UN RENOUVEAU DE LA PARTICIPATION ASSOCIATIVE ? L'engagement et le militantisme au sein du comité Attac Isère

2.1.2.2 A compartmental engagement

The political parties and the trade unions are described like organizations not allowing the individual to freely be described. On the other hand, inquired clearly differentiate the operating mode from Attac. According to Cecile, the operation of an association is more « flexible » that that of a political party. According to it, the standpoint of the individuals is given in a party, by « their global vision of the things and their vision of the strategy of the party ». The absence of « project of company » in Attac allows the members « to position more or less in withdrawal by contribution with a topic ». For Laurent, while political engagement translates one « phenomenon of belief », adhesion with Attac is connected more with one similarity of « prospects ». The idea of prospect is more singular and less constraining than that of belief which supposes a total adhesion. To support a prospect, according to Laurent, does not prevent « to be conscious that the truth is not absolute ».

Cecile : It is very different from a form of party. You have a program whereas in Attac you have claims. You have a general program with a general vision of the company, it is worked out by the militants of the party and then there is a structuring in tendencies. The standpoint of people is determined by their global vision of the things and their vision of the strategy of the party and you have an organization compared to the standpoint on the company. Attac it is a whole of claims structured around the tax Tobin and from what goes with, there is a bond between its claims, but you do not have something of programmatif with a project of company to establish. That allows something of much more flexible contrary to parties where the vision of the company determines the organization. In Attac each individual can position more or less in withdrawal by contribution with a topic. Then you do not have the development of the Attac line by a congress which would gather all the members who would have been elected on the basis of tendency. It is not really centralized because the centralism it is the fact that the base is represented at the top and gives its confidence to the top to make act everyone. Attac that is not that. It is something again and it is difficult to characterize [...] That is not an operation of party because in a party there is legitimacy only because there is an election by the base of the party.

Laurent : Even in a movement as Attac they are people who carry ideas and there is a phenomenon of belief. But I less see that in terms of belief but of prospects, there are various perceptions of the things, reality one can see it several manners. One can be conscious that the truth is not absolute while having a prospect for the company, to give him an orientation. The Attac movement is in coherence with my perception and it is for that that I adhered. I see a perception of the world, already the fact that it is international, then that it am not radical in his approach of the things, it acts more to direct and to control reality in a direction which more social, more human and is centered more towards the development and it is that the direction which interests me. It seems to to me that the direction of Attac it is this one and mine it is the same one.

Attac is also represented like an organization « opened » in which it is possible to meet a great diversity of political or trade-union affiliations. For example, Isabelle, for whom it acts of the first engagement, did not wish to adhere to organizations which has « really limited ideas »; what it compares to the fact of « renter in a box ». Attac seemed to him a movement equipped with one « opening on full with things », allowing one « confrontation of ideas [which is] much broader ». In the same way, Laurent explains that it adhered to Attac because it returned in agreement with « prospect » and the claims which association proposes. It acts, for him, of one « movement of ideas [...] who is rather broad ». Lastly, the engagement of Fabien seems revealing opening whose inquired Attac accredit. Fabien, explains why it preferred to engage in Attac rather than in the group against the single thought^184(*). This group remains, according to him, very « intellectual » and it represents one « goodwill very university ». Contrary, Attac seemed to him to be a ' think tank ' « who is not closed too much [...] too much specialized [...] too much confined ». It appears, during talks, that this representation of association contributed to the engagement of surveyed much. However, that is observable only for those which were not registered in militant networks (Isabelle, Laurent, Fabien, Julie), while those which can be described as being militants « professionals «attach little importance in their engagement to the fact that Attac is an association. This is coherent with the fact that the engagement of the least militant is accompanied by a rejection of the political and trade-union organizations.

Isabelle : And of the blow one was interested there, one had had a little the same step, i.e. one did not have desire for returning in a party, because one inevitably, one is not determined has ideas but one did not feel to return in a box, a party which has really limited ideas. And there, Attac that seemed to us a little different, an opening on full with things with different people and, since there are people who adhere at the same time to trade unions, parties... That enabled us to have a confrontation of ideas much broader.

Laurent : And there the movement Attac, it is that with what I returned more in agreement to engage me in an action. It is a movement citizen which is carrying a prospect on the company and which has practical claims, it does not seek either to seize the power. It is a movement of influence, it is not a lobby, it is a movement of ideas and influence which is rather broad.

