François Foret
François Foret is Professor of Political Science at the Université Libre de Bruxelles. He is also researcher at the Cevipol (Centre d'étude de la vie politique) and at the Institute for European Studies, ULB. His research interests include: European integration; collective values, identity and memory; symbolic legitimization of political orders; interaction between religion and politics; comparative politics, especially comparison between Europe, Japan and the US.
less
Uploads
Books by François Foret
It analyses how, against different but commensurable backgrounds, the rise of value politics alters (or not) the political game, for which purposes and with which effects. Applying both qualitative and quantitative methods from a wide range of primary and secondary sources, the comparison is organized by joining skills from experts of Japan and Europe and by systematizing a common analytical framework for the two cases. As such, it presents a revealing and unique analysis of the changing relationship between values and political behaviour in the two polities. Beyond the comparison, it also documents the opportunities and challenges underlying the interactions between Europe, Japan and the rest of the world; and the competition/combination between different versions of modernity.
This book discusses the genesis of and increasing references to "European values", their appropriation by diverse groups of actors and their impact on public action. It argues that European values are a broad and flexible symbolic repertoire, instrumental to serving diverging ends, and a resource for both negotiation and conflicts. Looking at the broader picture, the book reflects on the role of values in the institutionalization of the EU as a political order and paves the way to an assessment of its singularity in comparison with other polities across time and space.
This text will be of key interest to scholars, students and practitioners in EU politics, comparative politics, IR, public policy, sociology and cultural studies.
Papers by François Foret
which is assumed to lead to the conflictual separation of politics
and religion. The aim of this contribution is to discuss the actual
specificity of French laïcité in comparison to other member states of
the European Union (EU) regarding the interactions between
nation, Europe, and religion. Empirically, we rely on a survey of
five French members of the European Parliament (MEPs); an analysis
of parliamentary questions related to ‘religion’ and ‘laïcité’ by
French MEPs between 2019 and 2023; and two policy case studies
(the counter-radicalisation strategy following terrorist attacks in the
years 2000–2010 and the restriction of religious freedom during the
pandemic in 2020–2021). Our findings suggest that French laïcité
retains its singularity as a symbolic resource even if its policy
practices do not differ greatly from what happens in other member
states. In national as well as in European politics, French elites are
still reluctant to deal with religion in the public space and use it as
a marker of national identity only in a distant, secularised, and
culturalised way.
the European Parliament and in European multilevel governance’
(RelEP2) pursued during the term 2019–2024. It focuses on the way
politicisation may occur in two capacities: politicisation through
religion by its effects on the functioning of the European
Parliament (EP) as an institution and on political belongings and
cleavages; politicisation of religion as an issue or a set of actors
likely to increase the conflictualisation of European politics.
Politicisation is defined along three usual dimensions customised
for the purpose of our research: the salience of religion in MEPs’
work, attitudes, and practices; its effects on polarisation (understood as a hardening of belongings and cleavages); its contribution
to the expansion of actors and audiences involved in debating or
shaping European integration. Our findings show that religion has
limited salience in the functioning of the EP and in the practices of
its members. Religion may work as a symbolic marker of distinction
between and within existing belongings, and leads to
a fragmentation rather than to the polarisation of clear-cut coalitions shaped by religious beliefs or issues. The capacity of religious
actors or issues to expand the debate about European integration is
not demonstrated.
findings of the second wave of the project ‘Religion in the
European Parliament and in European multilevel governance’
(RelEP2) pursued during the term 2019–2024, after a first wave in
2009–2014 (RelEP1). This new research was necessary for at least
two reasons leading to an apparent paradox: first, the ongoing
secularisation of European societies which has increasingly questioned
the relevance of religion as a political factor; and, second, the
politicisation of religion as a discursive resource in a polycrisis
Europe, both at national and supranational levels. The contribution
first frames the objectives and modalities of the project survey,
which investigates what members of the European Parliament
(MEPs) believe and what they do with these beliefs. It then compares
the contexts and outcomes of the two waves of the survey.
The next sections relate together the two dimensions of the collective
research: religion within the European Parliament (EP) on the
one hand; and religion at the juncture of nation and Europe on the
other hand. They summarise how this collection contributes to our
understanding of religion in European politics, and the future
research avenues it identifies.
It analyses how, against different but commensurable backgrounds, the rise of value politics alters (or not) the political game, for which purposes and with which effects. Applying both qualitative and quantitative methods from a wide range of primary and secondary sources, the comparison is organized by joining skills from experts of Japan and Europe and by systematizing a common analytical framework for the two cases. As such, it presents a revealing and unique analysis of the changing relationship between values and political behaviour in the two polities. Beyond the comparison, it also documents the opportunities and challenges underlying the interactions between Europe, Japan and the rest of the world; and the competition/combination between different versions of modernity.
