Thursday, May 17, 2012

France's Love and Politics: Vive la Différence!

Americans often have a hard time figuring out certain things about France.

Last week, Jon Stewart asked the most fundamental question about French politics:
"What do your elderly middle-age bureaucrats have really hot spouses or girlfriends?"

His question came from his analysis of the French presidential runoff between Nicolas Sarkozy and François hollande which came down to: "a choice between a diminutive middle-age establishment bureaucrat (Nicolas Sarkozy) with an implausibly hot wife , or a diminutive middle-age socialist bureaucrat (François Hollande) with an implausibly hot girl friend."


In a slightly more serious tone, MSNBC Evening news Brian Williams himself reflected the American fascination for French love and politics:
Can you imagine if one of the men running for president of the United States right now was in a relationship with a woman for whom he left his long-time partner, the mother of his children and the two of them had no plans to marry, and what if they declared it all none of our business. That's pretty much to descrive the new president of France, a nation very different from our when it comes to love and marriage and politics.


I like his non-judgmental tone, and his simple acknowledgement of our differences. It is refreshing from the sometimes moral view by some other media. There is still a lot to say about the myth of the hot French women, but this would take more time than I have right now. And indeed, Vive La Différence!

But the really weird part of the whole story, strangely not mentioned in either coverage is that François Hollande's former partner, and the mother of their four children, Ségolène Royal, was also the presidential candidate in the last runoff against Sarkozy in 2007, to whom she lost.


So in effect, she missed the Elysée Palace (i.e. the French White House) twice: first as a political candidate and then as a partner of the newly elected president.

Hollande and Royal officially broke up right after she lost her bid in 2007, but the relationship had started crumbing years before but the tow of them had maintained a pact of silence until then.

Intrigue, love lost, love found and power struggles are all so French, aren't they? It plays along the American view of France for sure, but to the French, love and politics are two different things and their politicians' private lives should be their own and kept private, unless of course they are accused of raping hotel maids in New York.

(Yes, DSK (le Perv) was also a potential presidential candidate but that did not fly well in France, because, as it seems, the French may be tolerant when it comes to love, not so much when it comes to sexual perversion. Not all French who cannot take 'no' for an answer are acceptable to the French: Pepe Le Pew (a supposedly French skunk who strolls about Paris constantly seeking love) may be cute, but DSK was not.)

Talking about harassing skunks, that was one of the other question asked by Jon Stewart:
Why are all your skunks so date-rapey?
Along with others that will say plenty of American clichés about France:
"Why when you buy a baguette do you only get half a bag to put it in? Bag is in the name.... Why do you put your most hunchbacked people in charge of bells? Do you really think your kid should be drinking wine? Why do you have so much trouble walking against the wind? How windy does it get there? Gerard Depardieu?”
NOTE: Beyond his tone, Jon Stewart ends on an excellent note concerning the European economic situation these days:
Nearly 70 years after the end of WWII, Germany controls all of Europe. The irony: they don't have an army! Who would have thought the key to German world domination would wind up being a an international banking conspiracy. They need US (i.e. "jews"). 

Awesome!


The Daily Show with Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
International House of Pander-cakes - Greece & France Vote
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogThe Daily Show on Facebook

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Colored French Presidential Electoral Map


Different cultures, different colors: on this French electoral result map, as you can, François Holland's wins (LEFT leaning candidate) are shown in PINK whereas, Sarkozy (RIGHT leaning candidate) 's are shown in BLUE.


The reason for pink, I believe, is that since 1971, the French Socialist Party has used the emblem of the Fist and the Rose. This emblem became associated with the 1980s and Mitterand. It has fallen out of use, but the color pink is now often associated with the Socialist Party. It may be appropriate since pink is watered down RED, traditionally associated with the LEFT (and not just communism) and revolutions.

Except in the United States where RED is now associated with the Republican Party, while BLUE is associated with the Democratic Party, but it has only been so since.... the 2000 elections and it is due to television media, not party decision.
I like the irony that such an old leftist symbolic color, partly associated - even in the United States - with communism is now used for the American RIGHT.

