French Politics

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 419–438 | Cite as

French status seeking in a changing world: taking on the role as the guardian of the liberal order

  • Pernille RiekerEmail author
Original Article


France has a long history as a traditional European great power. But is this still the case today? The analysis in this article shows how French exceptionalism, often referred to as ‘grandeur’ is still the guiding principle of French foreign policy, but that it is being practised differently today. President Macron may be right in arguing that ‘France is back’, but it is important to note that modern French power projection or status seeking takes place through a set of very different mechanisms. The key argument put forward in this article is that French status is increasingly based on a type of symbolic power, and to understand the mechanisms through which this power is managed, insights from social psychology and Social Identification Theory (SIT) are helpful. SIT points to three different strategies for maintaining a position within a social hierarchy that may also be valid for international politics: social mobility, social competition and social creativity. While France has adopted different types of strategies in earlier periods (social mobility in the immediate post-war years and social competition during the Cold War), the analysis in this article shows that French foreign policy practices are now increasingly being legitimised through the creation of a new narrative. Interestingly, this narrative consists of the current French political leadership’s eagerness to take on the role as ‘the guardian of the liberal order’, which fits nicely with what SIT identify as a strategy of social creativity.


France Foreign policy Status Influence Symbolic power 


  1. Assemblée Nationale. 2015. Rapport d’information déposé sur l’influence française au sein de l’Union européenne. Rapport d’information 3468. Paris: Commission des Affaires Européennes.Google Scholar
  2. Bavarez, N. 2003. La France qui tombe. Paris: Perrin.Google Scholar
  3. Boniface, P. 1998. La France est-elle encore une grande puissance?. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.Google Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, P. 1979. La Distinction. Critique sociale du jugement. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, P. 1986. The forms of capital. In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, ed. J. Richardson, 241–258. New York: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  6. Carr, E.H. 1939. The Twenty Years Crisis 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. Charillon, F. 2010. La France peut-elle encore agir sur le monde? Éléments de réponse. Paris: Armand Colin. Kindle version.Google Scholar
  8. Charillon, F. 2011. La politique étrangère de la France. Paris: La documentation française.Google Scholar
  9. Cogan, C. 2003. French Negotiating Behavior: Dealing with La Grande Nation. Washington, DC: United States Institue of Peace.Google Scholar
  10. de Galbert, S. 2015. The Hollande Doctrine: your guide to today’s French foreign and security policy. CSIS, 8 September.
  11. de Gaulle, C. 1954. Mémoires de guerre, tome 1 Paris: Plon.Google Scholar
  12. De Russé, A.-H. 2010. France’s return into NATO. French military culture and strategic identityin question. Focus strategique 22. Paris: Institut Français des Relations Internationales (IFRI).Google Scholar
  13. Drake, H. 2011. Contemporary France. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. EU. 1992. Treaty on the European Union, Maastricht.Google Scholar
  15. Fenby, J. 2014. France on the Brink: A Great Civilization in the New Century. New York: Arcade.Google Scholar
  16. Fortmann, Michel, David Haglund and Stéphanie von Hlatky. 2010. France’s return to NATO: Implications for transatlantic relations. European Security (special issue) 19(1): 1–123.Google Scholar
  17. Ghez, J., and S.F. Larrabee. 2009. France and NATO. Survival 51(2): 77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Godin, E., and T. Chafer (eds.). 2005. The French Exception. New York: Berghahn.Google Scholar
  19. Gordon, P.H. 1993. A Certain Idea of France. Princeton NJ: Princton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Habermas, J., and J. Derrida. 2005. February 15, or, what binds Europeans together. In New Europe, Core Europe: Transatlantic Relations after the Iraq War, ed. M. Pensky and J. Torpey. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  21. Hollande, F. 2015. Foreign Policy—Speech by M. François Hollande, President of the Republic, at the Opening of Ambassadors’ Week. Paris, 25 August.Google Scholar
  22. Holsti, K.J. 2010. Exceptionalism in American foreign policy: Is it exceptional? European Journal of International Relations 17(3): 381–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Howorth, J. 2010. Prodigal Son or Trojan Horse: What’s in it for France? European Security 19(1): 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kennedy, P. 1989. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Confllict from 1500 to 2000. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  25. Keohane, R.O. 1989. International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory. Boulder: CO Westview Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kessler, M.-C. 2012. Les Ambassadeurs. Paris: Presses de la Foundation National des Science Po.Google Scholar
  27. Krotz, U. 2015. History and Foreign Policy in France and Germany. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lane, P. 2013. French Scientific and Cultural Diplomacy. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Larson, D.W., and A. Shevchenko. 2003. Shortcut to greatness: The new thinking and the revolution in Soviet foreign policy. International Organization 57(Winter): 77–109.Google Scholar
  30. Le Figaro. 2015. Dissuasion nucléaire: la France ne baisse pas la garde, 20 February.Google Scholar
  31. Lequesne, C. 2008. La France dans la nouvelle Europe. Assumer le changement d’échelle. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.Google Scholar
  32. Lequesne, C. 2017. Ethnographie du Quai d’Orsay. Les pratiques des diplomates français. Paris: CNRS Éditions.Google Scholar
  33. Macron, E. 2017a. Speech by President Emmanuel Macron—Ambassadors’ Week, August 29. Paris:
  34. Macron, E. 2017b. Le discours d’Emmanuel Macron au Congrès de Versailles, July 3:
  35. Macron, E. 2017c. ‘Initiative for Europe’ Speech by Macron held at la Sorbonne in Paris, Seeptembre 27.
  36. Marcussen, M., T. Risse, D. Engelmann-Martin, H.J. Knopf, and K. Roscher. 1999. Constructing Europe? The evolution of French, British and German nation state identities. Journal of Public Policy 6(4): 614–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Maclean, M., and J. Szarka (eds.). 2008. France on the World Stage. Nation State in the Global Era. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  38. McClean, E. 2014. Hard evidence: who uses veto in the UN Security Council most often—and for what?. The Conversation, 31 July.Google Scholar
  39. Meunier, S. 2000. The French exception. Foreign Affairs 79(4): 104–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ministère des Affaires étrangères (White Paper 2008–2020). La France et l’Europe dans le monde. Paris: Ministère des Affaires étrangères.Google Scholar
  41. Nye, J.S. 1990. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  42. Paul, T.V., D.W. Larson, and W.C. Wohlforth (eds.). 2014. Status in World Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Pesme, F. 2010. France’s ‘return’ to NATO: Implications for its defence policy. European Security 19(1): 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Revault d’Allonnes, D., and P. Roger. 2015. Budget de la défense: une rallonge de 3,8 milliards d’euros sur quatre ans, Le Monde, 29 April.Google Scholar
  45. Rieker, P. 2013. The French return to NATO: reintegration in practice, not in principle. European Security 22(3): 376–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rieker, P. 2017. French Foreign Policy in a Changing World. Practicing Grandeur. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rozenberg, O. 2011. ‘Monnet for nothing? France’s mixed Europeanisation’, Les Cahiers Européens de Sciences Po. 4. Paris: Science Po, Centre d’études européennes.Google Scholar
  48. Schia Nagelhus, N. 2013. Being part of the parade: Going native in the United Nations Security Council. Political and Legal Anthropolgy Review 36(1): 138–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Taylor, A.J.P. 1954. The Struggle for Mastery in Europe, 1848–1918. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI)OsloNorway

Personalised recommendations