French colonial ‘fusion’ meant one-way cultural change without political equality.

Evidence

It is true that Leroy-Beaulieu, specifically addressing himself to the proper relationship between French and Algerians, still spoke of the need for a fusion of the two peoples. But his choice of words is deceptive; he used “fusion” interchangeably with “rapprochement,” and emphasized that what he meant was not a physical union of Europeans and Arabs, but a specific process of cultural change. Algerians were to become imbued with French civilization, but retain some of their own customs. They were to be placed under the same economic and social regime and follow the same general laws, although they were not to have the same political rights. The best way to accomplish this would be to grant them access to, and encourage them to use, such European institutions as schools, courts, and ministerial offices. At the same time, every effort would be made to transform living conditions and work habits and to increase agricultural productivity, through modern hygiene, road and railroad construction, and the introduction of private property. Finally, Algeria could not hope to be civilized unless France destroyed the Arab aristocracy, that “enemy of work … lover of luxury, of battles, of equestrian fantasias, and oppressor of the masses that it was supposed to protect,” and whose very existence prevented the progress of colonization and the rapprochement of the two races. — Alice L. Conklin, A Mission to Civilize_ The Republican…, 82

Categorization

• DEFINE: Clarifies that ‘fusion’ in Leroy-Beaulieu’s colonial lexicon meant cultural assimilation of Algerians without granting them political rights — a key term for understanding the colonial civilizing ideology.
• XREF: This two-track vision — economic/legal inclusion without political rights — directly foreshadows the logic later applied in French West Africa and connects to the reader’s interest in how the republican idea of empire was exported.