Moun I Er 1405607

Emmanuel Mounier: A Catholic of the Left
Author(s): Donald Wolf

Source: The Review of Politics, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Jul., 1960), pp. 324-344
Published by: Cambridge University Press for the University of Notre Dame du lac on
behalf of Review of Politics
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1405607
Accessed: 16-05-2016 14:06 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Cambridge University Press, University of Notre Dame du lac on behalf of Review of

Politics are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Review of Politics
This content downloaded from 193.198.92.30 on Mon, 16 May 2016 14:06:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Emmanuel Mounier: A Catholic of the Left
Donald Wolf, S.J.
FRANCE today is dominated by the overpowering force of the

personality of Charles de Gaulle. In his recent address to the
Algerian rebels, de Gaulle was not far wrong in his claim, "I
am France." The French people have called upon de Gaulle to
solve the political problems of the nation. He has been given an
almost unlimited power to use his own discretion in seeking solu-
tions. The results have ranged from a new Algerian policy to the
detonation of atom bombs and the visit of Khrushchev. Despite
what one may feel about de Gaulle there can be no doubt that he
has given new prestige to a mortally sick France.
The grant of power and the authoritarian government of de
Gaulle did not appear suddenly on the French political scene. The
turn to de Gaulle was a result of the complete collapse of parlia-
mentary government as represented by the Fourth Republic. The
Center which formed after World War II, based on republican
principles and traditions, was unable to govern. A part of that
Center was the Mouvement Republicain Populaire. Catholics in
this party attempted to make their peace with French republican
traditions.1 In many ways they succeeded. But the Catholic re-
vival could not combine with the other members of the Center to
form an effective government. The republican movement as a
whole failed. France turned in desperation to the man who had
been waiting on the sidelines since the War. France turned Right.
In 1958 France had little choice in the matter. But the fact
that de Gaulle was necessary was a direct result of events between
1945 and 1950. This period saw a general political and cultural
revival among Catholics, the rise of the Communists, and the for-
mation of the Center. It was a combination of these events which
later paved the way for de Gaulle. An important part of the Cath-
olic revival was a Left that was not communist. Catholics, and
especially Catholic intellectuals, formed a Catholic Left.2 Had this
1 See Michael Fogarty, Christian Democracy in Western Europe, 1820-1953
(Notre Dame, 1957) and Louis Biton, La democratie chrdtienne dans la
politique frangaise (Angers, 1954).
2 See Theodore H. White, "New Force in Europe: The Catholic Left,"
The Reporter, VII (September 16, 1952), 5-9. The mistake is made here of
grouping together elements of the Catholic Left which were quite different
and even contradictory.
324
MOUNIER: A CATHOLIC OF THE LEFT 325
developed into a strong force an alternative to de Gaulle might

have existed in 1958. In fact the Catholic Left maintained that
its policy would make a de Gaulle unnecessary. In the light of
1960 and Charles de Gaulle it might be well to look back to 1945-
50 and see what an outstanding member of this Catholic Left had
to offer France.
The Catholic Left had many branches. There was l'Abb6
Bulier who was eventually silenced by the Church, Pere Mont-
lucard and the Jeunesse de l'Eglise, which sided with the Commu-
nist Party, Pere Lebret, Te'moignage Chre'tien and others.3 Among
the Catholic Left was an outstanding Catholic intellectual, Em-
manuel Mounier and his journal Esprit.
The influence of an intellectual in the field of politics is hard to
assess. But the influence of Mounier as an intellectual is well
attested.
The late Emmanuel Mounier was one of the most important

Catholic intellectuals in the recent history of France.4
He was one of the noblest figures of contemporary Christianity,
an original and important philosopher and a zealous lay-apostle.5
Emmanuel Mounier is dead. Mounier, the editor of Esprit, the
leader of the intellectual renewal in France, is dead.6
One may perhaps discount these as exaggerations of his admirers.
But substantially the same credit is given him by those who dis-
agreed with his philosophical and political positions.7
Certainly this progressive Catholic movement deserves some
consideration in the understanding of contemporary France. And
within this camp Mounier who exercised a "decisive influence" 8
on these progressive trends deserves study. As a philosopher Mounier
is most widely known as the advocate of Personalism which he
originated as a movement. It is from the base of Personalism that
Mounier dealt with the French political scene. Personalism as a
aSee Borisz de Balla, "The Marxist Influence in Catholic France,"

Catholic Mind, CLXXVI (March, 1953), 411-12.
4Michael Harrington, "Emmanuel Mounier: Tragic Optimist," The
Commonweal, LX (August 20, 1954), 489.
5 de Balla, op. cit., p. 412.
6 Sally Whelan Cassidy, "The Catholic Revival," Catholic World, CLXXI
(May, 1950), 138. Mounier died suddenly in 1950 at the age of 45.
7 See Frederick C. Copleston, "Mounier, Marxism and Man," The Month,
New series VI (October, 1951), 200, and Eugene Langdale, "Emmanuel
Mounier," The Dublin Review, CCXXIV (Third Quarter, 1950), 98-100.
8 de Balla, op. cit., p. 413.
326 THE REVIEW OF POLITICS
philosophy, though, will not be under study here, nor will the life
of Mounier,9 nor the influence of his journal Esprit on French
politics. The purpose here will be to examine the political positions
of Emmanuel Mounier in the critical period of the Catholic poli-
tical revival, 1945-1950. This will not involve a discussion of every
important political event of the period, but only those points upon
which Mounier took personally a definite stand. This will cover
several different topics. First, it will involve a brief discussion of
Personalism, since without a basic understanding of this philosophy
at least in its social aspects the political statements of Mounier are
unintelligible. His positions with direct reference to France will
include a discussion of his attitude toward contemporary French
culture and civilization, the resistance movement and liberation
period, Communism and the Communist Party in France, the
political parties in France, the question of war and peace in Europe,
and the position of France toward Germany.
Personalism
In a certain sense the doctrine of Personalism is not new. At
least in the sense that the fundamental point is the person as a
basis for a philosophy and for human action in the world.'o France
has seen many philosophies with this basic orientation and the
Personalism of Mounier is similar to them.11 The Personalism of
Mounier is based upon the belief that
a person is a spiritual being, constituted as such by its manner of

existence and independence of being; it maintains this existence
by its adhesion to a hierarchy of values that it has freely adopted,
assimilated, and lived by its own responsible activity and by a
constant interior development; thus, it unifies all its activity in
freedom and by means of creative acts develops the individuality
of its vocation.12
9 See the Foreword by Leslie Paul in Emmanuel Mounier, Be Not Afraid:

Studies in Personalist Sociology, trans. Cynthia Rowland (London: Rockliff,
1951), v-xxiv for a short account of his life.
10 See Charles Baudouin, "Quelques aspects nouveaux du probldme de la
personne," Revue Philosophique de la France et de l'PEtranger, CXXVI
(October, 1951), 199-208 where Mounier is placed in the larger context of
philosophies emphasizing the importance of the person.
11 This is especially true of existentialism. The many similarities can be
seen in Emmanuel Mounier, Introduction aux existentialismes (Paris, 1947).
This appeared originally as a series of articles in Esprit from April to October,
1946.
12 Emmanuel Mounier, A Personalist Manifesto (New York, 1938), p. 68.
At the beginning is the affirmation of the absolute value of the

human person.'3
It is the person which must be free to seek for itself by a true
engagement in the world about it the fulfillment of its potentialities.
In doing so the person must integrate itself in the realities about it
while at the same time preserving a spiritual detachment and trans-
cendance to all material aspects of civilization. This requires a real
liberty of the person to discover its own vocation in the world and
to follow it.14 Such a freedom will require the adhesion of the
person to the contemporary civilization. It is not a doctrine of
abstention but a freedom of "engagement in action." 15 This will
mean that a real communion is part of the needs of the person. The
emphasis on the person does not lead back to a sterile individualism
but forward to a personalist communitarian civilization. This
would mean in its ideal formulation "a community in which each
person would at all times be able to achieve his fruitful vocation in
the totality and in which the communion of all in the totality would
be the living outcome of the efforts of each one." 16
When this is applied to contemporary society it has far-reaching
results. Every social order which lessens the autonomy and value
of the person is suspect. This is true pre-eminently of the prevailing
capitalist and bourgeois culture and economic order. For the institu-
tions of capitalism have been for a century "the principal agents of
oppression of the human person." 17 This is not because capitalism
overemphasizes the economic aspects of man's existence. The eco-
nomic is important and at the present stage of history the most
important point in man's existence. Capitalism is wrong because
it subordinates man to a system of production. It fails first to
humanize a method or technique of production and further de-
humanizes society. The prime fault of capitalism is that it organizes
the whole of society around one goal - profit. The result is the
subordination of human labor to impersonal capital, the reduction
of the consumer to a mere factor in the production process, the
perversion of personal liberty and private property.
13 See Emmanuel Mounier, Traite du caractdre (Paris, 1946) for an ex-

haustive examination of the psychology behind the position of the importance
of the person.
14 See Emmanuel Mounier, Liberte sous conditions (Paris, 1946).
15 Mounier, Personalist Manifesto, p. 85.
16 Ibid., p. 95.
17Ibid., p. 172.
This entire capitalist order must be reorganized and centered on

an economy which regulates profit according to the service rendered
by the members of society, dependent ultimately upon the human
needs of the members of society. In the present order this will mean
primarily the primacy of labor over capital. Capital in all its
aspects must be subordinated to labor since "human work is the
one and only agent that is properly personal and productive in eco-
nomic
the activity...
right of labor ."
"to18allThe resultof
positions inauthority
the economic order will
and initiative" 19 be
in
the economic system. When such a change is accomplished, then
there will be a true economic democracy based upon the true per-
sonalization of the worker and the economic order. On the im-
mediate scene this will mean the establishment of socialism with the
following points for a program:
The abolition of the proletarian condition; the supersession of the

anarchic economy of profit by an economy directed to the fulfill-
ment of the totality of personal needs; the socialization, without
state monopoly, of those sectors of industry which otherwise foster
economic chaos; the development of co-operative life; the re-
habilitation of labour; the promotion, in rejection of all paternalist
compromises, of the worker to full personality; the priority of
labour over capital; the abolition of class distinctions founded
upon the division of labour or of wealth; the priority of personal
responsibility over the anonymous organization.20
In this manner will the economic order be restored.21

This economic democracy must have its counterpart in a poli-
tical democracy based upon the pluralist society which would result
from the reforms suggested. Political society in its turn is an instru-
ment for the service of persons. This will result in a democracy. A
democracy which is limited first by the spiritual person and second
by the "powers and customs of all the natural societies which com-
pose the nation."22 This does not mean a liberal, parliamentary
democracy in the old republican tradition. The new democracy
will be based upon societies of autonomous groups exercising
18s Ibid., p. 197.

19 Ibid., p. 202.
20 Emmanuel Mounier, Personalism (London, 1952), p. 104.
21 The same basic program had been advocated earlier in discussing the
problem from the point of view of private property. Emmanuel Mounier, De
la proprie'td capitaliste a la propridte humaine. (Paris, 1936), p. 118.
22 Mounier, Personalist Manifesto, p. 234.
authority in their own spheres and coordinated only for the neces-
sary projects of the nations as a whole. It will mean essentially a
decentralization of authority and a personalization of the political
order.
This examination of Personalism has been sketchy and obviously
incomplete. And in a certain sense this has resulted in a partial
falsification in the fullness of the idea of Personalism. But this is
justified by the pragmatic approach to the question taken here.
Personalism is of interest here not primarily in itself but insofar as
it influenced Mounier's positions in French politics. The elements
emphasized have been those that will be helpful in understanding
his political positions. There is one further point that must be men-
tioned before proceeding into practical politics. Mounier con-
tinually insisted that Personalism was not a system. Its practical
realization depended wholly upon the circumstances in which the
principles were to be applied. 23 Thus, in the political order there
will not be a unified program which can be traced throughout. On
the contrary, each issue is treated by Mounier as it appears on the
French scene as completely unique. This forces a sort of eclecticism
in the political order. In the analysis that follows the best that can be
done is to point out Mounier's positions on specific points without
attempting to draw them all into a unity or system or program.
French Culture and Civilization

