, letters, and the knowledge—or memory—of them). We prefer to use the term in the sense given to it by ethnologists and certain philosophers. Culture can then be defined as the sum of human actions carried out within a given people, and simultaneously as the result of those actions. Put differently, culture is everything that is added to nature. Lifestyles, industry, military art, and so on are, in this sense, just as much part of culture as painting, music, and the study of "classics."
Furthermore, we partially adopt the definition given by Oswald Spengler. Culture defines the stage at which societies live according to organic principles, consistent with their specific character.
It goes without saying that today, in Europe, cultures have aged and been influenced by materialist and egalitarian tendencies. As a result, they tend to "petrify," become mechanized, or bureaucratized.
— Let’s return to metapolitics. How does its influence manifest, and what does it consist of?
—JCV: Contradicting Lenin on this point, the Italian Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci made a number of observations from his perspective that help answer your question. Gramsci noted that in developed societies, the State maintains itself (and exercises its authority) not only through institutions—what he called the "state apparatus"—but also through "civil power." This "civil power" is not directly visible; it is implicit. It arises from the agreement of the majority of members of a society on a certain set of values, "myths," sentiments, and so on, which together define what, at any given time, is considered "natural" or "self-evident." Without this "civil power," the State is powerless: its authority cannot be exercised because the social consensus it requires no longer exists.
Gramsci assigned intellectuals the role of influencing "civil power" and showed that this was a necessary prerequisite for any success in the political realm. As long as social consensus remains intact, opposition has no chance of succeeding politically. Conversely, as I just mentioned, if consensus disappears, the structures of power collapse, and a revolution occurs.
Indeed, all the great revolutions in history have simply formalized (and implemented) in political terms a state of affairs that had already been established in people's minds. This happened because, in different eras, either the majority of society’s members or its elites had already mentally embraced the themes, myths, and values championed by the "revolutionaries."
Gramsci's lesson was well understood. Unfortunately, it was understood only by the intelligentsia to whom Gramsci assigned the role of subverting the psychological, moral, and structural foundations of society.
This subversion, following Gramsci’s teachings, was not carried out through direct political opposition (which continued its actions on its own level) but rather on the terrain of values and culture—what we have referred to as "cultural power."
— By turning the foundations of their analysis against the "Gramscians," is G.R.E.C.E. working to oppose this power with a counterpower?
—JCV: Indeed, we again encounter the necessity of defeating the adversary on their own ground. The vulnerability of modern societies to the propaganda of cultural power is significant, and this is due to several factors. First, because this propaganda operates outside the political sphere, it is not clearly perceived as such. More than that, politicians often fail to identify it; they see it as a succession of relatively harmless "trends," which they observe with amused detachment or even with naïve, populist indulgence.
Additionally, the increasing importance given to leisure in contemporary societies provides an open field for this subversive propaganda, which operates through literature, cinema, theater, fashion, clothing, urban planning, customs, and so on. Finally, the mass media amplifies this propaganda exponentially, often giving it a resonance that is totalitarian in essence.
A clear fact confirms this analysis: the generalized questioning we are witnessing—discussed earlier—has not been (or has only secondarily been) the work of politics. Take the example of France. The left or far left has never explicitly been in power there in the past thirty years. Yet, our society has not escaped this upheaval, which has also affected all other developed countries.
This is precisely because the driving force behind this evolution has been cultural power—a transnational power that conditions minds daily through channels that are not part of the political sphere.
G.R.E.C.E. was the first organization—and practically the only one—to clearly recognize, after extensive analysis, this reality. That is why we believe there is, once again, an urgent need to clearly identify the elements of the problem and respond to it on the ground where the observed phenomena occur—namely, on the cultural terrain where we have situated our struggle. Without this, all efforts will once again be in vain.
— By directly confronting "cultural power," you must have encountered hostility from the "Gramscians." What reactions have you observed?
—JCV: The intelligentsia, whose role in fostering dissent we have exposed, has not held back against us. We have been victims of outright intellectual terrorism. Incidentally, this is a term we were the first to use, and it has since been widely adopted. This proves, of course, that we have not been the only victims. That said, the techniques used by our adversaries—starting with defamation—have not always been very effective. In fact, they have often brought us renewed publicity.