NOTE: Interesting reminder that the seemingly universal division between RIGHT and LEFT in politics actually originated in the French Revolution:
The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left. One deputy, the Baron de Gauville explained, "We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp." However the Right opposed the seating arrangement because they believed that deputies should support private or general interests but should not form factions or political parties. The contemporary press occasionally used the terms "left" and "right" to refer to the opposing sides. (Wikipedia)

Monday, May 7, 2012

New French President, The Reasons He Won and What It (Really) Means.


As some of you may have seen in the news, France has a new President: socialist François Hollande who beat conservative Nicolas Sarkozy by 51,67% to 48,33% last night. This is a historica moment for France.

So a word or two (or more) is in order.

I read here and there that Sarkozy was ousted because of "public anger over austerity measures and economic crisis", joining a "series of other European leaders booted from office" in Italy, Spain or Greece (Business Week, Wall Street Journal,). In my opinion, this is mostly a wrong superficial analysis of France's mood. And Kevin Drum is wrong, Sarkozy is NOT merely the latest victim of the economic crisis. He is the victim of his own making and he has always been his worst enemy.
The election of Hollande was more anti-Sarkozy than pro-Hollande. There was not necessarily a lot of excitement about Hollande and there is doubt about his economic plan (the French know they're in for tougher time), but "anti-Sarkozy sentiment has become a cultural phenomenon in France." (the Guardian).
Upon hearing the result of the elections, people in French tough neighborhoods cheered loud from the windows in their projects, hunked the horns in their cars; and made all sorts of noises, - something resembling more winning the world cup than presidential elections, certainly not seen in France since 1981.


Sarkozy the Divider: One Does not Rule France by Dividing Its People
Sarkozy was the most unpopular president in French history (about 35% job approval) and his slip in the polls started fairly soon after the elections (Le Monde polls). He was criticized not only for his ostentation display of wealth, favoring the rich while leaving behind high unemployment, but also for his divisiveness and his agressive tone and style,seen as unbecoming of a president. in French culture.

The New Republic has it right:
(Sarkozy has) "constantly undercut himself, thanks to his notorious difficulty sharing the spotlight and his coarsely confrontational personal style. is no coincidence that his single best-known phrase, uttered to a protester in early 2008, is “Casse-toi, pauv’ con” (roughly, “Shove off, asshole”). It is not exactly de Gaulle’s “France cannot be France without grandeur.” (The NR).
Sarkozy may have been quick to react in times of crisis, but he was a lot of hot air, and lack any vision. He failed to see what people need in times of crisis.
 “Nicolas Sarkozy is constantly trying to create cleavages… when what people expect from a president, especially in times of crisis, is to be a unifier,” said political scientist Roland Cayrol of the Centre for Studies and Analysis. (here).
During the campaign, he went further to the right, trying to court far-right Le Pen's voters by playing on the fear of immigration, borders and Islam, missing the point that the French are more worried about the economy and high unemployment than Islam and immigration.

The French Prefer the virtues of the Tortoise to that of the Hare.

This is the allegory rightfully used by the NYTimes to describe the patience, diligence and quiet road chosen by Hollande to win over his rather impetuous rival, Sarkozy. As in the fable, Hollande was seriously underestimated by both the media and his opponent, who was overconfident.

The "New" Socialist.
A word of caution to my Anglo-saxon friends who might be afraid of the word "socialist". Even though Hollande was the candidate of the "socialist party" (which he ruled for years), I agree with Matthew Yglesias that Hollande is actually more a socio-democrat and I also think he's a pragmatist. Yes, he has promised massive taxation on revenues over 1 million euros revenues but that does not make him a socialist. As I reminded a friend the other day: in the United States the top income rate was 75% in 1939 ias high as  94% in 1944 and 1945 and remained between 90% and 70% until 1981, which did not make post-WWII America a socialist country.
Granted that those were other times, but the current crisis demands unprecedented measures and taxing the wealthy maybe one of them for its symbolism if nothing else. You cannot ask the rest of the country to face tough measures if it is not perceived as widely shared by the wealthy. After all, this something that Buffet can agree on.
The greatest challenge for Hollande is his deal with Merkel and the French debt which will require some spending cut and our president-elect has been more than evasive on the question. What is certain is that Merkel's austerity philosophy faces more and more criticism in Europe (NYTimes). Hollande wants to add growth, and that is after all what seemed to be working in the United-States. Of course, Hollande's way of achieving this may not be the same as other leaders' and he will have to compromise, but it is probably about time that someone stands against Merkel's obsessive one-eyed vision.