Immediately upon the defeat of France, Mounier began an
assessment of the meaning of the French military defeat. His
analysis went very deep and became far more than an exercise in
military history. For him France's defeat meant far more than a
military catastrophe. "The fact is that our defeat is a defeat for
France rather than for the French army; at least for a certain
France, and behind her a certain form of Western civilization."24
He means by this the death of the capitalist and bourgeois system as
already explained. Perhaps, as will be seen, it would be better to
say the bankruptcy of the bourgeois rather than its death. The de-
feat of France signifies the complete failure of the French bourgeois
parliamentary system, for it is this system whether governed by
23 Mounier, Personalism, p. vii.

24 Emmanuel Mounier, "Letter from France," The Commonweal, XXXIII
(October 25, 1940), 8. See also Emmanuel Mounier, "Christian Faith and
Civilization," Cross Currents, I (Fall, 1950), 13-23 for the broader aspects of
this problem.
Right, Left, or Center which has failed. It was the impotence of

the parliamentary system which brought about the defeat of France.
The first problem in France is to assess the result of the war on
the bourgeois class which had been the ruling group before the war.
The [problem] is to know whether the bourgeoisie in its entirety

has failed as the directing class in the course of the last hundred
years. To this question, we reply indisputably: yes.... A French
revival demands the putting in place of a new directing elite
which would not be, as the present [class] still is, massively bour-
geoisie, but massively popular.25
The answer to the question brings its own solution. "A substitution
for the bourgeois class as the directing class of the country is essen-
tial for post-war France.26
A new elite must arise in France. The real problem facing
France is to prepare for the rise of such an elite from the common
people. The immediate post-war problem is that no such class has
been adequately prepared to take over from the bourgeoisie.
Actually the only class from which the new leaders can come is the
labor union force. The bourgeoisie as a class, though not as in-
dividuals, is automatically excluded. The peasant class is too
closely allied to its land, an outmoded economic system. It is
basically conservative and thus in the French context reactionary
and regressive. The only remaining, organized force is the worker
force organized in labor unions.27
Thus, the entire basis of French culture and civilization must
be changed as a result of the collapse of the bourgeoisie. But this
is a real problem. For the bourgeoisie will not admit its inadequacy
but attempts to prolong its rule as it did between the two wars.28
It turns to the Right and the appeal of de Gaulle. "Those same
bourgeois elements which never trusted in a republican and popular
regime, those who thought that they had broken the Republic when
France was defeated, weigh now with all their weight today against
25 Emmanuel Mounier, "Bourgeoisie," Esprit, XIII, No. 107 (Fivrier,

1945), 452. All translations of articles from Esprit are by the author.
26 Emmanuel Mounier, "The Structures of Liberation," The Commonweal,
XLII (May 18, 1945), 112.
27 This will form a great problem for Mounier since the labor union force
was organized in the communist C.G.T.
28 Emmanuel Mounier, "Le mois de l'Unesco," Esprit, XV, No. 128
(D6cembre, 1946), 871.
the arising of a new France." 29 This will form an abiding problem

in the immediate liberation period and if not solved, throughout
the future history of France. 1958 saw the fulfillment of this pro-
phecy.
Resistance and Liberation
The problem of the liberation period follows from this betrayal
of the bourgeoisie. For during the resistance period it was the
bourgeoisie which was Petainist. The working class as a class went
over immediately into the resistance movement. Every peasant
protested the armistice even though, because of the agrarian nature
of the peasantry, there was not the same opportunity of resistance
as fell to the organized or organizable workers. 30
In the liberation period, then, it will be necessary to establish a
"broad French unity, centered upon bold and renovating action." 31
This broad unity must have as its base the one dynamic class in
French society - the working class. The French must face the
obvious fact in France that the working class is controlled by the
Communist Party. They must also recognize that through its work
in the resistance movements the Communist Party in the eyes of the
workers and many of the peasants has become a true French party.
As long as this remains true, political alliance with the Communist
Party in the government is inevitable.
When speaking of a new French unity, Mounier is not speaking
of a nonpolitical unity which many of the resistance groups desired
after liberation nor the type of rassemblement that de Gaulle
originally seemed to desire. Mounier meant a new political unity.
For Mounier had always criticized the resistance movements for
dissociating themselves from politics.32 "'No politics' has been the
error and the mistake of the Resistance in the interior as in London
and Algiers since the first day." 33 This fear of politics was based
upon the fear of a divided France. But this avoided the evident
fact that French society was already divided and not to recognize
it would be unreal. The result of such a policy was that the whole
29 Emmanuel Mounier, "France in the Catacombs," The Commonweal,

XLII (May 11, 1945), 36.
30 Ibid., p. 85.
31 Emmanuel Mounier, "The Resistance," The Commonweal, XLII (May
25, 1945), 138.
32 It is well to remember that Mounier was himself a member of the re-
sistance movement in Lyon.
33 Emmanuel Mounier, "'Pas de politique' 'Pas de problames,' Esprit,
XIII, No. 106 (Janvier, 1945), 282.
purpose of the resistance movement was never determined. The

