Amidst the profound illiberal turn of political life in contemporary liberal democracies, the Nouvelle Droite is enjoying its second heyday. What is noticeable in its renewed relevance in political life is in its reception. Unlike its first emergence in the mid-1970s and the subsequent media campaign of 1979 aimed at derailing its triumphant march towards the mainstream political life, the Nouvelle Droite is no longer a cause for public scandal. On the contrary, the favorable political climate allowed the works of the Nouvelle Droite and its head thinker, Alain de Benoist (b. 1943), to attain a semi-canonic status among illiberal, identitarian actors that are rapidly rising as a major political force in political reality across the Western hemisphere.
Certainly, despite his overwhelming presence, the Nouvelle Droite cannot be reduced to the singular figure of de Benoist. In the narrow sense suggested by Taguieff, the term refers to the members of the Research and Study Group for European Civilization (GRECE) who collectively took part in the production of its key periodicals, Nouvelle Ecole, Eléments, and Krisis. In a broader sense, this label would also encompass its dissident networks and figures, such as the Club de l’Horloge, who played a major part in transferring the worldview elaborated by the Nouvelle Droite to the French far-right political parties, as well as Guillaume Faye whose works have heavily influenced the identitarian movements on both sides of the Atlantic.
At the same time, what seems to be undeniable is that among the founding fathers of the Nouvelle Droite, de Benoist does singularly represent the movement. As Taguieff pointed out, it is a highly “personalized movement” that revolves around de Benoist, who has been pivotal not only in weaving up seemingly distant intellectual developments into a coherent intellectual-historical current as he did in his magnum opus Vu de droite (1977), but also in formulating and anchoring down a series of interpersonal, collaborative networks. As such, his fingerprint can be found wherever the far-right movements are reconstituting themselves under a new, conceptually refined ideological corpus, making his name a recurrent landmark in the rabbit hole that is the dizzying array of the universe of contemporary far-right scenery.
[The Nouvelle Droite] is a highly “personalized movement” that revolves around de Benoist, who has been pivotal not only in weaving up seemingly distant intellectual developments into a coherent intellectual-historical current [but] also in formulating and anchoring down a series of interpersonal, collaborative networks.
Indeed, due to its role in renovating the ideological corpus of the far-right beyond the fascist nostalgia of the 1950s and 60s, the Nouvelle Droite became a key inspiration for far-right actors outside France that were searching for a “new” way to revitalize their movements. As such, existing accounts of de Benoist’s influence in the broader postwar far-right landscape tend to converge on a number of interrelated points that together underpin the most widely-spread approach to the subject, which are modernization and intellectualization of far-right ideas, and its adaptations in accordance with the local politico-cultural sensibilities. To briefly illustrate, most works are structured around a) the transformation of anti-immigrant rhetoric in the context of respective far-right parties and movements along the language of ethno-differentialism such as in the United Kingdom, Germany, Finland, Spain and Italy, b) the adaptation of right-wing Gramscianism as a methodology to escape their fixation on electoral success and pursue cultural hegemony, and c) how the Nouvelle Droite’s ideological doctrine was modified by other actors to prevent alienating themselves from the “traditional” far-right milieu, in a similar fashion to de Benoist’s conflict with Club de l’Horloge.
These analyses are of course, of great importance, particularly in tracing the ideological transformation that followed the arrival of the Nouvelle Droite, as well as in understanding its influence in political institutions and discourses. However, it also limits the analytic perspective within an endogenous view of ideological contents, which misses out a critical aspect in the trajectory of de Benoist and his ideas; his interpersonal interactions with other far-right intellectual actors.
Trajectory of de Benoist through the sociology of intellectuals
In the sociology of intellectuals, what matters in the life of an idea is never limited to its intrinsic value alone. Ideas survive, circulate, flourish or wither away, not solely due to the internal coherence and innovative nature of its contents, but also due to the capacity of their carriers to maneuver through the dynamics of the intellectual arena. As Collins pointed out, intellectual actors are never solitary individuals, but are part of a collective effort for survival in a given attention space.
The case of the Nouvelle Droite and de Benoist is no exception to the conflicts between rivaling intellectual coalitions striving for finite resources. Part of the explanation for why the Nouvelle Droite managed to survive and thrive for over five decades lies in its actors’ capacity to a) accumulate symbolic capital through engaging in “high-stake exchanges” and taking part in the intellectual world, be it “face-to-face” or “in writing,” and to b) establish (and maintain) interpersonal interactions and its networks that sustain the momentum of the movement by generating “emotional energy,” such as enthusiasm, confidence or motivation. What emerges is an analytic framework that captures the actors’ ability to cultivate recognition and maintain affective momentum through sustaining their own “coalition of mind” within the broader economy of legitimacy, instead of the supposed inherent qualities of the ideas in question.