To be affected by this intellectual terrorism (which, unfortunately, is not the exclusive domain of Marxists), we would have to share the mindset we are fighting against—namely, being paralyzed by the latent guilt that makes the West so vulnerable today and that has been so skillfully cultivated by various forms of egalitarian thought for centuries.
I believe we are entirely immune to such psychological tendencies. This may explain the fury of the proponents of "cultural power," which led the newspaper Libération, in its October 29, 1976 edition, to make this rather flattering statement: "What is G.R.E.C.E.? The most successful operation carried out by the right in the last fifteen years."
— Libération uses the word "right." Is that a label you claim for yourself?
—JCV: The leftist press uses the terms it is accustomed to. Let’s say they are not particularly original. As far as I’m concerned, I would answer your question with a certain indifference. Since we do not operate on a strictly political level but rather on a cultural and metapolitical one, the word "right" seems rather inappropriate to me.
That said, it is certain that, under present conditions (and only under these conditions), the action we have undertaken can, in the broadest sense, be situated within the spiritual current commonly referred to as the right—though, even then, there is no consensus on its definition. This does not mean it will always be so.
In fact, it is essential to understand that the object of our endeavor lies elsewhere. We are facing a civilizational crisis and a societal crisis. Our task is to identify the causes of this situation and provide the appropriate responses on the level we consider the only possible one—the only truly useful and coherent one.
People may assign this endeavor whatever name and labels they wish. For our part, we are not concerned with the epithets attached to doctrines according to the whims of the moment, but solely with their substance and content.
— I would like to return to the subject of politics. You state that G.R.E.C.E. does not situate its action on that terrain. However, following the very framework you present, it seems that any "cultural" action must one day lead to a "political realization." One might therefore wonder whether G.R.E.C.E. plans, sooner or later, to transform into a political party.
—JCV: G.R.E.C.E. will not transform into a political party (or movement), neither today nor tomorrow. I would like this to be clearly understood. It is true, of course, that politics is the culmination of most actions that take place within society. But this does not mean that those who work on the cultural level must, at some point, change roles and become politicians.
As far as we are concerned, that is out of the question. Everyone has their own work to do!
But I would like to answer your question more deeply.
Due in part to the French (and Latin) historical heritage, there is a strong tendency here to overestimate the importance of political agitation and feverishness, as well as to give the term politics an excessively narrow meaning.
Regarding the first point, some argue that we must "address the most urgent matters," focus on "priorities" (these being considered exclusively political), and postpone cultural work until "later." This attitude is naïve and based on an incorrect analysis of the situation. By demonstrating how "cultural power" paves the way for politics, we have clearly established the futility of efforts by those who believe they can bypass preliminary metapolitical and cultural action.
Moreover, this approach has proven its inefficacy. Over the past thirty years, political parties, movements, and factions have been agitating in the name of "priorities" that are not truly priorities, yet the situation has not improved—it has consistently worsened. A simple retrospective of the path taken shows clearly that, instead of saving time, we have wasted it—and that by aiming for short-term gains, we have lost in the long term, as well as, incidentally, in the short term.
Regarding the second point, it follows from the same analysis outlined above that the scope of the concept of politics needs to be reconsidered. While it is true that the traditional spheres of political application remain—or should remain—those of the State and institutions, the proliferation of ideologies has today politicized everything.
Cultural power understands this well, knowing that the screening of a "historical" film, the construction of a certain type of house, the promotion of a particular form of sculpture, or the establishment of a cultural center is, in fact, a profoundly political act.
If we, in turn, fail to identify (even retrospectively) the meaning behind things that may seem devoid of it, we are doomed to endure the meaning that our adversary will assign to them.
Studying the mindset at work in the tripartite social ideology of the Indo-Europeans, questioning the origins of the "Greek miracle," analyzing the structure of Corneille's or Vigny's works, or uncovering the underlying values in a given musical, artistic, or literary work is not engaging in timeless or gratuitous extrapolation.
It is, in the broad sense I mentioned earlier, and without any intention of being paradoxical, a profoundly political act—more political, undoubtedly, than many parliamentary debates and electoral speculations…
— However, you do not impose apoliticism on your members. Under these circumstances, are you not closely tied to any particular party?