members of the resistance groups thus did not know what they
were fighting for and when thrown inevitably back into a political
context after liberation proved extremely naive.
There is another danger in this nonpolitical unity so highly
prized by the resistance groups. This inevitably leads to a totali-
tarian plebiscite. It does not lead to the type of democratic dis-
cussion necessary in a newly democratic France. It can only result
in covering up the real problems which face France by a supposed
unity of opinion and program.34 What is needed in France is a
real democracy which is capable of strong action and endowed with
exceptional powers to meet the exceptional situation of post-war
France.35 For in the new situation in which Europe and France
must live, authoritarian government, as opposed to libertarian
government, is necessary. The problem is to locate freedom within
authoritarian principles. This is a historical process which is in-
evitable if France is to meet the revolutionary situation which she
faces.
But note here that authoritarian does not mean fascist or totali-
tarian. "All that we defend here, and the more remote values
of politics, excludes, besides the whole of the capitalist system, all
restoration of any form of fascism." 36 It is again the concept of
a real democracy that solves the apparent contradiction between
authority and freedom. A democracy is needed which is not the
repression of a minority by a majority. "A democracy is a per-
petually emerging force which perpetually strives for human
rights.37 If the democracy is an organic one based on the princi-
ples of Personalism, then it is possible to have strong government
together with the recognition of human freedoms.38
" Emmanuel Mounier, "La R6sistance et les elections," Esprit, XIII, No.
106 (Janvier, 1945), 284-86.
35Emmanuel Mounier, "Suite frangaise, aux maladies infantiles des
revolutions," Esprit, XIII, No. 105 (D6cembre, 1944), 22.
36 Emmanuel Mounier, "Devant nous," Esprit, XVI, No. 140 (Decembre,
1947), 940.
3" Emmanuel Mounier, "Qu'est-ce que la dimocratie?" Esprit, XIII, No.
106 (Janvier, 1945), 288.
38At the time of the formulation of the new constitution Mounier cam-
paigned vigorously for a new Bill of Rights which would express the new
needs of France. He objected to the final form of the Bill of Rights on the
ground that "c'est une D6claration de l'age liberal. ...." Emmanuel Mounier,
"La d6gradation des droits," Esprit, XIV, No. 121 (Avril, 1946), 679. His
positive position can be found in Emmanuel Mounier, "Faut-il refaire la
French Communism
The position of Mounier in Personalism and his attitude toward
the validity of bourgeois culture and rule in France led him neces-
sarily to a position of close alliance in practical policy with French
Communism and the Communist Party. It is in this area that the
progressive Catholics and the journal Esprit gained great notoriety.
Their position, and in particular the position of Mounier, is an
extremely complicated one. Frequently the stand taken by Mounier
is condemned without sufficient understanding of what that stand
really entailed and why it was made on such dangerous ground.
The ambiguities of this position must be untangled.
First of all, one point must be definitely established. When
Mounier speaks of the necessity of some sort of rapprochement with
Communism he is not speaking of Communism in the abstract. He
means Communism as it manifests itself in France in the post-war
period and only that. For those who would tend to generalize his
position he says:
For the sake of foreign readers who do not always know this
aspect of the French situation, notice that we speak of a co-
incidence of forces in liberated France, and that wherever it
does not exist - where, for example, another authentically revolu-
tionary party occupies the place which the Communist Party
holds in France, the problem would be put on a different basis.39
This is a point which cannot be stressed too much and must con-
stantly be kept in mind.
In treating this problem it is well to know what Mounier is not
saying before proceeding to elaborate his positive position. In 1949
the Vatican issued a condemnation of all those individuals or move-
ments which advocated (1) knowing and free adhesion to the
Communist Party, and (2) collaboration which contributes to the
establishment of a materialist and atheist Communist regime.
Mounier maintained that neither he nor Esprit came under such a
condemnation. He never advocated, in contradistinction to some
Christian progressivists, adherence to the Communist Party, nor did
D6claration des Droits?" Esprit, XIII, No. 109 (Avril, 1945), 696-708; XIII,
No. 110 (Mai, 1945), 850-56. This was the only constitutional issue he
treated specifically, but the similarities between the constitution of the Third
Republic and that of the Fourth indicates what he must have thought about
the latter.
3 Emmanuel Mounier, "A Dialogue with Communism," Cross Currents,
III (Winter, 1953), 12.
he insist that the communist method was the only valid one. Nor
had he ever aided the establishment of a materialist, atheist
regime.40 In fact, he had always attempted to dissociate himself
from those Catholic groups which joined the Communist Party and
which insisted that the Communists had the only valid social
policy.41 The fault of many of the Christian progressivists was to
make a doctrinal error in trying to fuse the theory of Christianity
and Communism. On the contrary, Mounier had condemned such
"confusionisme" and "syncretisme social." 42 The most that can
be said is that Mounier's position and that of the extreme Christian
progressivists coincided in certain practical positions and in the
general intent to separate the acceptable and unacceptable in Com-
munism.43 So in his own mind, Mounier is not asking for a strict
doctrinal and theoretical collaboration with French Communism.
What then does he demand?
Mounier's position on the bourgeoisie in France has already
been described. He was convinced that France was undergoing a
real social and economic revolution. The result of the revolution, if
it was successful, would be the supplanting of the bourgeoisie by
the workers in the positions of leadership and a completely new
economic order. This places Mounier in the revolutionary move-
ment in a position which in a definite sense is very close to the
emotional driving force of the Communists.44 This revolution as it
appears in France must inevitably be largely material and economic.
"A revolution born of economic misery is not able to be anything
but materialistic in its first expression." 45 So, the material and
political go hand in hand in a revolutionary period. This revolu-
tion and its form in France were prepared by the pre-war period.
For the classes in power cling to their positions. And in maintain-
ing their status they deprive the rising class or classes of the cultural
and social standard to which the latter aspire.46 In a very basic
40 Emmanuel Mounier, "Le dkcret du Saint-Office," Esprit, XVII, No. 158
(Aost, 1949), 307.
41 Emmanuel Mounier, "De l'usage du mot catholique," Esprit, XVII, No.
159 (Septembre, 1949), 425-31.
42 Emmanuel Mounier, "Communistes chr6tiens?" Esprit, XV, No. 135
(Juillet, 1947), 119.
S43Emmanuel Mounier, "Les chr6tiens progressistes," Esprit, XVII, No.
154 (Mars-Avril, 1949), 572.
4Emmanuel Mounier, "Tempete sur l'esth6tique," Esprit, XV, No. 154
(Mars-Avril, 1949), 572.
45 Mounier, "Suite frangaise . .. ," p. 19.
46 Ibid., p. 21.
sense then Mounier and the Communists would agree on the nature
of the revolutionary times in France. Esprit forms the vanguard
of such a revolution on the part of Christians and all those who
insist that a revolution is necessary and that it can be had outside
the Communist Party.47
This is not the only area of agreement between Mounier and
Communism. Mounier in general believed that "Marxism is an
acute
In partdescription of because
this was true the social
of and technical
the Marxist status on
position of the
manbank-
....." 48
ruptcy of the bourgeoisie, the revolution, the rise of the workers
which have been examined already. Further though, Mounier was
convinced that Marxism in Russia had something to offer the West.
One of the things that Russia has to offer is the actuality of a suc-
cessful revolution based upon the correct groups in society.49
Within the actual Marxist doctrinal body Mounier also agreed
with dialectical materialism. "Dialectical materialism appears to
us now as a fundamental method in historical knowledge. .. ." ,50
This agreement with the dialectic applied only to the process of
history and not to the whole range of the human spirit as the Com-
munists would have it. For Mounier explicitly dissociated himself
from the application of dialectical materialism to other areas and as
the total explanation of the human predicament. He says that the
application of the dialectic to the sciences of nature is foolish51 and
that Marxism is a "crude philosophy" 52 when taken out of the
social and technical fields.
On the side of Communist methods Mounier again falls into

