The cause seems understood: the reactionary idealization of the family characterizes the Vichy regime. But has this ideology translated into real public policy? ? Thanks to an in-depth study of institutions and practices, Christophe Capuano reveals the pretenses of familialism between 1940 and 1944.
Another book on Vichy and the family ? The title could alienate the reader for whom everything has been said about the family policy of the French state. The subtitle will attract the curious, and will interest all those who consider that the role of the social sciences is not only to study discourses, at the risk of confusing them with reality, but to confront them with practices. Thus, Christophe Capuano’s work, a revised version of a doctoral thesis in history defended in 2008 at the University of Burgundy, invites us to revise what we thought we knew about the family under Vichy.
From the first line of the preface he gives to the work, Paul-André Rosental summarizes the, to say the least, iconoclastic conclusion to which the author’s demonstration leads: “ The family policy of the Vichy regime was essentially mean, pusillanimous and inconsistent. » (p. 9). If such a thesis may be surprising, it is because the regime itself has declared family policy as one of its pillars – through its motto “ Work, Family, Homeland » – this was long considered to be “ the main success of the French state » (4e cover), both in the collective imagination – with the invention of Mother’s Day for example – and in historical works.
The demonstration is no less convincing. Among the many interests of an extremely dense work, we will only retain here a few fundamental aspects which testify to the innovative nature of the approach chosen by Christophe Capuano.
From political speeches to administrative practices
The author specifies, from the introduction, that considering the family policy of Vichy “ like a given research for the historian poses a problem » (p. 13). Indeed, analyzing the “ realities and pretenses of public policy » implies considering it as a construction of which the historian must analyze all the stages. In doing so, Christophe Capuano fits completely into the recent renewals of the political history of the administration. Taking note of the limits specific to the sole analysis of political speeches and other declarations of intention, this has placed the study of practices at the heart of the historical analysis of the State.
Thus, the author does not call into question the predominance of the family in Vichy rhetoric. Mobilizing an approach inspired by the analysis of public policies as French political sciences have practiced for many years, it begins, from the first chapter, by studying the placing on the agenda of a “ family matter » from the eve of the war to the Vichy government and the establishment of the family as a true reference for public action. Taking note of the late – but very real – interest of the governments of the IIIe Republic for the family, Christophe Capuano shows that his “ position (is) central in the reactionary rhetoric of the National Revolution » (p. 39). The speeches relating to the defense of the family (and the birth rate) fit just as much into the argument condemning “ republican individualism » (p. 40) than in that advocating a corporatist reorganization of society. The family is the smallest “natural” entity to which individuals belong » (p. 42), it also becomes, and above all, the only “ prism » by which « social problems and population issues are now addressed » (p. 44).
But noting the existence of a rhetoric cannot be enough and cannot replace a detailed analysis of the methods of implementing a public family policy. In this regard, one of the most stimulating aspects of the book consists of the choice of a joint study of the functioning – and dysfunctions – of national administrative structures (Family Directorate, General Family Commission) and regional (the delegations regional offices for the Family).
On the one hand, this approach allows the author to note the relative weakness of the administration of the Family within the central State. This was as much budgetary – in 1941, the budget allocated to the Family was twenty times less than that allocated to Sports (p. 56-57) – as it was political. Thus, the place of the Family in the governmental system was very fluctuating during the period, both from a structural point of view – the Family even lost its ministerial rank between September 1940 and February 1941, becoming a simple general secretariat attached to to Health – than that of political voluntarism. In this, the contrast is very strong between Jacques Chevallier, Secretary of State for Family and Health from February to August 1941, “ very personally invested in the family cause » (p. 52) and a Raymond Grasset, in the same position between April 1942 and August 1944, “ at best indifferent to family matters » (p. 53) and openly favoring the Health sector.
On the other hand, taking into consideration the decentralized level allows Christophe Capuano to note, converselythe existence of a “ efficient administrative framework » (p. 68) through the regional delegations to the Family, whose leaders appear as “ ardent family activists » (p. 72). Above all, they were better off than the central administration in terms of human and financial resources. From 1942, regional delegations – some of which benefited from “ substantial financial means » from local authorities and the general family commission (p. 77) – were granted the possibility of carrying out a “ extensive recruitment campaign » (p. 75). Therefore, if Christophe Capuano underlines the contrasting nature of the effectiveness of the different regional delegations, he nevertheless notes that “ political voluntarism in favor of important family reforms is therefore paradoxically located less at the level of the Vichy government than of the General Commission for the Family and its external services » (p. 79).
Public-private interactions
Faced with the relative weakness of national administrative structures, the importance of the regional level is partly explained by the role “ initiator and coordinator of action (…) with extra-state institutions » familialist (p. 67) that the delegations played.
It is also by taking into consideration these extra-state institutions that Christophe Capuano offers a new look at the history of relations between Vichy and the family. From this point of view, the author is part of a second major historiographical renewal in recent years. That of a social history which, tackling the question of population control, shows both the existence of limits to state action and the importance of the role of private actors (associations, companies, etc.) in the definition and implementation of social policies.
The corporatist project defended by the National Revolution involved establishing a single family body. The regime made it one of its “ priorities » (p. 83), seeking to “ reach a very wide audience while saving resources » (p. 103). This approach led the State to grant a central place to the numerous existing associations, in order to unify and institutionalize the family movement while allowing it real autonomy. If the initial objective was indeed to ensure the establishment of a “ concrete translation » to family policy and effective dissemination of propaganda within the “ civil society » (p. 201), the situation changed in 1942. The statist nature of the application of the law of December 29, 1942 on semi-public associations – known as “ Gounot law » – leads Christophe Capuano to describe this cooperation as “ fool’s game » (p. 128).
But it is indeed a two-way game. Indeed, for their part, the associations adopted a position “ opportunistic » (p. 104). The family members were opposed to any state interventionism but they accepted the conditions set by the State because they saw it, in a very favorable ideological context, as a way to increase their numbers and achieve their demands. From 1942, the supervision of associations as proposed by Vichy led certain association leaders, “ more familialist than vichyist » (p. 267), to turn towards the Resistance.
Temporalities
The analysis that the author offers of this reversal helps in part to explain the absence of discredit cast on the “ Family » post-war. Indeed, Christophe Capuano introduces the last part of his work by emphasizing that “ the provisional government of the French Republic (GPRF) leads a large-scale family and pronatalist policy ”, while the family “ are widely found in the family institutions of the Republic » (p. 261).
By analyzing the explanatory factors of this “ family legacy in the Republic » (p. 293), the author of Vichy and family makes a new contribution to reflections concerning the continuities between before, during, and after Vichy. To query “ the specificity » (p. 23) of the regime’s family policy, Christophe Capuano places it in a longer temporality than that of the years 1940-1944. If the analysis seems a little more detailed for the transition between Vichy and the GPRF that for that which took place between the IIIe Republic and Vichy, the whole underlines the interest of placing the dark years in a medium duration and confirms, in the field of family policy, that Vichy indeed constitutes a “ ordinary exception “.
By favoring practices over discourses, and taking into consideration actors as well as scales of analysis neglected until now, Vichy and family allows us to see that it is entirely possible to produce new knowledge on objects which may appear, a priorialready marked. Does Christophe Capuano’s work allow us to make a clean sweep of the historiographical past of relations between Vichy and the family? ? It seems to us that it leads more to a nuanced position than to a global questioning. If family policy “ was stingy », his display is no less revealing of the ideology supported by the regime. In this sense, the family policy of Vichy is indicative of this “ reversal of priorities » of which a regime thus led to favor “ without interruption (…) the shapes on the background “.