This article compares the Secretary General of the Elysée Palace and the US Chief of Staff, central political advisors to the French and US presidents. Our aim is twofold. Firstly, we identify the precise roles of these advisors. By mapping their respective powers, we demonstrate their importance in presidential decision-making. By examining what the French Elysée Secretary General and the US White House Chief of Staff have in common and how they differ, we develop a comparative understanding of the mechanisms of the presidentialization of political executives. We show that the similarities of the two offices are linked to the ongoing presidentialization of the French and American political systems, which, by giving greater power to heads of state, also strengthens their advisors. This commonality does not rule out marked differences between these officials, demonstrating that presidentialization takes distinct forms, reflecting distinct political cultures as well as different balances of power within each institutional system.

The “Danish cartoons controversy” has often been cast as a paradigm case of the blindness of liberal language ideologies to anything beyond the communication of referential meaning. This article returns to the case from a different angle and draws a different conclusion. Following recent anthropological interest in the way legal speech grounds the force of law, the article takes as its ethnographic object a 2007 ruling by the French Chamber of the Press and of Public Liberties. This much-trumpeted document ruled that the Charlie Hebdo magazine’s republication of the cartoons did not constitute a hate speech offense. The article examines the form as well as the content of the ruling itself and situates it within the entangled histories of French press law, revolutionary antinomianism, and the surprisingly persistent legal concern with matters of honor. The outcome of the case (the acquittal of Charlie Hebdo) may seem to substantiate a view of liberal language ideology as incapable of attending to the performative effects of signs. Yet, a closer look challenges this now familiar image of Euro-American “representationalism,” and suggests some broader avenues of investigation for a comparative anthropology of liberalism and free speech.

The aim of this study was to explore and identify why young adults aged between 18 and 30 years in the UK and France do or do not consume dairy products. Several studies have associated dairy products with a healthy diet, and the production of soft dairy, i.e. milk, yoghurt, and soft cheese, as more environmentally friendly than some other animal-based products. Yet recent reports highlight that dairy intake is lower than recommended for health, especially among young adults. Using a qualitative methodology, forty-five participants aged 18–30 years (UK: n = 22; France: n = 23) were asked about their reasons for (non)consumption of a wide range of dairy products. Audio-recorded focus groups and individual interviews were conducted in English in the UK and in French in France, transcribed and coded. A thematic analysis found four themes and sixteen sub-themes (theme product-related: sub-themes sensory, non-sensory, composition; theme individual-related: sub-themes mode of consumption, preferences, personal reasons, knowledge, attitudes and concerns, needs or cravings; theme cultural aspects: sub-themes product categorization, social norms, use; theme market offering: sub-themes alternative, packaging, value for money, availability) to influence participants’ dairy (non)consumption in both countries. A seventeenth sub-theme (theme cultural aspects: sub-theme structure of the meal) was found to influence dairy consumption only in France. Further studies are needed to investigate these themes within larger samples, but these findings contribute to understanding dairy (non)consumption in young adults in the UK and France and may aid the development of strategies to improve young adults’ diets.

An exceptional Late Neolithic burial discovered at Puisserguier, southern France, contains a skeleton buried with its head deposited on its torso; the disposal of the rest of the body follows a standard pattern for individual burials of this period. The authors discuss the nature of this deposit in terms of its funerary status.

In a context promoting partners’ active participation in their divorce or dissolution, family lawyers often put their clients to work – from stating goals and supplying information for the written file, to embodying the case at the hearing. This article focuses on the coproduction of legal work between family lawyers and their clients, based on long-term collective research on family law in mainland France: interviews with attorneys, observations of encounters between lawyers and clients in lawyer offices and in courts, as well as a “3,000 family cases” database. Using a relational, materialist, structural, and intersectional theoretical approach, we show that coproduction of legal work and its meaning varies greatly depending on the power dynamics between lawyers and clients, – on a spectrum that goes from exploitation to empowerment of the client. Coproduced legal work varies according to configurations of class, race, gender, and age on both side of the desk, as well as according to the structure of the legal market. Interactions between lawyers and their clients thus contribute to shape inequality before the law.

