Corps de l’article

Although the relationship between family and politics has been studied extensively for many decades and in a variety of geographical contexts, it remains something of an unknown entity. There are several reasons for this. The family is always a “work in progress” (Wieviorka, 2018) that can take various forms depending on its social environment (Tournier, 2010). The extent and the evolution of political activity also play a part. Family and politics are linked, but the elasticity in the definition of these terms makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions that can be generalized (Tournier, 2010).

The very nature of the potential relationships between family and politics also contributes to this difficulty. Political science literature dating from the mid-twentieth century emphasized voting behavior and the possibility of family influence leading to a legacy of ideological choice. The major theories on voting behaviour – Michigan school, rational choice (Mayer, 2007) were about understanding, deconstructing or demystifying the role of the family in determining political orientation (Smets et van Ham, 2013), sometimes referred to as “political heredity” (Offerlé, 1993). The influence of the family can be seen in how they vote and the ways in which they make political choices (Bhatti et Hansen, 2012; Gidengil, O’Neill, et Young, 2010; De Landtsheer et al., 2018; Jennings, Stoker, et Bowers, 2009). Although the family is considered the primary site of political socialization, its influence is difficult to grasp. Who is responsible for transmitting what, and to whom (Gotman, 2006)?

Current research shows that political transmission within the family is often affected by gender. Depending on the circumstances, men and women do not usually transmit or inherit political orientations in the same way (Marneur, 2016; Mévellec et Tremblay, 2016). Furthermore, certain studies propose examining this transmission as a social interaction that occurs not just in descending order, i.e., from parents to children, but also in reverse, when children initiate political discussions within the family (McDevitt et Chaffee, 2002). And what exactly is being transmitted? For some, it involves political attitudes and behaviours, with genetics being a component of the inheritance (Alford, Funk, et Hibbing, 2005). Others see the family as a place of political socialization that nourishes political ambition (Oskarsson, Dawes, et Lindgren, 2018): if a parent is a candidate, children are more likely to follow in their footsteps. But causality is not always easy to confirm. For example, the electoral ambitions of today’s young political party activists no longer seem to be significantly influenced by their family’s political orientation (Ammassari, McDonnel et Valbruzzi, 2023). However, according to van Liefferinge and Steyvers (2009), mayors who were raised in highly politicized families often start their careers at an early age. The presence of a politically active mother can also shape children’s future commitment (Oskarsson, Dawes, et Lindgren, 2018; Lawless et Fox, 2005). Heritage and transmission operate in specific institutional and spatial-temporal situations.

Political heredity, like the relationship between family and politics, may transcend the principles of egalitarian democracy and the need for analysis by political regimes (Brossier et Dorronsoro, 2016). Nevertheless, institutional characteristics can favour “elective” heredity, i.e. the transmission of elective mandates within the same family. This can happen from generation to generation (Patriat, 1992; Offerlé, 1993) or, less systematically, within the same major political families, in a logic that is based more on lineage than on dynasty (Jaffrelot, 2006). Certain characteristics of the institutional system thus tend to promote the transfer of mandates: systems that are not competitive and that are focused on candidates (Fiva et Smith 2018). Such configurations encourage the transmission of an “incumbency advantage” through the transfer of a family name (Dal Bó, Dal Bó, et Snyder, 2009). Some argue that a family name can also be used to defend the territory and its qualities (Marmont, 2010; Broutelle, 2011). This invites us to consider the family “as [...] a vital mediator of collective memory” (Broutelle, 2011). Family influence can also be more informal and achieved through symbolic or social capital and a particular heritage (Kenawas, 2015). When members of the same family outperform their rivals in elections, this creates what some call “political dynasties” (van Coppenolle, 2017). Whatever the situation, studies underscore the need to opt for a broad definition of the family to encompass the heterogeneity of contemporary family forms and influences.

While there is consensus on the wider concept of family, we believe that the studies have not yet fully explored the various implications of the evolution of politics and political engagement. When the former Prime Minister of New Zealand Jacinda Ardern took maternity leave and sat with her baby at the UN, she made headlines, raising many questions. Is the family an obstacle or a springboard to political office? Are having a family and being politically active compatible choices? Is it possible to balance work, family, and political involvement? Does gender affect career advancement (Navarre, 2015)? Do public policies designed to encourage women to enter politics help neutralize family constraints? What family support can these elected officials count on to help them carry out their various activities (Pini et McDonald, 2004)? Older elected officials may also be involved in intra-family support relationships. Does this affect their political careers? Finally, while traditional forms of political party membership and voting are declining, other forms of political engagement are on the rise (Ogien et Laugier, 2014). How is the family likely to influence these new phenomena?

According to Broutelle (2011: 35), “[...] the family transmits a unique reading of history, based on its own system of socio-political representations, or on the role played by its members in certain events, which makes them more or less understandable and gives them a particular interpretation.” How does this transmitted memory affect political participation? What kinds of engagement are involved? Do “heirs” reproduce past patterns identically? How do members of the same family differ in terms of the “inheritance” they have received? The five articles in this thematic issue address these questions in a variety of ways discussing different configurations of the links between family and politics, and on the transmission of symbolic and emotional capital.