F.E: You know the ' think tank ' against the single thought?

Fabien : Yes, but it is a group of economists which remains very intellectual [...] But I prefer Attac because it is broader like approach. Owing to the fact that they are not that economists, it is perhaps not more badly. What interests me at Attac, it is that it is at the same time a ' think tank ', but a ' think tank ' which is not closed too much, which is not specialized too much, which is not confined too much. The support of the Diplomatic World, in my opinion, it is something of important. And then Attac, is related to different mediums. Whereas the group against the single thought, I agrees with them, it is well, but they are how much? They are perhaps 200, even not. They remained goodwill university and to my knowledge they do not seek to cause adhesions. They did not send to the groups of economists and to the professors of university a mail in their saying « Here are what one does and if you agree, join us! » [...] Perhaps that people of the call against the single thought, one envies to remain a little between them because it is their originality and their idea and they do not want that it is too much divided and diluted. Perhaps that they estimate that that is not their vocation.

While the political parties and the trade unions represent organizations « rigid » which supposes a total engagement of the individual, association is perceived as being opened with a multiplicity of opinions. This diversity is explained by the fact why adhesion with an association can be done starting from a compartmental agreement and does not presuppose a total engagement^185(*). All that concerns the total one, as notes it Emmanuelle Reynaud, is compared to a vague and scattered engagement and is returned to the political parties^186(*). The regrouping of individuals distinct, and sometimes opposite, within the same association is all the more possible, this aggregation is perceived as being transitory. The individuals do not seem to be constrained by their engagement. It is that to which testify Attacants isérois. Many of inquired, as well those who are members of other organizations (Francois, Cécile), that those which do not have of other adhesions, agrees to recognize that if the divergences were too important the movement would separate. They represent Attac like a provisional heterogeneous regrouping with an aim of supporting a certain number of particular claims. Adhesion thus does not seem to be perceived like a constraining act.

F.E: There are certain differences between the members of Attac [...] isn't that likely to pose problems to defend the same thing for different reasons?

Fabien: For the moment these differences are not affirmed too much, I do not see it like that [...] There will be always average to dissociate and to get clear, the day when one can feel embrigader in a voice which was not that which was initially privileged.

Laurent : On the other hand on the level of the political opinions it is nevertheless very broad, there is opened an enough left... Finally let us say moderate and a rather extreme left like the LCR. There is many the militants who are gauchists and there are also people who are moderated from their approach and their point of view. After I also know that there is an Attac group at the national assembly, and there are centrists who are adherent and thus Attac it is a movement which is rather heteroclite. I do not think that there are people of right-hand side really. On the level of the small Isere group the speech which I hear is enough extremist. Me I am not turn in agreement with that.

F.E : Doesn't that these differences prevent from carrying a joint project?

Laurent: Not, of course that not. Already they agree to found the tax Tobin and they in common have already that. I think that they put the same direction behind me, and in any case it does not matter, it is more the manner of carrying the project which is different. In my opinion in the history of a movement, one moment ago when the ideas is so minority that one does not put too the question, it is perhaps after that can pose problem. Moments ago when the movements are divided into several currents.

François: Ca it is on everyone is for the tax Tobin, everyone is for the cancellation of the debt of the Third World, everyone... Everyone is not obliged to agree. For example, I know that on NATO one will not have debates because I know that if there is a debate [...] there will be differentiations and it is normal. One will not agree and one will not take actions together on NATO. One can have the debate, that does not prevent... But to lead to a militant practice... But you see I think that one is to make there choices together, not to cleave yourself. Thus... Thus well yes. On NATO, between those which think that it is the arm armed with America and those which say that it is the guaranteeing one of the world order and stability and the rights of the people, there is something which makes that one does not have on the same foot, that one does not agree. But it is not serious. One will not fight on this ground together. One will make the remainder together one walks some of the way the bit of a walk which one can make. One is in disagreement on top and when one does not agree each one turns over to its organization, these activities, its trade union.

* ¹⁸⁴ It is about a group of economists which was founded following  «  Call counters the single thought  ».

* ¹⁸⁵ «  Engagement does not suppose any more one total step of adhesion, but one «  compartmental agreement  »  ». Reynaud (Emmanuelle), in Mendras (Henri), wisdom and the disorder, Paris, ED Gallimard, 1980, pp. 271-286.

* ¹⁸⁶ Ibid, p. 279.