Part of the explanation for why the Nouvelle Droite managed to survive and thrive for over five decades lies in its actors’ capacity to a) accumulate symbolic capital [and] to b) establish (and maintain) interpersonal interactions and its networks that sustain the momentum of the movement by generating “emotional energy.”
Under this lens, de Benoist’s trajectory acquires a new dimension, wherein his ties with other far-right actors does not merely facilitate the transfer of ideas, but serves as decisive mechanisms through which the Nouvelle Droite’s metapolitical agenda circulates and acquires new organizational bridgeheads abroad. From the early 1960s when José Valle de Figueiredo first established contact with de Benoist’s circle and introduced Europe-Action to Portugal, the Nouvelle Droite’s presence began to extend to the Iberian Peninsula. This influence in the region further grew with his subsequent involvement with Spanish actors, including figures such as Javier Carabias, Jorge Verstrynge or José Javier Esparza who themselves aimed to establish their own local network and journal, Punto y Coma, modeled after the French example.
In Italy, the encounter between Marco Tarchi and de Benoist in 1974 played a particularly significant role. Tarchi, by then an active youth member of the neo-fascist Italian Social Movement, would become the foremost organizer of the Italian Nuova Destra, and de Benoist’s early engagement with him, mainly through interviews and contributions to Italian far-right journals, helped consolidate a newly forming intellectual environment that drew methodological inspiration from GRECE. These interactions facilitated the establishment of new magazines such as La voce della fogna, seminars, and cultural enterprises that echoed the metapolitical model, though with varying degrees of success across national contexts. Across these cases, de Benoist’s face-to-face engagements and written interventions generated the emotional momentum needed to sustain peripheral networks, enabling actors beyond France to embed themselves within a wider European attention space and extend the reach of the Nouvelle Droite’s metapolitical ventures.
de Benoist as an illiberal consecrator
In a similar vein, it is possible to hypothesize that the success of the Nouvelle Droite—both in terms of its political relevancy as well as its continued survival as an intellectual current—granted de Benoist with a form of “consecrating power” to “give value to” the works of nascent actors and networks from at least the late 1980s. While this factor may have been shaping his ties with other intellectual actors from 1970s onwards, it is most observable in his interaction with the Russian ideologue Aleksandr Dugin, whose early rise to prominence visibly benefited from his proximity to de Benoist since their first encounter in 1989. When Dugin started to gain attention within the Russian far-right circles in the early 1990s, he was dubbed the “Russian de Benoist.” On May 1991, Dugin was able to take part in the 24th Annual Colloquium of GRECE where he was able to convene with other far-right actors in Western Europe such as Luc Pauwels who was an editor of the Belgium far-right journal TeKoS. Furthermore, not only was Dugin able to publish an article in issue 73 of Eléments, he was also granted an opportunity to participate in an international conference hosted in Sorbonne, organized by the École pratique des hautes études, the École des hautes études en sciences sociales and the Centre national de la recherche scientifique, which would not have been feasible without de Benoist as a supporting reference.
[The] success of the Nouvelle Droite—both in terms of its political relevancy as well as its continued survival as an intellectual current—granted de Benoist with a form of “consecrating power” to “give value to” the works of nascent actors and networks from at least the late 1980s.
Even though Dugin is sometimes characterized as de Benoist’s “Russian disciple,” de Benoist found himself disappointed with the Russian far-right milieu after several visits and encounters, which resulted in a momentary rupture of the collaboration between the two. However, the relation was rekindled in the 2000s, with Dugin inviting de Benoist as the first guest speaker of the Center for Conservative Research of Moscow State University in 2008, which he founded to further consolidate his intellectual legitimacy. This double legitimization of the star of the Russian far-right intelligentsia—both inside and outside Russia—as well as his role as Dugin’s point of entry into the broader landscape of Western European far-right actors, underscores the centrality of the exchange and accumulation of social capital that occurs in interpersonal interactions in the analysis of the far-right intellectual actors.
Even after almost six decades, de Benoist still remains active as the main thinker of the Nouvelle Droite. However, the nature of his involvement has changed, along with the development of a set of circumstances that surrounds him. Compared to the timeframe of 1970s-1990s during which de Benoist’s engagements with external actors were focused on initiating new networks outside France, far-right illiberalism emerged as a transnational political force in liberal democracies. While this macro political shift endowed de Benoist with more political relevance and symbolic capital than ever as its intellectual pioneer, the mainstreaming of far-right—explored extensively by Mondon and Winter—populated the transnational far-right landscape with a myriad of local actors. Also, born in the 1940s, his age is a factor that is hard to ignore. Hence, although he is no longer as physically present as he used to be to “ignite” local networks, today he employs his symbolic capital to consecrate other local actors, providing them with a veneer of intellectual legitimacy.
