« That secularism is not a Pentecost of Reason, self-propelled and self-sufficient, the history of our country has shown it too much. It was the "sacred love of the homeland", more than mathematics, that allowed the crucifixes to be removed from the courts and schools. Without republican piety, would the non-profession that is in its background secularism - which is too often confused, because of its birth bath, with an anti-religious struggle that it is by no means - would have been successful in our peasant depths? The promoters of this new institutional framework (such as Ferdinand Buisson) were aware that an educator state assumes a civil religion, which speaks to the heart no less than to intelligence. Theirs was called "Duty and Homeland." "The Fatherland plays in the secular school," remarked one witness, "the role reserved for God in the congregan school." »

« The concept of community is a metal concept (as has been called "metaphysical"). The 'meta' was first expressed in the form of 'mytho', then 'theo', and recently 'ideo'-logical. Three historical avatars of a seemingly structural principle of incompleteness, according to which no whole can "close" with the current elements of this set. It keeps its cohesion from a point of unseal, out of its immediate point of existence. Hence a kind of law of delay, according to which the moment of excellence having already taken place, progress is always catching up. The neo would then be an archaeo who ignores himself, and nostalgia, a dynamic. »

« This epidermal attachment to a nearly nothing decisive, which is often moralized in dignity (of a people) or pride (national), would not have to be on a desert island. The perfect Robinson would certainly have an identity, but it would be that of the oyster. We distinguish a belon from a Portuguese and this one from a clear one, by sampling. Humans also rank, care and rank by type and gender, but they are not satisfied with being included in the species 'sapiens'. He wants more, and that 'plus' is a 'less'. He demands exclusive properties, which he and one might think are due only to his merit, his history, his genius, in short, qualities, real or supposed, which he prides himself on because they are not those of his neighbour. The identity we are talking about here - soft concept, hard thing - is in any case not equality to oneself, which is suitable for oysters, dogs and eagles, under the principle of identity that characterizes things without souls (A - A). It is a negation of the other, in accordance with the principle of opposition that underlies our positions. As well, "the exclusive fatality, the only tare that can afflict a human group and prevent it from fully realizing its nature, is to be alone". And so without an adversary, which is supreme adversity, for a group and an individual. It is otherness that introduces identity, an eminently interactive notion. »