This book discusses the genesis of and increasing references to "European values", their appropriation by diverse groups of actors and their impact on public action. It argues that European values are a broad and flexible symbolic repertoire, instrumental to serving diverging ends, and a resource for both negotiation and conflicts. Looking at the broader picture, the book reflects on the role of values in the institutionalization of the EU as a political order and paves the way to an assessment of its singularity in comparison with other polities across time and space.
This text will be of key interest to scholars, students and practitioners in EU politics, comparative politics, IR, public policy, sociology and cultural studies.
which is assumed to lead to the conflictual separation of politics
and religion. The aim of this contribution is to discuss the actual
specificity of French laïcité in comparison to other member states of
the European Union (EU) regarding the interactions between
nation, Europe, and religion. Empirically, we rely on a survey of
five French members of the European Parliament (MEPs); an analysis
of parliamentary questions related to ‘religion’ and ‘laïcité’ by
French MEPs between 2019 and 2023; and two policy case studies
(the counter-radicalisation strategy following terrorist attacks in the
years 2000–2010 and the restriction of religious freedom during the
pandemic in 2020–2021). Our findings suggest that French laïcité
retains its singularity as a symbolic resource even if its policy
practices do not differ greatly from what happens in other member
states. In national as well as in European politics, French elites are
still reluctant to deal with religion in the public space and use it as
a marker of national identity only in a distant, secularised, and
culturalised way.
the European Parliament and in European multilevel governance’
(RelEP2) pursued during the term 2019–2024. It focuses on the way
politicisation may occur in two capacities: politicisation through
religion by its effects on the functioning of the European
Parliament (EP) as an institution and on political belongings and
cleavages; politicisation of religion as an issue or a set of actors
likely to increase the conflictualisation of European politics.
Politicisation is defined along three usual dimensions customised
for the purpose of our research: the salience of religion in MEPs’
work, attitudes, and practices; its effects on polarisation (understood as a hardening of belongings and cleavages); its contribution
to the expansion of actors and audiences involved in debating or
shaping European integration. Our findings show that religion has
limited salience in the functioning of the EP and in the practices of
its members. Religion may work as a symbolic marker of distinction
between and within existing belongings, and leads to
a fragmentation rather than to the polarisation of clear-cut coalitions shaped by religious beliefs or issues. The capacity of religious
actors or issues to expand the debate about European integration is
not demonstrated.
findings of the second wave of the project ‘Religion in the
European Parliament and in European multilevel governance’
(RelEP2) pursued during the term 2019–2024, after a first wave in
2009–2014 (RelEP1). This new research was necessary for at least
two reasons leading to an apparent paradox: first, the ongoing
secularisation of European societies which has increasingly questioned
the relevance of religion as a political factor; and, second, the
politicisation of religion as a discursive resource in a polycrisis
Europe, both at national and supranational levels. The contribution
first frames the objectives and modalities of the project survey,
which investigates what members of the European Parliament
(MEPs) believe and what they do with these beliefs. It then compares
the contexts and outcomes of the two waves of the survey.
The next sections relate together the two dimensions of the collective
research: religion within the European Parliament (EP) on the
one hand; and religion at the juncture of nation and Europe on the
other hand. They summarise how this collection contributes to our
understanding of religion in European politics, and the future
research avenues it identifies.
La multiplication des niveaux de gouvernance et d’identification ainsi que les mutations contemporaines de la communication politique mettent en question les dynamiques symboliques traditionnelles. La coexistence des drapeaux nationaux des États membres de l’Union européenne (UE) et du drapeau européen éclaire les dynamiques de pouvoir et de représentation
à l’œuvre, entre combinaison, compétition et confrontation. L’inscription progressive du drapeau européen dans le quotidien et sa polysémie illustrent la pluralité croissante des identités. Dans le même temps, sa faible intensité affective et les controverses qu’il suscite rappellent
que le changement en matière symbolique est lent et loin d’être univoque.
**********************************
The multiplication of levels of governance and identification as well as contemporary changes in political communication challenge traditional symbolic dynamics. The coexistence of the national flags of the European Union (EU)’s member states and the twelve stars European flag sheds light on the dynamics of power and representation at work, between combination, competition and confrontation. The gradual incorporation of
the European flag into everyday life and its polysemy illustrate the growing plurality of identities. At the same time, the flag's low emotional intensity and the controversies to which it gives rise are a reminder that symbolic change is slow and far from unequivocal.
the communication of the European Union (EU) after the 2019
European elections. The article analyses the social relevance and
meanings of this legitimizing narrative against the background of
similar past communicative attempts; and compares its framing by
EU institutions with its understanding by citizens. We rely on the
results of a survey exploring the cultural and normative
foundations of the European multi-level governance in eight
countries, (France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Romania,
Spain, UK). Our findings are twofold. First, the EWOL narrative does
not differ much of previous narratives; and the popular perceptions
of EWOL are in line with its institutional definition. Second, EWOL
has a low public salience and remains an elusive topic. As a
conclusion, it is unlikely to significantly alter EU legitimization.