Challenges - By what process does a declaration by a politician become a “short sentence”?
Damien Deias - A "little sentence" is a construction between journalists and politicians, it's a game. At the start, it's a political statement that is detached by journalists, who can sometimes modify it slightly to isolate it better. Here, for example, many article titles only highlighted the word “fuck”. But it is obvious that many "small phrases" are also intentional on the part of politicians, who know the power of this system. Here, the sequence that leads to the famous sentence begins with "me": "I'm not here to piss off the French". It's a system for saying that it begins here, it sets its limits.
For a sentence to stand out, there are several factors. It must be brief, with a meaningful structure. It must remain effective, even decontextualized. Sometimes it has to be in a prominent position in the discourse of the politician, for example at the end of a speech - but that is not the case here. Obviously, the theme must be related to an essential issue, and a conflict of values: here, vaccination. Finally, and this is the most important, it must affect the politician's way of being, the image he gives of himself, his ethos. It is his public representation that is at stake.
Damien Deias.
Between Nicolas Sarkozy's “Break it off, poor con” or Emmanuel Macron's “crazy dough”, is the familiarity of the turns of phrase also a constituent element of the “little sentences”?
We often hear the expression "A President should not say that", taking up the title of the book by Davet and Lhomme, which has itself become a "little phrase". I would rather say: "A President should not say that here". Because we can imagine that in off, Emmanuel Macron does not always have the same speeches as in public. But here, he uses the form of private, familiar, off speech, but in a public setting. He had indeed already done it for the “crazy dough”. We lose the staging of the official word. This is what I call the confusion of scenes. It feels like he's with the family, not on public performance.
This technique is no longer the prerogative of populists, like Trump or Bolsonaro. The cleavage between the populists and the others is transcended. It is a form of a new version of true-speak. Authentic discourse becomes that which should be held outside the media, but which is found in the media.
When Emmanuel Macron says "Let them come get me", or speaks of "those who are nothing" and "non-vaccinated", each time he points to a part of the population. Is that also what makes sentences stand out?
It is the way Emmanuel Macron designates people that is at stake. He had spoken of “Jojo with his yellow vest”. In the midst of a political crisis, it is a way of naming which does not appease. The way of designating the other is very important. Sometimes you can afford a certain familiarity, sometimes it's shocking.
Here there is confusion about how to name people. We no longer know if he is talking about the non-vaccinated, the "antivax", if he is attacking non-adherence to the vaccine or to that of the vaccination policy. Result: there are plenty of people who are in favor of the vaccine pass, but who are still shocked by this sentence. Language is not only used to describe the world, it is used to act on it, and there it has an impact on people.
"It's not a little phrase, it's reasoning," said someone close to the President of the Republic. How do you understand this statement?
We always try to get rid of the “little sentence” label. The “little sentence”, as we imagine it, is not made to make you think, but to create a buzz. So, we are looking for a glorious filiation. Members of the majority keep recalling the reference to Pompidou's phrase: "We have to stop bothering the French." But the two sentences have nothing to do!
Didn't Emmanuel Macron stop using these divisive turns of phrase for a while?
The beginnings of the Covid-19 crisis were a very particular political sequence. The provocative sound bites were put on hold. With the “We are at war”, we were back to a solemn word. Here, the President's remarks linguistically recall the sequence of yellow vests.
And there is the context of the presidential campaign. Imposing your campaign themes can go through "small sentences". What is surprising is that the strategy of “small sentences” is often that of challengers, to occupy space. He already has access to the media. The benefit of such an approach is more limited.
Did the phenomenon of "small sentences" develop during Emmanuel Macron's five-year term?
He did a lot, that's for sure, but the trend is deeper. As part of my research, I noted the occurrences of the term “little phrase” in the Sud-Ouest newspaper. The expression emerged around the years 1968-1970. And then it grows exponentially. There are several reasons for this: the development of talk shows, with the highlighting of clashes. The format of the press has also evolved, with more airy presentations which have thus made it easier to highlight shocking formulas. Finally, digital discourses have emerged. On Twitter or other networks, these sentences are taken up and looped. Notably, this unique term of “little phrase” only exists in France.
Is this development dragging the political debate down?
I don't think there is as strong an impoverishment as some try to make out. The “sound bites” are certainly not necessarily the most interesting tool for citizenship, but when we look more seriously into past speeches, including those of the French Revolution, there have always been bits of speech that were made to be detached.