In this paper, I examine the relationship between community-level exposure to war losses and long-term patterns of electoral behaviour. Using novel data that identifies and geolocates all French soldiers who died during World War I, I show that communities that experienced higher death rates exhibit greater levels of electoral support for the far-right. Subsequently, I provide both theoretical and empirical evidence on how such persistent effects propagate: communities more exposed to the horrors of war develop stronger in-group preferences at the expense of the out-group. In cases like France, where the in-group is defined primarily in terms of the nation, this preference translates into a higher demand for nationalism, which is supplied by far-right political parties.

Large carnivore conservation in human-dominated landscapes is a complex issue, often marked by the stark contrast between those who hold deep-rooted animosity towards these animals and those who welcome their presence. The survival of the Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx in Europe relies on effective coexistence with humans in multi-use areas. We explored the experiences and perceptions of local hunters and pastoralists regarding the return of the lynx to the Giffre Valley, France, and mapped lynx distribution based on the probability of site use while accounting for detection probability. We conducted in-depth interviews with 29 respondents to gather data on lynx sightings, rationale for hunting and pastoralism, and perceptions of lynxes. We found that 45% of respondents had detected lynxes in the last 40 years, with an estimated site use of 0.66 ± SE 0.33 over the last decade, indicating there was a 66% probability of lynxes using the sites during that time period. Our results suggest that hunting and pastoralism in the region are rooted in a desire to carry on local traditions and connect with the natural world. Respondents generally tolerated the presence of lynxes, perceiving few threats to their livelihoods and activities, and expressing a willingness to coexist peacefully. However, some identified future challenges that could arise with the return of large carnivores to the valley and highlighted scenarios that could lead to a decline in tolerance. This study emphasizes the valuable knowledge of local hunters and pastoralists and their potential role in lynx population monitoring and conservation. Integrating stakeholder values in decision-making processes is crucial for inclusive and sustainable responses to promote biodiversity.

The radical right has become a central political force in most Western democracies. This process has been the result of the normalization and mainstreaming of its political leaders, discourses, and visions of society, notably involving the scapegoating of immigration and the use of the Great Replacement conspiracy theory. However, the normalization and mainstreaming of radical right actors competing for the leadership of their overall political family remain an under-researched topic. The scope of the current article is to explore this phenomenon by considering the case of France, which after the United States, is the largest Western state that could potentially be ruled by a radical right president with extensive executive powers. The analysis shows that actors competing for the leadership of the radical right in a given country can generate diverging strategies of normalization and mainstreaming to secure their political distinction. Immigration and the Great Replacement constitute, respectively, a topic and a conspiracy theory that are emphasized and/or downplayed by opportunistic stakeholders weaving a web of interactions to define their comparative legitimacy and supremacy in the public sphere.

The dispute over the Matthew and Hunter Islands (MHIs) has long been a constant strain on Vanuatu-French relations. The article examines this dispute in light of the Chagos Advisory Opinion and a few other cases concerning territorial disputes. It first submits that sovereignty over the MHIs had never been raised until 1962, when, at the occasion of a private claim, France and Britain, the two administering powers of the New Hebrides at that time, considered the issue. The two states reached an agreement in 1965, asserting that the MHIs were part of the French colony of New Caledonia and not the British-French Condominium of the New Hebrides. This article then considers the legal implications and lawfulness of the agreement, which did not take into account the local populations’ will. Although there are some important differences between the Chagos and MHIs disputes, mainly due to the fact that the MHIs are uninhabited, the applicability of the right of self-determination to both cases is nevertheless beyond doubt. The article contends therefore that the 1965 Agreement between France and Britain may constitute a violation of the right to self-determination of the people of the New Hebrides (Vanuatu), who were not consulted on the decision to attach the MHIs to the French territory of New Caledonia, and suggests that there may be, however, some other legal principles under international law that can come into play. Finally, the article contends that negotiated solutions could be a potential way forward for the parties involved.