The article examines, through the case studies of Georges Sorel (1847-1922) and Thomas Ernest Hulme (1883-1917), processes of politicization which Henri Bergson’s philosophy underwent in early 20th century Europe. It begins by outlining the paths that brought the two thinkers to read and endorse Bergson’s philosophy. Despite the fact that the former only really accepted the psychological arguments of the Données while the latter engaged much more with Bergson’s metaphysics, both were drawn to the French philosopher in virtue of the anti-determinist elements present in his thought. But when it came to bring this opposition to determinism to bear on political theory, their paths separated: whereas Sorel incorporated Bergsonian ideas in his revision of Marxism, Hulme found himself unable to erect a political theory on the basis of a metaphysics of flux. This significant difference is explained in generational terms. A Bergsonian cosmology of openness and transformation was seen as an excessively relativistic philosophical base for politics by Hulme because of the greater stakes that political commitment demanded from his generation – hence his conviction that politics could only be rooted in eternal, unchanging, absolutes. ; À travers l’analyse des trajectoires de Georges Sorel (1847-1922) et de Thomas Ernest Hulme (1883-1917), l’article se propose de creuser la question de la politisation de la philosophie d’Henri Bergson dans l’Europe du début du XXe siècle. La première partie examine les parcours qui menaient les deux penseurs à découvrir la pensée Bergsonienne et à en devenir avocats et défenseurs. En dépit de quelques différences – Sorel acceptera seulement les arguments psychologiques des Données, Hulme sera plus intéressé à la métaphysique Bergsonienne – on trouve que les deux étaient attirés essentiellement par les éléments anti-déterministes qu’ils trouvaient dans les œuvres du philosophe français. Mais quand il s’agit de mettre cette opposition au déterminisme au centre d’une théorie politique, leurs ...