line. Remember that it was one of the points of his Personalism
that every individual case had to be treated on its merits as unique.
He insists upon a truly realistic approach to the problems of any
particular time and place. Here he certainly found the Commu-
nists with him. For Marxists in his opinion were true realists apply-
ing themselves to the situation and engaging themselves in the
41Mounier, "Communistes chr6tiens," p. 118.

4s Mounier, "A Dialogue with Communism," p. 125.
4 Emmanuel Mounier, "Le casse-cou occidental," Esprit, XIII, No. 116
(Novembre, 1945), 694.
5o Emmanuel Mounier, "Autour du marxisme," Esprit, XIII, No. 117
(D6cembre, 1945), 964.
51 Ibid.
52 Mounier, "A Dialogue with Communism," p. 125.
particulars to the relative exclusion of inflexible moralizing.53 It is

in this way that the Marxist analysis has proved so fruitful in many
areas. The major area being of course championing the working
class and identification with it.54 Granting Mounier's previous
analysis of the social order, it would have been difficult not to agree
in many points with the Communists. Thus, on the theoretical level
Mounier concluded that "Marxist thought is an indispensable
element in the spiritual life of the man of the twentieth century." 55
But it was on the practical level that Mounier insisted upon
working with the Communists of France. He insisted that Commu-
nism had to be dealt with even apart from theoretical reasons and
general agreement on many practical aims and policies. The fact
of the matter was that the Communist Party had emerged from the
Vichy period as the strong political group. It came out of Vichy as
a French party and a dynamic new force. It came out of Vichy
with the workers in its grasp. And this is an accomplished fact
which in the foreseeable future cannot be altered. Communism has
captured the working man in France and for that reason alone
would have to be respected as a real force in French life. One's
theological position is irrelevant when placed against this fact.
Practical policy with regard to the Communist movement is based
on the need for a viable program granting the already established
French conditions. A movement which has the support of the
workers simply cannot be ignored as if it did not exist. One simply
must work with the Communists in post-war France.
But would not an anti-Communist policy be possible? Mounier
divides the political arena in France into two parts.
We must recognize that there exists today a political demarcation
which is even more profound than a matter of party allegiance.
It divides those who, even when fighting them, can only address
Communists as a whole in a fraternal spirit, and those for whom
anti-Communism, whether socialistic or reactionary, is the directing
political reflex. We are with the first group.56
Note that his group is fighting Communism. He is simply main-

taining that anti-Communism is not viable as a political position.
83 Emmanuel Mounier, "Le r6el n'est A personne," Esprit, XV, No. 130
(F'vrier, 1947), 206ff.
54 Emmanuel Mounier, "Delivrez-nous," Esprit, XVI, No. 141 (Janvier,
1948), 133-34.
s5 Mounier, "Autour du marxisme," p. 964.
In France the political isolation of the Communists is not a practical

policy.57
Anti-Communism has two major points against it. In the
France of 1945-1950, anti-Communism is the rallying cry of the
dying forms of the ruling bourgeoisie. It is the attempt of the
groups in power to maintain their positions and to prevent the
needed reforms which alone can save France.58 The other danger
of the anti-Communist position is fascism. For the very groups
which are most adamantly anti-Communist are at the same time
pro-fascist. And this connection is far from accidental. It is a
necessary consequence of such a position. At least a necessary con-
sequence of that position in France. In a country like the United
States where the Communist Party is negligible in numbers, percent-
age of population, electoral strength, and prestige, the isolation and
suppression of the Party would be a relatively simple matter. But
how do you democratically isolate one-third of the electorate? Mou-
nier claims it is impossible without a fascism of the Right which, by
sheer weight of its force and power, can crush such a "minority."
"Anti-Communism justified or not, of good or bad faith, when it
becomes the dominating motive power of a policy, is the open door
to fascism in those countries where Communism groups the immense
majority of the working class, and a third of the electoral body." 59
For Mounier then, an anti-Communist policy is an impossibility.
But Mounier did not fail to recognize the faults of the Commu-
nist's political moves nor the danger of his own position. A great
part of the blame for anti-Communism must fall on the Commu-
nist Party itself. Contrary to their position of cooperation im-
mediately following liberation, the Communist Party has fallen into
a period of intransigence and refusal to compromise.60 It was this
rigid attitude which made the hopes of Mounier begin to grow dim.
From his point of view the hope was for a union of the Left. But
such a union was impossible for him if the Communist Party would
make no compromises and refused to be contained within a larger
67 Emmanuel Mounier, "La querelle du travaillisme," Esprit, XIII, No.

