TWENTY-FIVE YEARS LATER, SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, REMAINS A DEFINING MOMENT OF THE 21ST CENTURY
1 – Along with COVID-19, September 11 tops the list of the century’s most significant events
When asked to name the three most important international events since the year 2001, the French rank the COVID-19 pandemic first (53% of mentions, including 24% as the top choice), ahead of the September 11, 2001, attacks (40%, including 19% as the top choice). These two events are by far the most frequently cited. The prominence of the COVID-19 pandemic comes as no surprise: it is a global phenomenon, a recent one, and one that everyone has experienced firsthand. The frequency of mentions for September 11, however, is very impressive: even though the French experienced it only through the media—and twenty-five years later—it continues to stand out in the collective memory as a defining event of the 21st century. One might also argue that this high ranking is partly due to the impact of the terrorist attacks that occurred in France and to various factors that have reignited memories, such as the trials and major decennial commemorations.
The ranking also reveals a coherent cluster largely shaped by terrorism and conflicts in the Near and Middle East: centered around September 11 are the rise of ISIS and the attacks linked to it (19%) and the attack of October 7, 2023, which led to the war in Gaza (12%). Beyond that, wars continue to shape the French people’s collective memory, particularly when Ukraine is included (24%). Baby boomers and the so-called “Silent Generation” stand out by citing the war in Ukraine more frequently (39% and 61% of mentions, respectively): a memory likely rekindled by recollections of the Cold War. But what dominates, once again, is the very high frequency of mention—across the entire population—of COVID-19 and September 11.
Alongside these events, climate change emerges (25%), the only long-term crisis measured at this level. Scientific and technological advances, meanwhile, lag far behind: the advent of the smartphone (12%), cancer immunotherapy (8%), and human genome sequencing (4%).
2 – A memory of 9/11 that transcends generations and political divides
Notably, perceptions of the significance of 9/11 vary little across different demographics. Generational differences remain modest, with Generation X (49%)—who were between 20 and 35 years old in 2001—showing the greatest sensitivity to the event, ahead of millennials (41%), baby boomers, and Generation Z (34% each). Even the youngest respondents, born after the attacks, cite the attacks at a rate close to the average (36% of 18- to 24-year-olds).
We do, however, observe clearer differences based on partisan affiliation. While the attacks are cited in similar proportions among supporters of the left (37%), the presidential majority (38%), and the right (39%), they are cited more frequently by Green Party supporters (54%) as well as by supporters of Reconquête and the National Rally (49%), and significantly less often by supporters of La France Insoumise (26%).
3 – 85% of French people recall hearing the news on the same day
When asked when they first heard about the attacks, 59% of French people aged 25 and older said they followed the events live as they were unfolding, and 26% said they heard about them on September 11: in total, 85% say they learned of the event on the same day, compared with 3% the next day or in the days that followed, and 2% several weeks or months later. Only 10% do not remember.
There is a genuine “flash memory” associated with September 11: the circumstances under which people learned the news—when, where, through which channel, and with whom—are remembered with far greater precision and confidence than the event itself. The consistency of responses among those aged 35 and older is striking: 64% of those aged 35–49, 66% of those aged 50–64, and 67% of those aged 65 and older say they experienced the attacks live. Only those aged 25–34—who were no older than nine in 2001—logically stand out from this trend (27% experienced them live, 33% no longer remember them).
4 – Television, the channel of memory; school and family, channels of transmission
This vivid memory is just as clearly reflected in the source of information: 57% of French people learned about the attacks on television, far ahead of family, friends, or coworkers (10%). Television’s influence peaks among those who were adults in 2001: 69% of those aged 35–49, 65% of those aged 50–64, and 62% of those aged 65 and older, at a time when French networks switched to special coverage from mid-afternoon through the middle of the night. Conversely, the internet plays virtually no role: 2% for websites and online media, 1% for social media and video platforms.
It is worth noting that, for generations who did not experience the event, memories are not passed down through screens but through institutions and loved ones: among 18- to 24-year-olds, school (27%) and friends and family (23%) rank ahead of television (19%), while social media (4%) and documentaries, films, books, or podcasts (5%) remain marginal.
5 – A Condensation of Memory: September 11 Means the Towers
When asked to spontaneously name the locations affected by the attacks, 74% of French people mentioned New York or the World Trade Center, with 60% explicitly naming the Twin Towers or Ground Zero. Washington and federal institutions trail far behind (25%, including 20% for the Pentagon), and Pennsylvania or Flight 93 are mentioned by only 3% of those surveyed. This highly dramatic condensation of memory is nonetheless a classic phenomenon: the brain operates economically; it tends to retain only what is necessary to make sense of the event as a whole. On the margins, 5% mention France, Paris, or the attacks of November 13, 2015, confusing September 11 with attacks that occurred on French soil—the frequent reduction of November 13 to the Bataclan alone is also part of this same mechanism of condensation.
6 – Causes Viewed Through the Lens of Islamist Terrorism, and Virtually Nonexistent “Conspiracy Theories”
Regarding the causes of the attacks—also asked as an open-ended question—the dominant framework is that of terrorism and Islamism: 46% of French people draw on this framework, mentioning terrorism in general terms (17%), Islamism, jihadism, or radicalization (12%), the perpetrators themselves—Al-Qaeda, bin Laden, the Taliban (9%)—or even religion and religious fanaticism (9%). Added to this is hostility toward the United States and the West, cited by 11% of respondents.
A geopolitical perspective exists but takes a back seat: 15% cited foreign policy and conflicts in the Middle East, mentioning U.S. interventionism (5%), the context of war in the region (5%), Iraq and sanctions (3%), or U.S. support for Israel (2%). Above all, conspiracy theories pointing to the U.S. government, George W. Bush, or the CIA as responsible parties or accomplices are mentioned by only 1% of the French public—a negligible figure, far removed from the prominence these narratives have long held in the United States. It is worth noting that on this question, those under 35 are the most likely to be unable to answer (around 30%, compared to an average of 19%), on par with the unemployed.
7 – A framework of memory dominated by the figure of the victim rather than that of war
The hierarchy of perceived consequences confirms this framework of memory. At the top of the list are the human toll and psychological shock (30%), followed by fear, trauma, and insecurity (17%). Wars and military interventions are mentioned by only 16% of the French public—6% for Iraq, 6% for the “war on terror,” and 2% for Afghanistan—even though they constitute the most significant historical consequence of the attacks.
Gender plays a significant role in this regard. Women place far greater emphasis than men on the human toll and psychological impact (36% versus 22%), particularly on fear, trauma, and anxiety (23% versus 12%). Men, on the other hand, are more likely to frame the issue in terms of war and geopolitics (20% versus 13%), just as they were more likely to cite U.S. foreign policy among the causes (18% versus 12%).
