- Nous sommes tous la pègre: les années 68 de Blanchot par Jean-François Hamel
Maurice Blanchot came to prominence during the 1930s as a defender of far-right causes, but over time he moved to the other end of the spectrum. Nous sommes tous la pègre focuses on his activities during May–June 1968 in Paris. During this time period, his increasingly radical ideas about literature and politics found concrete expression in support of the student-inspired social agitation. With friends he founded le comité d'action étudiants-écrivains, which was one of the approximately 460 comités created at that time (110). The numerous divergences among these groups and the difficulties they had in cooperating may explain Hamel's subtitle, les années 68, since few groups experienced the events of that summer in the same way. Blanchot wrote many of the tracts distributed by his comité and was dubbed by Dionys Mascolo the "ange [...] de la méditation" (9). The comité d'action étudiants-écrivains lasted until February 1969 when it was disbanded due to internal bickering. Just after World War II Blanchot was much taken by Alexandre Kojève's claim that Hegel proclaimed la fin [End Page 229] de l'histoire (12). Yet, he came to understand the expression not in any positive sense (history had achieved its goals), but as a glorification of the subjugation of humanity, particularly workers. From his perspective, revolutions up to the present have followed a frustrating cycle: a social structure judged oppressive is overthrown by a new order which becomes oppressive, and in turn is overthrown, without the condition of the poor undergoing real change. In mai 68 Blanchot saw the opportunity for a true revolution characterized by an absence of any authoritarian system, a refusal of any intellectual hierarchy—"une grève d'intelligence" (38), and "une affirmation de [la] parfaite identité" of politics and literature (66). At the heart of this new dispensation would be "le Grand Refus" (87), a rejection of any constraining social system, and perhaps also of the system itself. In Henri Lefebvre's words, what was desired was "un refus radical et total de l'existant" (77). The workers would no longer be proletarians, but "une pure 'présence interchangeable,'" now aware of the enormous possibilities open to them, and would morph into la foule since "c'est la pluralité anonyme de la foule qui fait et défait l'histoire" (82–83). Reading about May 68 today raises many questions about Blanchot's positions. Certainly, his claim that after May 68, "PLUS RIEN NE SERA COMME AVANT" (128), seems sadly naïve, as was his confidence that workers would be de facto catalysts for radical social change. Indeed, despite Blanchot's efforts at mingling with les travailleurs, one wonders whether he had any idea of the frustrations, needs, and aspirations of this social class. Like many intellectuals then and now, Blanchot could be forceful in his dissection of the status quo while remaining at a loss to suggest a viable alternative. In certain circumstances, just saying "no" should be enough, but changing the world is another matter.