Franco-American Relationship:
As always in the U.S. it is likely that the election of a "socialist" president will scare some of the media, particularly on the right, the word itself is enough to spook most Americans. This unfortunate as it is largely ignorant of the particular of French and European history and ideology.
In 1981, when Mitterand name four communists in his government, a horrified Ronald Reagan sent his vice president, George H. W. Bush to voice his concern that "the future of Western democracy hung in the balance" (here and here). Yet in the end, Franco-American relations under Mitterand turned out to be one of the closest, including in the containment of Soviet Power (think of the Pershing missile controversy in 1984 or the less-well known but extraordinary Farewell spy case, (here too) or later the Gulf War for instance - LATimes)
In the same way that branding Sarkozy "American" (his view of America was superficial at best) is just as wrong and misleading as branding Hollande a "dangerous socialist".
In fact, one can argue that Hollande's platform has commonalities with Obama's (although not necessarily in the specifics):
The platform that Hollande won on, in addition to the stress it laid on restoring economic growth, echoed several other themes Obama sounded in Ohio on Saturday, when he officially launched his reëlection campaign: fairness, hope, and inclusion. (The New Yorker)
Europe's failures might even be a good lesson for the American electorate:
When the campaign turns to questions of economics, what is happening in Europe should provide Obama with plenty of arguments with which to flay his opponents. Republicans say they want to slash government spending and focus on the deficit regardless of the immediate economic situation. The Europeans have carried out that experiment, and, to say the least, it hasn’t turned out very well. (The New Yorker)


Sunday, April 29, 2012

Le Talk Show.

Good article on one of the key features of French television from an American perspective - the French "talk show" which is undeniably different from the American talk show:

The French take “le talk show” very seriously. The clash of ideas has been part of France’s national identity for centuries, and the intellectual — almost anyone with an air of gravitas and the confidence to opine on any subject in three points — enjoys a special status in society and a place of prominence on television. Days before France’s presidential election, the country has gone into talk overload, with both serious debates and silly posturing.
More here: The Chic, Lethal Salons on the Screens of France by ELAINE SCIOLINO, NYTimes.

NOTE: the French will appreciate the literal translation of the French shows:  "It's in the air", "We're not in bed", or "Tonight or never". Funny!

The "Rather Dangerous monsieur Hollande"... seriously?



It does not come as a surprise that The Economist should endorse Mr Sarkozy in the French presidential elections, but isn't their cover a bit extreme? It is one thing to support one candidate, it is yet another to use a scary technique to do it. Surely there are better ways to express one's argument, or even to capture it on a cover. This is more like the cover of a tabloid, not that of a great weekly like the Economist.
(That being said, I will continue to read it and will not cancel my subscription because it is still the best weekly on the market)
Besides, I think that the economic policies by either candidate will not be extremely different because of similar constraints and little flexibility in this international and financial context. I think everyone knows that, including a majority of french voters. A little bit less austerity perhaps and probably different types of spending cuts. The difference rather will be about style and discourse, which is more important than one might think. The reason why Sarkozy has been almost constantly low in the polls, from the beginning of his presidency is that his populist style was divisive and aggressive, playing one category of people against another. Sarkozy was not good at giving a sense of unity to the nation, which something the French expect of their president.
In any case, whoever The Economist or Frau Merkel might endorse, it looks like it is going to be hard for Sarkozy to fight the odds - the latest poll show a 10 point margin in favor of Hollande. The debate on Wednesday is unlikely to change that.