106 (Janvier, 1945), 289.
59 Mounier, "Devant nous," p. 941. Sufficient consideration is not given
to a possible fascism of the Left. See his justification of the Polish regime as
the best government under the circumstances. Emmanuel Mounier, "L'ordre
ragne-t-il A Varsovie?" Esprit, XIV, No. 123 (Juin, 1946), 1002.
60 Emmanuel Mounier, "Ne nous demandez pas de ne pas nous-memes,"
Esprit, XVII, No. 156 (Juin, 1949), 849ff.
unity.61 The only possibility that remained if the anti-Communism

policy and fascism were to be prevented would be for the Commu-
nist Party as true realists to change their position to fit the real needs
of France.62 This he actually seemed to expect.
Certainly, the position of Mounier toward Communism was a
complicated one. It transcends easy solution. In many ways he
agreed with the theoretical positions of Marxism, he saw the practi-
cal difficulties of the anti-Communist position, and at the same time
he saw the faults of the Communist Party and the danger of his
position. The agonizing consequence can be expressed in his own
words: "The result of all this is that in 1946 it is hard not to be
a Communist, but it is still harder to be one, if one wants to embrace
all the complexity of the times." 63
Political Parties
Mounier believed that it was not the part of Esprit or his move-
ment to directly espouse a political party. This was not because
they were above politics. On the contrary, Mounier wanted a
revolution of the spirit that would make the individual capable of
going in whatever direction the particular moment demanded.64
At the same time he always maintained that the political had its
own values,65 and that political organization in France was essen-
tial. Remember his criticism of the resistance movements for their
apolitical tendencies. "French interest, if not the party interest,
requires that all France find itself and organize itself politically." 66
But his position toward the actually existing parties was rather
severe.
The Communist Party has already been covered. In contrast

to his sympathy toward though not advocacy of the Communist
Party was his outright hostility and contempt for the Socialist Party.
This may at first seem somewhat surprising because his own pro-
gram was strongly socialistic. The Socialist Party had been a part
61 Emmanuel Mounier, "Faire-part de presse: s6paration de corps," Esprit,

XVIII, No. 150 (Novembre, 1948), 735-36.
62 Mounier, "Devant nous," pp. 940-41.
,3 Mounier, "A Dialogue with Communism," p. 138.
6 Emmanuel Mounier, "'Esprit' et I'actualit6 politique," Esprit, XIII,
No. 113 (Aoft, 1945), 443.
65 Emmanuel Mounier, "Petkov en nous," Esprit, XV, No. 138 (Octobre,
1947), 592. See also Emmanuel Mounier, "Y a-t-il une justice politique?"
Esprit, XV, No. 136 (Aoft, 1947), 212-38.
66 Mounier, "La querelle du travaillisme," p. 290.
of the general collapse of the pre-war period. Without a complete

renewal in spirit and membership it had no future in France. It
had prostituted its message and become just another bourgeois
party.67 Its real error was in separating from the Communists and
in widening that separation.68 It had no future in the France of
Mounier except as another reactionary group.
The parties of the Right were, of course, condemned without
any possibility of recovery. He speaks of the Radical-Socialist
Party as a "cadaver." 69 On the Right, he took a staunch position
against the rise of Charles de Gaulle. In many ways de Gaulle was
the very antithesis of what Mounier stood for. The Gaullist move-
ment frightened Mounier because it was so idealistic and apolitical
in its orientation. He feared de Gaulle who was so sure of himself
and so full of the morality of his position as to be politically naive
as only a military man could be.7'0 He granted that de Gaulle did
not consider himself a Boulanger or a Bonaparte. But a mere in-
tention does not suffice in politics. For the factual situation in
France was not a lump of clay that yields itself to any shape at the
hands of the artist. What de Gaulle thinks he is is beside the point.
De Gaulle is not a fascist. But by uniting the same ideas, social, and
political forces as Boulanger and Bonaparte, fascism would be in-
evitable under the General. If successful in politics, de Gaulle, so
Mounier thought, would have freed the land of the enemy only to
have delivered it into political slavery. Mounier was correct in his
prediction of the rise of de Gaulle and its causes. But he has been
proved wrong in the result. So far de Gaulle has proved bigger than
the forces which brought him to power.
What of the Christian political groups and specifically the
M.R.P.? From the very beginning Mounier was against any
political movement by a specifically confessional group (such as the
Jocist movement). In his mind such groups were dangerous in
politics because they tended to take an absolutely pure position
which was impossible in the political realm.71 Also it is wrong to
67 Mounier, "The Structures of Liberation," p. 114.

68 Emmanuel Mounier, "Tentation de l'aventin," Esprit, XV, No. 131
(Mars, 1947), 475.
69 Mounier, "The Structures of Liberation," p. 114.
70 Emmanuel Mounier, "Je suis le G6ndral de Gaulle," Esprit, XVI, No.
149 (Octobre, 1948), 576.
71 Emmanuel Mounier, "La jeunesse comme mythe et la jeunesse comme
realit6," Esprit, XIII, No. 105 (Decembre, 1944), 143ff.
connect the word Catholic or Christian to a political movement.

The result is to arouse political issues that are better left dead and
to subject the Church to the contamination of political activity
which is outside its sphere.72 Further, since Catholicism cannot be
connected with a particular French political party it is about time
that Catholics stopped trying to identify the Church with the upper
classes and conservative groups. This goes especially for the clergy.73
This puts one strike against the M.R.P. from the start.74 But
it has at least one other strike against it. Mounier granted the
sincerity and zeal of many of the members of the M.R.P. And in
many respects he agreed with those in the progressive wing of the
party. The problem within the party is that the rightist group
dominates the party. Together with its confessionalism, this means
for Mounier that the M.R.P. can only be a reserve which could be
called upon if a true revolutionary movement ever got under way
in France.75 The result of the dominance of the right-wing is that
the program of the M.R.P. is unable to respond to any authentically
popular movement.76
This disposes of all the existing French parties. Not only did
Mounier reject these, though willing to work with them for specific
programs, but he was also against the attempt to combine Socialists,
M.R.P., or the parties of the Right into a Third Force movement.77
The trouble with the Third Force is that it is based upon a parlia-
mentary situation which can only lead to a powerless, hodgepodge
program which would be neither fish nor fowl.78 The very reasons
that were against the Third Force, recommended the National
72 Emmanuel Mounier, "Les chretiens progressistes," Esprit, XVII, No.