In this context, de Benoist’s interactions with overseas actors in the 21st century can be roughly characterized in two ways. On the one hand, he continues to develop existing ties, building on the relations he established with far-right intellectual actors throughout the 1970s and 80s. For instance, de Benoist is still an active contributor of Diorama Litterario of Tarchi, providing the journal with a steady stream of articles published under his name. In a similar fashion, he has given interviews to Eurasia, a geopolitical review with Claudio Mutti as the publisher, who was among the editorial board of Dugin’s Elementy at the launch of the periodical alongside de Benoist. As per Dugin himself, the collaborative exchange between the heads of the far-right intelligentsia of the respective contexts never returned to its height intensity of the early 1990s, which left de Benoist disappointed to a certain extent. Nonetheless, the evidence that is available seems to suggest that their cooperative relationship is still alive, as demonstrated in de Benoist’s interview with Dugin conducted in International Eurasianist Movement in 2017, his interview with Front Populaire on the subject of Dugin and his work, as well as Dugin’s own contributions to Eléments on the subject of the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine. In these cases, de Benoist’s exchanges are not oriented towards establishing new relations. Rather, they are geared towards maintaining the relations that have already been in existence for the past decades, assisting the continued survival of other positions, leveraging his own “stronger” position.
On the other hand, de Benoist does continue to engage with new actors; however, in the context of the illiberal turn of Western democratic societies, his interventions seem to be aimed at empowering local actors than taking part in their emergence. Junge Freiheit for instance, advertised de Benoist’s article contribution to Sezession—a periodical published by the Institut für Staatspolitik—on the occasion of the journal’s 50th volume, attesting the symbolic value attached to his name. Certainly, de Benoist’s engagement with Sezession did not lead to any lasting collaboration. However, Daniel Friberg’s fascination for the Nouvelle Droite did, which led to the founding of publishing house Arktos that functions as a major logistical hub that circulates the major works of thinkers such as de Benoist and Faye to English speaking audience. Furthermore, de Benoist’s interview with the publishing house in 2023 seems to hint to his recognition of the presence of transnational networks of illiberal identitarians and the significance of Friberg’s endeavor.
Compared to other contexts in which de Benoist’s works were imported, the introduction of the Nouvelle Droite to North America did not accompany an intense interpersonal exchange and was more akin to a transferal of a theoretical corpus.
While de Benoist’s influence was largely confined to the European continent due to the Eurocentric orientation of its ideological doctrine, he found a new audience across the Atlantic from the turn of the century, in no small part thanks to the diffusion of his key works via Arktos. Compared to other contexts in which de Benoist’s works were imported, the introduction of the Nouvelle Droite to North America did not accompany an intense interpersonal exchange and was more akin to a transferal of a theoretical corpus. He is referenced heavily, for instance by Greg Johnson and his own metapolitical platform Counter-Current, but it was a one-sided admiration than a veritable rapport. Nonetheless, his ideological influence took roots among white nationalist circles from the 2000s. A decade later, he was invited as a guest speaker in Richard Spencer’s National Policy Institute, first in 2013 and again in 2017, although de Benoist himself refused to recognize the ideological orientation of either Spencer his movement as resembling his own.
He also interacted with Jared Taylor in the form of interview for American Renaissance, first in 2013, and again in 2017. As these instances show, de Benoist’s activities outside the printed page, whether giving interviews in other journals or appearing as a guest speaker at events, form an essential dimension of his influence. In a way, his name functions as a high-currency label that facilitates the circulation of ideas to which it is attached. While his name would be unrecognizable for the general public, it is definitely perceived as a “seal of approval” within a particular audience, which precisely explains the high demand for his presence, albeit momentary.
Today, this continued relevancy of de Benoist’s presence is particularly valued in identitarian circles, which is best exemplified by his participation in the Institut Iliade whose orientation remains explicitly European rather than trans-continental. To briefly contextualize the institute’s significance, it can be regarded as a practical common platform where different segments of the identitarian actors and networks interact, ranging from established actors whose trajectories date back to the formative decades of the Nouvelle Droite, to the younger generation of actors seeking to position themselves within a broader landscape. This includes the continuation of earlier intellectual lineages, such as the contribution of Pierluigi Locchi, son of Giorgio Locchi, who was among the founding fathers of Nouvelle Droite, as well as the sustained engagement of figures like José Javier Esparza, visible for example in the institute’s annual colloquium of 2023. It also encompasses the reconfiguration of older internal relations, including the renewed proximity between de Benoist and Le Gallou after earlier divergences.
Alongside these dynamics, the institute increasingly attracts newer European identitarians whose projects draw—implicitly or explicitly—on the metapolitical strategies of the Nouvelle Droite. Actors such as Martin Sellner, who took part in a roundtable session in regards to his involvement in GegenUni in the 2022 colloquium, or Benedikt Kaiser, whose recent interventions in the colloquiums in 2024 and 2025 articulate the necessity to re-elaborate the European identity on the basis of ethnicity, exemplify this consolidation of a shared ideological space, founded upon the symbolic capital accumulated by the “old guards” of which de Benoist is one.