Because I am myself an optimist, I'll finish on this more positive excerpt from the Economist's editorial:
Optimists retort that compared with the French Socialist Party, Mr Hollande is a moderate who worked with both François Mitterrand, the only previous French Socialist president in the Fifth Republic, and Jacques Delors, Mitterrand’s finance minister before he became president of the European Commission. He led the party during the 1997-2002 premiership of Lionel Jospin, who was often more reformist than the Gaullist president, Jacques Chirac. They dismiss as symbolic Mr Hollande’s flashy promises to impose a 75% top income-tax rate and to reverse Mr Sarkozy’s rise in the pension age from 60 to 62, arguing that the 75% would affect almost nobody and the pension rollback would benefit very few. They see a pragmatist who will be corralled into good behaviour by Germany and by investors worried about France’s creditworthiness.

Saturday, April 7, 2012

NOTE

NOTE from the author to potentiel READERS
No, this blog is not closing. As my latest absence has shown, it has been hard for me to keep up with writing posts on the blog. The problem is that after spending hours on the computer, and doing research on my PhD, I often just need a break from the computer. In addition, my posts have been so far quite long to write because I wanted to focus on content.
I have decided to continue this blog, whatsoever, but maybe with a few changes - I'll allow myself smaller but maybe more frequent posts. By "smaller", I mean in which I write less, and maybe sometimes just with a link. I know it's the whole idea of blogging anyway.
Once my work on my thesis has made more progress, I intend to also create another blog to share what I do - hopefully by the summer.
I am sorry for those readers who may have been disappointed by the lack of posts on this blog. I'm going to do my best to change that. There is after all a lot to share abut French-American perspectives.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

French and American Parenting: Vive la Différence!

Whenever something in one culture (or civilization) is deemed superior to another, it raises my suspicion and when it compares France and the U.S., it picks my interest.
Not long ago, I came across this provocative essay in the Wall Street Journal:


WHY ARE FRENCH PARENTS SUPERIOR
While Americans fret over modern parenthood, the French are raising happy, well-behaved children without all the anxiety. 

An American journalist thinking French parenting is superior? Really?

The article was actually adapted from a book just recently published by the same author, Pamela Druckerman, an American journalist raising her kids in Paris: Bringing Up Bébé: One American Mother Discovers the Wisdom of French Parenting, which has caused A LOT of media reaction in the Anglos-saxon world:
 The NYTimes, Time, Huffington Post, Wash. Post, the Atlantic, the Economist, the Globe and Mail, the Sydney Morning Herald, US Today, MSNBC, and Slate (which had a while series of letters on it)

Essentially Pamela Druckerman's point is that French children are usually much better behaved than their American counterpart.
Not only that, but the French mothers also seem to enjoy their motherhood, - including their pregnancy - better than American mothers (she cites a 2009 study to support her claim).

She identifies four distinct elements that may explain this:

  • A better social system in France: 

The French have all kinds of public services that help to make having kids more appealing and less stressful. Parents don't have to pay for preschool, worry about health insurance or save for college. Many get monthly cash allotments—wired directly into their bank accounts—just for having kids. (WSJ)

  • A greater reliance on authority

The French parents know how to say ‘non’ and are unapologetic about saying it, or ça suffit (that’s enough). (The Economist)

  • An emphasis on patience,

Which results in delayed gratification (especially when it comes to eating, with a stress on fixed meals, including a sit-down lunch at midday):
For instance, babies are not picked up at the first snuffle from their cots; children are expected to wait until parents have finished a conversation before getting their attention. (The Economist)

  • A stricter framework or ‘cadre’.

