Chapter 2 introduced the narrative of French history as that of a coherent central state defining the general will in an objective manner over and above specific professional, territorial or partisan interests. Mainstream French intellectual traditions have been hostile to the interplay of interests (Saurugger and Grossman 2006). In a classic orthodox account, Mény (1986) identified four features in the French policy style that favour the ‘general interest’ over more pluralist approaches: élus are representatives of the nation; deputies are not allowed to defend specific interests within the Assembly; access to the public sector is organised on the basis of merit, rather than quotas; and the Council of State is apt to use jurisprudence to label any decision of the state as being of ‘public utility’ or the ‘general interest’. In Mény's view, the state calls the shots in its relationship with professions and organised groups. The prevailing interpretation, articulated by Mény, is that the French state has historically been less tolerant towards autonomous groups than comparable countries. Organised group activity was forbidden during the French Revolution. Only in 1884, with the repeal of the Loi le Chapelier, were professional groups allowed to organise, but they remained weak (Guiliani 1991).

This narrative is historically inaccurate in important respects. The overarching référentiel has usually accommodated interests, whether framed in terms of maintaining social equilibrium (before 1939) or modernising society (after 1945). During the parliamentary-centred Third Republic, interests focused their attention on key parliamentary committees with power to distribute resources.