The world of culture often presents itself as a counter-power. But when it heavily depends on public money, can it still claim to be truly free? Michel Onfray, certainly not: it is part of what Althusser calls the ISA, the ideological state apparatuses, which, far from constituting counter-powers, are well-armed arms of power. State subsidies go to state apparatuses that defend the state ideology, which, in turn, spreads the doctrine of the Maastricht state in an authoritarian and cynical manner. In any totalitarian regime, it is understood: no one trusts journalists, as submission is as clear as day.
In the illiberal democracies within the Maastrichtian reasoning circle, of which France is a part, Paul Amar recently stated on CNews that media authorities from the public service had informed him that he was not invited because he was “on the list”. A list of banned guests from the public service, which Patrick Cohen mentioned in 2013.
Is subsidized culture, in your opinion, become a progressive catechism? Any subsidized culture is a culture that obeys the master who gives it the means to exist. This is the jurisprudence of the feeding bowl. At the Assembly tribune in 1973, Maurice Druon, the author of the “Chant des partisans” with Kessel, then Minister of Culture, formulated the counter-poison of this logic: “Those who come to the door of this ministry with a saber in one hand and a Molotov cocktail in the other will have to choose.” This is the minimum coherence, elegance, and rectitude that can be demanded of these beggars of money that allows them to then bite the hand that feeds them. Let’s speak their language once again: Jean Moulin would not have been subsidized by Marshal Pétain!
The last Molières ceremony showed a certain closed circle where the cultural milieu reassures itself and sneers at its opponents. What did you think about that? Molière must be rolling in his grave at the idea that his patronage could be hijacked, especially since those who claim it are hypocrites, poseurs, learned women, and bourgeois gentlemen of the day.
“I remind these resistants of 1947 that Grasset has been part of the Bolloré group since 2023 and that the Folies Bergère, where the name of Vincent Bolloré was jeered at the Molières, has been the majority shareholder of this house since 2025. Let’s use the excesses of the new outrage mongers: would Jean Moulin have scheduled his meetings at the French Gestapo headquarters?”
The left-wing cultural scene claims to speak on behalf of the people. But its audience often remains very bourgeois. Has subsidized culture lost the people? Yes, since Jack Lang’s magisterium. Under General de Gaulle’s initiative, the Ministry of Culture aimed to elevate the people to the height of French, European, and global masterpieces. Malraux believed that television should relay the best of French culture and bring the best of culture into families. Lang did the opposite: he lowered culture to the least demanding practices. As a result, culture has become a mark of social distinction for the elite, and the people are excluded from this social game. They are left with public service games.
Furthermore, French culture is very – too – Parisian-centered. Certainly, Jacobin centralism is the nation’s plague. But the worst is perhaps that regional actors in the cultural scene parrot what amuses Paris. If one wants to be considered for a ministerial position in the cultural field, one must have shown a lot of allegiance to the Politburo.
You often say you defend the public service when it elevates the mind but fight it when it becomes a propaganda tool. Are major cultural institutions still serving the public? Malraux defended a civilizational ideal for the country. Lang also promoted a model that, as always with Mitterrand, was oppositional to the one that General de Gaulle was and did. Lully’s opera at Garnier for de Gaulle, the harmonica player at the Fête de la Musique on the Garnier Palace sidewalk for Mitterrand. When I was a child and television arrived at my parents’ house, the first screen I saw light up transmitted a representation of Eschyle’s “Persians”. This was under de Gaulle and Malraux, who did not want to indoctrinate the people but to cultivate them.
If we were to rebuild a cultural policy worthy of the name, what would absolutely need to be saved? We would need to stop financing the press, which should only exist with its readers. Then, rebuild a strong public service with a precise specification: no more lists of banned personalities, no more monochrome presenters, programs hosted by sympathizers of both LFI and RN, etc. But it would also be necessary to eliminate all the satellite associations of the ideological state apparatuses that pretend to control equity while imposing inequity.
We could also, since state money is lacking, seek private patronage with tax incentives – the kind that allows the United States to have the world’s largest museums. It is not normal that François Pinault, who was Jacques Chirac’s friend, could not open a museum on the Seguin island in Paris, even though his friend was the President of the Republic. What was stronger than a head of state responsible for national sovereignty in this matter? Knowing the answer will help us know which bastions need to be taken down.