Children must arrive and depart at a set time; they must eat quietly at the table at the scheduled hour; and they must nap when told to nap. The rest of the time they can do whatever they choose, ambling around the playroom undirected. 
Children are allowed to get bored—and learn to amuse themselves. (WJS)

It is always interesting to see how foreigners see you, because - oh the irony! - in France, people have been complaining precisely about the opposite: the lack of authority of today’s parents (with the “king child”, “l’enfant roi”, the impatience of today’s kids and the absence of ‘cadre’. (see this Le Monde essay in French)

This is often said in a nostalgic tone of the “good old days”, before the permissiveness of the 70s and the (greatly missundertood) works of French pyscho-analyst François Dolto, who considered the child an individual (Shocking!) who should be listened to and talked to.
A recent poll shows that 67% of French parents believe they don't have enough authority over their children.

As the Economist pointed out, Pamela Druckerman’s view is somewhat tainted by her social milieu of bourgeois life in Paris and her conclusion might have been slightly different had she lived in the tough projects of the banlieues outside the city center.

That being said, her points are still worth discussing. Looking at the way other cultures raise their kids may help you understand the particularities of your own and put it all into perspective.

It is a fact that indeed in France, parents do onthave to pay for preschool, worry about health insurance or save for college, compared to the United States and it is uncommon for professional women in France to become full-time stay-at-home moms, and all this must certainly have an impact.

But I agree this is only part of the difference and not necessarily the most interesting one.

A French perspective on American Parenting:

A French person visiting an American family is often struck by certain ways of parenting:

FOOD:
The most obvious one has to do with food ( an important deal in France, even today): there are not necessarily fixed mealtimes in the U.S. – especially for lunch – the family does not gather for all the meals, even on week-ends, and kids easily go to the refrigerator to take food whenever they want, and there is a greater variety of “special foods” in the home for the kids who snack at all sorts of hours. Still today, all this would be frowned upon in most French homes.

NOT SAYING NO:
American parents also seem to be more constantly engaged with their kids who are allowed to interrupt adults in mid-sentence more often than would be usually accepted in France. To a French observer, it seems that American parents have a harder time saying ‘no’ to their children.  Plus, it is rare for American parents to scold their children in public – and when they do, it is looked upon with disapproval whereas this is not uncommon in France.

PRESSURE:
It also seems that American parents are under more pressure: Not only do American parents (and mothers mostly) have to be engaged in their kid’s life, including their school, they’re also constantly reinforcing their kid’s self-esteem and stimulate them with all sorts of after-school activities.
And so self-sacrifice is accepted as a necessary part of parenting to a point that is unknown to tthe French, whose lives do not strictly resolve around their children do not.

According to this family psychologist, the way the French are raising their kids is the way Americans did before the revolution of the 60s and the parenting books about the right methods. This is again very ironic as it is the same line of argument the French use to explain that education has done down the loop.

Cultural perspective:

This psychologist may have a point but I doubt things used to be the same way in our two countries even then because as Paige Bradley Frost in the Huffington Post  rightly observes, our two cultures value different things:
Where the French value tradition and solidarity, Americans value innovation and individuality. Where they seek to cultivate qualities of patience and intellectual uniformity we strive for entrepreneurialism and originality.
American middle-class parents see our children as vessels of limitless potential.
French children go to school to be trained in the time-honored traditions and lessons of French society. French schoolchildren are not so much taught how to think as they are filled with knowledge. They succeed through memorization, competition and by giving the one (and only one) right answer.
French home life is like this, too -- structured and based on age-old models
With their kids, the French deploy an authoritarian model based on respect for elders and upholding tradition.
A "good mother" in the U.S. (a virtually unattainable state of grace) is, by definition, a deeply involved and engaged mother. A sit-on-the-floor, clap your hands, dig in the sandbox, finger painting kind of gal.
Self-sacrifice (like giving birth without an epidural or breastfeeding into toddlerhood) is seen not as a hallmark of a devoted mother but of an overly burdened woman who needs to get a life. Only about 55 percent of French women breastfeed at all and most wean their babies after three months.
French parents are not expected to abdicate their adult lives and ambitions in order to raise their children. Au contraire: They continue to view themselves as adults with separate lives that do not revolve strictly around their children.
More than 20 years ago, Raymond Caroll, a French anthropologist who lived in the United States drew similar observations in her book, Cultural Misunderstandings; the French American Experience, but she went further in her cultural explanation. She actually concluded that the French and American situations are almost entirely reversed:
The French childhood is an apprenticeship, during which one learns the rules and acquires “good habits”, it is a time of discipline, of imitation of models of preparation for the role of adult.
In France, your behaviour with respect to your child is constantly subject to the judgement of others. Scolding your child in public is a way to show others the efforts you are making to bring to your child correctly.
A child in France is a link between his parents and society. Parents in France must answer to society for their behaviour toward the child. You have an obligation to the society and not just to your child.
French parents train their children to “defend themselves well”, at least verbally.
For French teenagers, the prize for this long apprenticeship, for these years of obedience and good conduct is the freedom to do what they want. The fact that the adolescent continues to be fed, housed, and clothed by his or her parents in no way affects his or her “independence”:  they are independent if they know what they want and do what they want, no matter how things look from the outside.
The American situation is almost entirely revered: your obligation is towards your child rather than society. They’re like a seed that needs to be attended to. To be a good parent as an American, I must give my child every chance, every “opportunity” possible and the “let nature take its course”.
American childhood is, on the contrary a period of great freedom, of games, of experimentation and exploration, during which restrictions are only imposed when there is a serious threat of danger.
The idea is to give children plenty of room to make their own mistakes and to find their own solutions.
American parents avoid as much as possible criticizing their children, making fun of their tastes, or telling them constantly “how to do things”.
American teenagers insist more on the exterior signs of independence: they earn money, proving they are capable of taking care of themselves, showing that they are capable of putting to good use the chances their parents mage every effort (to the point of sacrifice) to give them. It is important for the teenager to leave home.
Since Americans do what they want from childhood, it is much less important for them to “know” what they want very early on – they can change careers and not settle down too soon. 

This may lead to more daring hypotheses:

1) Our view of parenting may be partly based on our (cultural) view of nature.

The garden à la Française is based the principle of imposing order over nature by showing harmony and symmetry, which requires time and patience.
The English gardens, as well as the American pastoral emphasize an idealized view of nature, which includes the wilderness (as in the Hudson River School).
Here’s what Raymonde Caroll said about raising a child the French style:
clearing a patch of ground, pulling out the weeds, cutting, planting, and so on, in order to make a beautiful garden which will be in perfect harmony with other gardens.

Whereas the American style consists in “planting a seed without knowing for sure what type of seed it was, and devote (yourself) to giving it food, air, space, light, a supporting stake if necessary, care, water – in short all that the seed needs to develop as best as it ca. I attend to an needs that may arise, and I try to guess what type of plant it will be. I can hope for the best of course. But if I try to give it shape to my dreams, to transform my tomato seed into a potato, for example, I am not a “good parent”.”

2) It may also be linked to the founding religions that have shaped our national cultures, even in secular France.
Catholicism emphasized discipline (nature is sinful), exterior signs of contrition, and a vertical view of society (from top to bottom) un which the truth came from the priest (the priest was after all also a teacher, before France became a republic).
Protestantism, and especially its Calvinistic branch emphasised salvation by faith, a direct relationship with God, the value of self-sacrifice, individualism and a more horizontal view of society where pastors are elected members of the church.

This naturally leads me to say a few words on the topic of teaching:

Teaching the American or the French Style?
As Raymonde Caroll also observed in her book, in America:
…the teacher will not allow him-or herself to criticize a student’s work in public. A teacher who makes curt, scornful or even joking comments about each paper might be considered sick or deranged and in any case, inept at teaching.
The professor does not take the questions as sign of hostility, a challenge to his or her authority but treats it as a sign of intellectual independence, or a sincere desire to better understand the question or participate in the discussion. American students spontaneously turn to the professor rather than to their classmates, thereby recreating the relationship they have established with their parents. 
This is a valuable observation but it must also be emphasized that things are changing in France. Even the old French idea that “French schoolchildren are filled with knowledge and succeed through memorization, competition and by giving the one (and only one) right answer.” is being challenged by the new reforms. This is in part due to the more convergence of teaching methods in Europe. But old habits die hard, and it is difficult to have children “spontaneously turn to the professor rather than to their classmates”.