Variable geometry configurations

The term “contemporary family” refers to a variety of realities, and intrafamilial patterns of socialization can cause some individuals to pursue political careers (Tournier 2009; Garraud 1992). Whatever the situation, the family has a significant impact on traditional political engagement (Lacroix et Lardeux, 2022). The first part of this thematic issue deals seriously with this issue from two different perspectives. On the one hand, although family influence is important, political engagement is sometimes undertaken against the advice of the family, and even against that of a spouse. On the other, it is possible to make a political commitment on behalf of the family: the family becomes the object of the commitment.

Louise Dalibert’s article highlights the ways in which the family becomes an important variable in the trajectories of political engagement. It is based on thirty-six interviews with elected officials who have left or are about to leave political life, and provides biographical details of the political paths taken by five of them. The article answers the question: How does family influence political careers and the choices made by professional politicians? Dalibert’s analysis invites us to consider the permeability and interconnectedness of the private and the political spheres. In addition, it ensures that research recognizes the importance of the ‘private life’ of elected representatives.

In their article, Taladi Narcisse Tonli and Issa Ouattara discuss the importance of privacy in the case of Burkinabe women, highlighting the family’s influence on their political engagement and the different forms it can take. They write: “Burkinabe women politicians are torn between male dominance in politics, the family and sexist socio-cultural representations.” As a result, these women develop their own individual strategies and rationales in order to become politically active. When the family is both a resource and a constraint, women must show “resilience,” as the authors put it.

Taking a completely different perspective, Manon Laurent reflects on the importance of the family as the object of political engagement. In her article, she describes how parents in China participate in online discussion groups, follow educational news and monitor their children's educational activities. Although this involvement is initially made for the benefit of their children, it may lead parents to develop a more critical view of society and the educational policies imposed on them. More specifically, the author shows that parental involvement contributes to the development of a class consciousness, which takes on particular political significance in the context of the Chinese regime.

Transmission with reservations

The role of the family depends not only on the configurations in which those who engage in politics find themselves, but also on the ways in which transmission (heredity) is manifested. Despite traditionally taking the form of a direct transfer of inheritance or symbolic capital, it can also be done in more subtle ways, such as through the paths it takes, the content it conveys or the effects it produces.

The first article in this second section immerses readers in the more traditional world of elective heredity, in one of its best-known forms: that in which the family name is associated with a specific social class. Social standing determines the future of family members; this article focuses on men. David Stefanelly analyzes how Paul de Dieuleveut entered politics and became naturally involved in the legitimist movement in nineteenth-century France. This “natural” involvement was made possible by his family, which provided him with both a family name and a political inheritance. In examining the way in which de Dieuleveut used his family's symbolic and financial capital, the author nevertheless emphasizes that “family background is not always the determining factor, and the personal dimension is a criterion that must also be taken into account,” reflecting the conclusions of the studies presented above.

Jeanne Toutous’s contribution reminds us that the family is also the cornerstone of militancy, here specifically linguistic militancy, whether or not it is at a distance. The family is the first instance of socialization. However, Toutous reminds us that militant filiation is not limited to parents, but can skip generations, proving once again the need to use a broad definition of the family, and to consider the fictional – even mythical –power of the family unit. By examining linguistic transmission, we can explore various trajectories of militant political socialization that go beyond the linear.

This image of the family as a symbolic and emotional authority can also be seen in the final article, which, as Catherine Leclercq points out, testifies to the affective dimensions of transmitting political ideology. In a series of biographical interviews, Leclercq traces the engagement and disengagement of a Communist activist through her family, social and political history, situating this individual journey “in the social history of political parties and affects.” The latter manifests in the figure of the activist’s father, omnipresent in both her personal and political spheres, who leaves an indelible mark on his daughter’s relationship with the Communist party.

If there is one thing all the articles in this issue have in common, it is the entanglement between the public and private spheres that the pairing of “family and politics” creates. While the family exists within the private sphere and politics in the public sphere (Martin et Commaille, 2001), both the political vocabulary borrowed from the family (e.g. succession, inheritance [Offerlé, 1993]) and the use of family metaphors to describe the role of public authorities (Lenoir, 1998) invite us to delve deeper into these relationships from a more personal angle. Despite the fact that the family is not a new topic in studies on socialization and political engagement, it continues to hold a central place in the most recent questions that drive this field of research in political science. On the one hand, it allows us to (re)question the gender relations (Bargel, 2013; Dutoya, 2016) that are imposed on political activities, from initial socialization to the exercise of mandates, via engagement and political ambition. On the other, it calls for a discussion with those who are involved in this complex emotional challenge (Filleul, Leclerc, Lefebvre, 2022; Faure, 2016). By the end of this issue, it is clear that the study of the family invites us to think about politics through a lens of a personal angle, without necessarily reinforcing the distinction between “private” and “public.”