—JCV: We are dealing here with two entirely different levels. Indeed, we do not encourage apoliticism. On the contrary, I would even say. Our members are men and women engaged in the public sphere, clearly situated within society. Therefore, they assume their responsibilities in all areas, including the political domain—in the narrow sense you are referring to. There is no reason to dissuade them from this, and at times, there is even a reason to encourage them.
That said, this political action is not—and will not be, today, tomorrow, or the day after—our responsibility as an organization. Our role is entirely different. It is to provide them with deep training, to help them gain a better understanding of their worldview. We hope that they will then seek, in other areas—political, union-related, or otherwise—the best points of engagement where they can, individually or collectively, help disseminate and promote the principles and ideas with which they have first familiarized themselves.
This means we are not tied in a privileged way to any specific party. On the contrary, it is up to the parties—likely different ones—that might find, in certain aspects of our proposals, material for fruitful reflection and potential application, to give those proposals the appropriate resonance.
If you prefer, G.R.E.C.E. acts somewhat as a data bank or, ultimately, as a center of influence—and nothing more.
— So, members of G.R.E.C.E. are free to belong—or not belong—to political organizations?
—JCV: They are entirely free to do so, with two exceptions. The first is that their commitments cannot be made in the name of G.R.E.C.E. The second is that their commitments must not directly contradict the principles and analyses that we strive to develop and propagate.
It would be inconceivable, for example, for members of G.R.E.C.E. to join collectivist or Marxist organizations, or movements advocating an extremism that is fundamentally opposed to the firm but always nuanced and balanced approach to problems that underpins our working method. Such affiliations would automatically result in their exclusion from the association.
This has happened before, and I personally intend to remain extremely vigilant on this point.
— Isn’t there a risk, given the distance you maintain from current events, that you primarily address "intellectuals" who might be somewhat detached from concrete realities?
—JCV: Once again, this is not about refusing all engagement. It’s about giving the term engagement a broader meaning than the one implied in your question. In this regard, we are far from "hovering" above current events and the concrete problems that arise at any given time. What we aim to do is give positions a broader dimension than is typically assigned to them: to examine issues in depth, bring them back to the level of principles, define a sound methodological approach—in short, to derive the particular from the general, not the other way around.
I would add that simply reviewing the contents of our publications demonstrates that we are far from uninterested in contemporary issues. On the contrary, we have consistently taken productive and original stances on them as necessary.
Of course, we can be criticized for not taking a position on specific topics. However, we only take a position after thoroughly studying the issues, and that requires time—a great deal of time—and an intellectual rigor that is too often lacking in political parties.
— To conclude this interview, I’d like to ask you one last question: if you had to define G.R.E.C.E. in a few words, how would you do so?
—JCV: I would say that our association has set itself a dual goal: to bring life into ideas and ideas into life. Bringing life into ideas means rejecting all dogmatism and intellectual conformism. G.R.E.C.E. stands at the crossroads of several ideological or philosophical currents. I believe it must remain open to these diverse influences, whose diversity, provided it is structured, constitutes undeniable richness.
Bringing ideas into life means that it is not enough to assert abstract ideas, no matter how good they may be, without striving to incorporate them into daily life. The ethical and aesthetic aspects of things are just as important, if not more so, than the purely rational aspects.
We will only succeed to the extent that we manage to create a kind of exemplary counter-society. This is a difficult path that requires considerable personal effort from each of us. We know this, but the European renaissance we all hope for comes at this price.
Today (TN: at the date this was published, 1977), Éléments is published by an S.A.R.L. (a limited liability company) with a capital of 70,000 francs, the Société d’Édition, de Presse et de Publicité, which is legally and financially independent of the association. However, the editorial direction of the magazine is managed by Pierre Vial and Michel Marmin, respectively the General Secretary and Deputy General Secretary of G.R.E.C.E., in close collaboration with the association.
TN: For clarification, Nouvelle Éducation is a periodical that is separate from Nouvelle École. Nouvelle Éducation is out of print but the digital archives are available for purchase at the Revue Éléments webshop.