150 (Novembre, 1948), 745.
73 Emmanuel Mounier, "De l'usage du mot catholique," Esprit, XVII, No.
155 (Mai, 1949), 712.
74 It is interesting to note that Gilbert Dru, the principal founder of the
M.R.P., was a spiritual child of Mounier and Personalism. See Mario Einaudi
and Frangois Goguel, Christian Democracy in Italy and France (Notre Dame:
1952), p. 118.
76 Emmanuel Mounier, "Les mauvaises raisons," Esprit, XIII, No. 108
(Mars, 1945), 619.
77 Mounier points out that the term Third Force was originated by Esprit
in February, 1933 to apply to a spiritual not a political movement. See
Emmanuel Mounier, "Troisieme Force," Esprit, XVI, No. 141 (Janvier, 1948),
113.
78 Mounier, "Devant nous," p. 941.
Front. Mounier thought that a revised National Front could carry

out the vigorous socialistic policy that he desired.79
But Mounier was not really content with any of the parties nor
with any of the compromise coalitions. In February, 1948, however,
he thought he had found the party that he was seeking. Mounier
had really been demanding a new force adapted to his own ideas
of the needs of France. It should be a new political force aiming at
an authentic socialist program. It would be a revolutionary social-
ist force with a broad popular base. It should be made up not just
of intellectuals and members of the parliamentary party but of the
people. In extent it would cover the same ground as the Commu-
nists, Socialists, and "progressive" Catholics. On such a basis it
could fit the needs of France. The Rassemblement De'mocratique
et Rdvolutionnaire seemed to be such a party.8s The R.D.R. was
founded by a group of Socialists, journalists (Mounier and Esprit
among them despite the previous claim not to espouse any partic-
ular party), writers, and trade unionists. It was to be a socialist
party independent of Russia, rejecting Communism and the Third
Force, based on liberty and social justice. Despite the hopes of
Mounier, the R.D.R. never quite got off the ground. This was due
to many causes, not the least of which was internal dissension. A
year after the appearance of the R.D.R. at the time of the cantonal
elections, Mounier gave vent to his disappointment with the parties
of France. For him every party seemed bent on returning to the
past in one form or another, at the very time when boldness and
imagination were so necessary. The final result? "With the
demand to go back, we will arrive then at the Gallic forest, at the
conquest of Caesar - and, if the pressure of night adds even the
least blow, our facial angle will approximate the mark of the Cro-
Magnon." 81
War, Peace and Germany
There are a few more questions upon which Mounier spoke out
that should be added here to round out the picture. The problem
of war and peace began to play an important role in Mounier's
thought beginning in the latter part of 1948. This was the light in
79 Emmanuel Mounier, "Front National," Esprit, XIII, No. 108 (Mars,

1945), 620-21.
so0 Emmanuel Mounier, "Premier signe: le R.D.R.," Esprit, XVI, No. 143
(Mars, 1948), 462ff.
s81 Emmanuel Mounier, "Chronique non politique," Esprit, XVII, No. 155
(Mai, 1949), 698.
which he evaluated the Marshall Plan. He favored it in so far as

it was merely economic aid but opposed it when it tended to make
of Europe a strategic bastion. It is not that he wanted Europe to
be neutral in the struggle between the Communist Bloc and the
West. This he considered impossible and as disastrous a policy as
was Munich in 1939. But he was convinced that war was no longer
possible in the atomic age. War would destroy those very values
for which the war would be waged. "To defend liberties by an
atomic war, is to destroy stupidly those very liberties." 82
Mounier thought that war would be both immoral and un-
necessary under modem conditions. Unnecessary because Russia
was not as antihumanist as Nazi Germany had been. And further,
though Russia was the cause of much of the evil that followed World
War II, yet she does not really want war. She wants peace and
Christianity as does France. Immoral because of the terrible des-
tructiveness of atomic weapons. A war that would destroy those
waging it makes the very means employed immoral.83 What the
world needs is not another war of arms. It needs a war of the
spirit. The people of the West must be strong enough to endure the
sacrifice and risk involved in the political struggle for a peaceful
accommodation of the differences between the two world blocs.84
Therefore, every hope and possibility of peace must be explored.
Mounier's attitude toward Germany was a very enlightened one
considering the experiences of France during the War. It was
partly influenced by the importance in his mind of working toward
peace and away from even the possibility of an atomic war, but this
was only a partial cause. Mounier had a deep appreciation for the
cultural background and importance of Germany.s5 He had a
definite respect for the German people and hope for their future
importance in and contribution toward a reconstructed Europe.
Such a renewed Europe could never arise without the participation
of Germany. Therefore, France must take every step to aid in the
spiritual and political reconstruction of Germany. The spirit of
82 Emmanuel Mounier, "Declaration de guerre," Esprit, XVII, No. 150

(Novembre, 1948), 605.
83 Emmanuel Mounier, "Si nous avons attendu trois ans," Esprit, XVII,
No. 152 (Janvier, 1949), 104ff.
84 Emmanuel Mounier, "Les 6quivoques du pacifisme," Esprit, XVII,
No. 153 (Fevrier, 1949), 193.
85 Emmanuel Mounier, "Devant le d'sespoir allemand," Esprit, XIII, No.
110 (Mai, 1945), 901.
revenge must not prevail in the dealings between Germany and