What is to be noted in these exchanges is that de Benoist does not have to be of the “same mind” as those with whom he engaged. In his conversation with Versluis in 2014 for example, he remained skeptical of the reception of his ideas by actors in North America such as Spencer and Johnson, labeling them as “selective reading” and “misconceptions.” Furthermore, he seems to be consistently dismissive of the notion of an “internationalism of illiberal identitarians” as shown on multiple occasions (author’s interview with de Benoist on November 14, 2022; von Hoffmeister 2023), despite the central role he has been playing in the formulation of transnational illiberal intellectual networks since the late 1960s. Certainly, one may doubt the sincerity of the position he chose to present, which of course, could turn out to be an accurate assessment. After all, far-right intellectuals are as they are, more nuanced than other forms of far-right actors, and even among his peers, de Benoist is particularly more so, actively distancing himself from other explicitly xenophobic actors.
However, from the perspective of this analysis, de Benoist’s intention almost does not matter. What remains undeniable is that his work expanded the audience for newer movements by providing visibility and a degree of legitimacy among sympathetic publics, drawing on the symbolic capital he had accumulated over decades, regardless of his intention. While most accounts acknowledge the presence of these mechanisms, they rarely theorize its significance, further stressing the necessity to adopt the insights provided by the sociology of intellectuals that allow us to capture the significance of personal encounters, intellectual engagements and networks. In his autobiography Mémoire vive (2012), he hinted what his initial ambition was on the onset of his decades long journey, which was to “intellectually rearm” through “ideological/intellectual” structuring of the political right-wing. Although he deemed the attempt to have been an “illusion” at the time, it seems that the turn of political atmosphere and his latent symbolic resource among the radical strand of right-wing milieu placed him in a better disposition to realize what he had once thought to be unachievable.
What remains undeniable is that [de Benoist’s] work expanded the audience for newer movements by providing visibility and a degree of legitimacy among sympathetic publics, drawing on the symbolic capital he had accumulated over decades, regardless of his intention.
Intellectuals as political actors in the rise of far-right identitarianism
In my interview with de Benoist in 2022, his answer to whether he considers himself to have “seized the Zeitgeist” amongst the mounting challenges against the liberal world in our century, was as follows; “Did we ‘seize’ it, yes, did we ‘influence’ it, no; after all, it is not because we criticized liberalism that liberalism is now in crisis, saying so would be incredibly pretentious.” From this perspective, he posits the intellectuals as a “free-floating,” external observer that situates themselves outside a fixed standpoint, thereby refraining from taking active part in the conflicts in the political arena. While this angle demonstrates prudence in assessing the impact of his own venture, it critically downplays the form of political agency unique to the intellectuals, which crystallized in the elaboration of metapolitics and right-wing Gramscianism.
According to de Benoist, his usage of the term refers to “collective intellectual work” rather than “doing politics by other means.” Certainly, collective intellectual work is a quintessential aspect of metapolitics. However, what remains is it is never casted into a void; production and proliferation of idea is, in of itself, a form of intervention—a particular manner of taking part in the political realm. As Jean Claude Valla affirmed in issue 6 of Eléments, the Nouvelle Droite is “non-partisan but not apolitical,” as it is “metapolitical”; or, as de Benoist himself wrote in January 1978 for Figaro-Magazine, “nothing written by an intellectual can be neutral.”
The case of Nouvelle Droite and de Benoist is a rich source of research for those investigating the intellectual origins and historical trajectory of contemporary far-right identitarianism—not least due to the vast amount of theoretical work it has been producing since 1968, but also because of the conversations and networks it managed to initiate. If there is anything that sociology of intellectuals teaches us, it is that ideas and its producers are not transcendent entities, but are anchored in tangible, local situations. The production and circulation of ideas does not occur in abstract metaphysical spaces, but among people with concrete politico-social interests. It is only by fully acknowledging the distinct political agency exercised by intellectual actors are that we could begin to comprehend how they played (and are playing) a part in the grand political shift of our time, building coalitions with fellow travelers and challenging its adversaries as it navigates through a complicated maze where political reality and intellectual life intertwines.
Mintae Hwang is a sociologist, focusing on European far-right intellectuals and their networks from the perspective of the sociology of intellectuals and ideas. In particular, he investigates how contemporary far-right intellectuals exercise their distinct political agency through coalitions and positioning as their main maneuvers to intervene in mainstream public discussions.
Image made by John Chrobak using “Alain de Benoist dans le documentaire Alain de Benoist. Réponses de Simone Olla,” by Simone Olla, licensed under CC BY 3.0.