As a teacher myself, I like to think that I take the best of both worlds. I certainly welcome questions form my students for instance, and I try to work WITH them. At the same time, I realize how French I can be – for instance, I probably make joking comments, and use the sort of irony that would be inappropriate in the United States and if my students laugh, that’s because they are also French. It would probably be hard for me at this point to adapt to the American cultural environment - I would have to watch for my words and would probably get parents upset at me for being politically incorrect. I, on the other hand, would find it probably difficult to have parents so involved in the school life, including in my teaching.

Overall, of course, there is no “superior” way of raising a child. There are just different ways, and even in this global environment, there will remain differences and that is good. Vive la difference!

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

French Civilization and French Absolutism.

One of the great controversies these last few days in France is the words of the French Minister of the Interior that not all civilisations are equal.
"Contrary to what the left's relativist ideology says, for us all civilisations are not of equal value (....) Those which defend humanity seem to us to be more advanced than those that do not (....) Those which defend liberty, equality and fraternity, seem to us superior to those which accept tyranny, the subservience of women, social and ethnic hatred". (Daily Telegraph)


The French Minister of the Interior is in charge of the general interior security of the country, similar to the Secretary of Homeland Security in the United States or the Home Secretary in Britain. (the United States also has a Department of the Interior, but it is in charge of land and natural ressource management, the national parks and wildlife conservation). 

THE INTERIOR: 

A word must said to the actual name of the ministry whose full title is Ministre de l'intérieur, de l'outre-mer, des collectivités territoriales et de l'immigration, i.e. 'Ministry of the Interior, Overseas and local administrations and Immigration'. 
The word "INTERIOR" is metaphorical in nature: it implies that the country is a building or a container and is different from the exterior. It is thus based on the dichotomy between the inside and the outside (if there is an interior, there has to be an exterior), and may also carry a view of the world similar to the Fortress mentality. This of course is the result of history - the term was first used during the French Revolution, when the French Republic felt it was in danger of being invaded by the monarchies outside its borders. As for the words "overseas territories" (l'outremer), it is a relic of the Ministry of the Colonies in the colonial era. This gives the outremer (literally 'over-seas') an ambiguous status of being both "outside" (since it is added to the the word "interior") and within the nation. 

The word "HOME" used in the Anglo-saxon world carries a more positive but also more emotional connotation having to do with domesticity, comfort, hearth and fireside. (The French language only has one word for both house and home: "la maison"). 

What is unique to France, though is that this minister is now also in charge of immigrationIt could have as well been part of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or a ministry of its own. This is very telling as it links immigration with interior security and "the cohesion of the republican institutions".
It should be noticed that even this is not part of the official name, the French Ministry of the Interior is also in charge of Public Worship (Ministère des Cultes) - i.e. the relation between the state and religious institutions - it is for instance formally consulted in the process of appointing Catholic bishops, a way to show that the Republic supersedes the church in public affairs after the separation between church and state in 1905). 

In the last few years, the Ministry of the Interior has been used as political tool to court the right wing of the conservative electorate.  When Sarkozy held the position himself before he became president used it to further a platform based on tough law and order as well as anti-immigration rhetoric. This strategy has continued during his presidency, with Brice Hortefeux (who also made controversial remarks and was fined for making racist comments, BBC), and now with Claude Guéant.

Instead of getting into a deeper political analysis, I would like to focus on the specific words used by Guéant. 

A FRENCH CIVILIZATION

The word "CIVILISATION" became popular in both French and English in the 18th century and is thus a product of the Enlightenment. It was seen as an ideal, and was opposed to savagery and barbarism and is meant to be about societies that have attained a particular level of advancement. So it contains the idea of hierarchy of societies and cultures. 
Because it was also used as a justification for colonialism and imperialism in the 19th century, it became out of use in the late 20th century, most above all in the academic world.
First, Guéant seems to confuse political systems (tyranny is a form of political system, not a cultural phenomenon) with "civilisations". By talking about civilizations that "defend liberty, equality and fraternity", Guéant clearly talks about France whose motto is precisely "liberté, égalité, fraternité". Rhetorically, France thus becomes the embodiment of this ideal of civilisation. For Guéant the very values define what civilization is. This is very similar to the rhetoric used by G. W Bush (and other president) to talk about America as 'beacon' of the world.  