France.86 Every attempt must be made for a mutual understand-
ing between Germany and France.87 Mounier here would now
find himself backing the present policies of de Gaulle.
Little attempt has been made throughout this study to connect

directly Mounier's political positions to the actual French situation
as it unfolded after the War. The conclusion must not be made
that Mounier was theorizing in a vacuum and about unimportant
issues. Quite the contrary. The whole tendency of Personalism
forced upon him an intimate engagement with the political realities
of France. Anyone even the least familiar with post-war France
will see the connection between the positions explained here and
the political history of France. Almost all the major issues were
discussed by Mounier. His criticism of the resistance came at the
very time when its popularity was highest and when it was trying
to establish a feeling of concordance over and above politics. His
attitude toward Communism parallels the history of the Commu-
nist Party in post-war France. Mounier opposed the gradual aliena-
tion of the Communist Party from the political life of France, the
split between Socialists and Communists, the expulsion of the Com-
munists from the government, the Third Force movement. He
opposed the M.R.P. as a confessional and conservative party at the
time of its spectacular growth immediately following liberation and
continued that criticism through its eventual rise to predominance
in the government. The stand of Mounier on war and peace was
taken in the face of the atomic bomb and the Communist peace
offensive of those years. And his position on Germany could
hardly have been a more realistic one in the actual circumstances
of the French position.
The thought of Mounier on all these questions has been ex-
plained. Certainly they have not been the stands that were the
86 Emmanuel Mounier, "Nouveaux d6bats sur l'Allemagne," Esprit, XIII,

No. 112 (Juillet, 1945), 294. At the same time that he was pleading for a
spirit of moderation toward Germany, Mounier was criticizing a new anti-
Jewish spirit growing in France. See Emmanuel Mounier, "Exodus 47,"
Esprit, XV, No. 136 (Aouit, 1947), 285-86.
87 Mounier himself organized a group of French and German intellectuals
to discuss mutual problems and aid in mutual understanding. See Emmanuel
Mounier, "Un Comit6 France-Allemagne," Esprit, XVII, No. 150 (No-
vembre, 1948), 726-27.
most popular and readily accepted either by Mounier's opponents

or even in many cases by his friends. Throughout there runs the
strand of Personalism. The conviction that the capitalist-bourgeois
system was bankrupt runs through all aspects of Mounier's practi-
cal political positions. It was for this reason that it was necessary
to come to some accord with the Communist Party in France. It
was for this reason that he was so little content with the existing
party structure of France. It is quite easy to criticize these con-
victions as illusions. But Mounier had no delusions about the
Communist Party. And anyone who agrees with him about the
capitalist system which he experienced in France can understand
the agonizing dilemma in which he was placed. He chose what
in his mind was a path between the two horns of that dilemma.
But did he choose well? In fact, does the dilemma really exist?
Mounier in his uncompromising attitude did not really give suffi-
cient consideration to the intentions and positions of the groups on
the Right. He was hardly fair in attributing to them such a hope-
less ground upon which to work. Granting his characterization of
the Right, one can understand his position. But can one under-
stand his characterization?
Mounier was haunted by the specter of de Gaulle on the hori-
zon. Mounier wanted an authoritarian government much like the
one de Gaulle has brought to France. But he expected it to have
a different foundation solidly on the Left. The thing that Mounier
did not envision was an independent de Gaulle. He felt that the
Right would control de Gaulle. But de Gaulle so far controls
France. It is difficult to predict French politics. But despite some
discontent de Gaulle appears to be in control. Strong government
has not resulted in a lack of freedom or in a fascism of the Right.
Mounier were he alive today would find himself in the position
of agreeing with most of de Gaulle's policies for the preservation
of France. To this extent he would have to alter his stand. On
the basic issue of political orientation Mounier would remain anti-
de Gaulle and anti-Right. Emmanuel Mounier would remain a
Catholic of the Left,

Moun I Er 1405607

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Moun I Er 1405607

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Emmanuel Mounier: A Catholic of the Left

Author(s): Donald Wolf

Cambridge University Press, University of Notre Dame du lac on behalf of Review of

FRANCE today is dominated by the overpowering force of the

developed into a strong force an alternative to de Gaulle might

The late Emmanuel Mounier was one of the most important

aSee Borisz de Balla, "The Marxist Influence in Catholic France,"

a person is a spiritual being, constituted as such by its manner of

9 See the Foreword by Leslie Paul in Emmanuel Mounier, Be Not Afraid:

At the beginning is the affirmation of the absolute value of the

13 See Emmanuel Mounier, Traite du caractdre (Paris, 1946) for an ex-

This entire capitalist order must be reorganized and centered on

The abolition of the proletarian condition; the supersession of the

In this manner will the economic order be restored.21

18s Ibid., p. 197.

French Culture and Civilization

23 Mounier, Personalism, p. vii.

Right, Left, or Center which has failed. It was the impotence of

The [problem] is to know whether the bourgeoisie in its entirety

25 Emmanuel Mounier, "Bourgeoisie," Esprit, XIII, No. 107 (Fivrier,

the arising of a new France." 29 This will form an abiding problem

29 Emmanuel Mounier, "France in the Catacombs," The Commonweal,

purpose of the resistance movement was never determined. The

On the side of Communist methods Mounier again falls into

41Mounier, "Communistes chr6tiens," p. 118.

particulars to the relative exclusion of inflexible moralizing.53 It is

Note that his group is fighting Communism. He is simply main-

In France the political isolation of the Communists is not a practical

67 Emmanuel Mounier, "La querelle du travaillisme," Esprit, XIII, No.

unity.61 The only possibility that remained if the anti-Communism

The Communist Party has already been covered. In contrast

61 Emmanuel Mounier, "Faire-part de presse: s6paration de corps," Esprit,

of the general collapse of the pre-war period. Without a complete

67 Mounier, "The Structures of Liberation," p. 114.

connect the word Catholic or Christian to a political movement.

72 Emmanuel Mounier, "Les chretiens progressistes," Esprit, XVII, No.

Front. Mounier thought that a revised National Front could carry

79 Emmanuel Mounier, "Front National," Esprit, XIII, No. 108 (Mars,

which he evaluated the Marshall Plan. He favored it in so far as

82 Emmanuel Mounier, "Declaration de guerre," Esprit, XVII, No. 150

revenge must not prevail in the dealings between Germany and

Little attempt has been made throughout this study to connect

86 Emmanuel Mounier, "Nouveaux d6bats sur l'Allemagne," Esprit, XIII,

most popular and readily accepted either by Mounier's opponents

Anda mungkin juga menyukai