So in essence, the words mean that France is superior... but superior to what? To "to those which accept tyranny, the subservience of women, social and ethnic hatred". What comes to  mind to most Westerners when they think of cultures that accept these things, especially the "the subservience of women"? The undertext is clear: it is a code word for the Muslim world. 
So here, not only is Claude Guéant wooing the far-right wing voters, he is actually doing so by embracing the theory of "clash civilizations" formulated in 1992 by Samuel P Huntington that considers that people's cultural and religious identities as the main source of conflict in our post-Cold War world. The problem with this theory is that it fails to give a satisfactory definition of "civilization", it treats other civilizations, notably the Islam world as monolithic and it is highly ethno-centric. (Edward Said's "Clash of ignorance" is a good short rebuttal). 

FRENCH ABSOLUTISM 
One last point that deserves some comments, is the attacks on the "left's relativist ideology". This is a common argument used by conservative circles both in France and in the United States against the left. Arthur Goldhammer, and acute American observer of French politic believes this is actually an import from the American right, and had these harsh words for the Sarkozy government: 
'And this last, pathetic attempt to borrow from the American Christian right the anathema upon "secular relativism" that Guéant pronounced yesterday before the right-wing student group Uni is similarly doomed to the failure it so richly deserves."Sarko l'Américain" seems to want to import "dogwhistle politics" from the United States. France should definitively reject this contribution of American "civilization" to the French debate. (Blog)
There is something worth pondering over the fact that this is a major fault line between conservatives and liberals in both our countries. Of course, this is the result of a backlash against the liberalism of the 1960s. It is also clear that people love holding absolute beliefs, especially in our confusing post-Cold War world. It is reassuring as it simplifies our view of the world in binary terms.
One interesting observation is that virtually all people who believe in an absolute moral system also happen to believe that their own view is the one by which moral judgement should be made. This smacks of bias and subjectivity. 

While I believe by faith that there are certainly universal timeless truths - otherwise, I would not believe in God - it is a dangerous assumption to think and say that OUR truths and OUR value system are the absolute compass by which one may be judged superior to another, let alone that they are superior to others. 
Besides, I have yet to see France or the United States put into practice the values they preach, even within their own borbers. (After all, didn't "le pays des droits de l'homme" -the country of human rights- sell its expertise in torture learned from the German and used in the Algerian war to the dictators of South America?)
Finally, if nothing else, science has shown that our judgement and decision-making process are based on our (changing and relative) senses (called  cognitive bias) and on our cultural background and upbringing. 

One last updated note: last night, when Sarkozy was asked during an interview with Angela Merkel about the controversy, he dismissed the criticism as "ridiculous" and said: 
“The interior minister said that a civilization ... that does not give the same place and rights to men and to women doesn’t have the same value,” he said. “It's common sense".  (Le Soir)
Has anyone looked at the picture of the French parliament lately? Same place to men and women.... Really?

What about non-white French? See them anywhere?

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

The Significance of President Obama's Metaphors in His State of the Union 2012.

A State of the Union address is often about urging Congress to pass proposed legislation, but in the last year of a presidential term, it is naturally mostly about building a case for re-election, especially when facing an opposition-controlled Congress.

Because this is the only presidential speech required by the constitution, the State of the Union Address is formal and ritualistic, and as its name suggests, it also aims at reinforcing unity through the celebrations of national identity, community and values. As such it is an interesting object for anyone interested in studying American identity in political discourse.

Research shows that one of the greatest linguistic tools of political persuasion is the metaphor (Charteris-Black, Lakoff, Lakoff & Johnson). By transferring meaning from a complex domain of politics to a simpler one, the metaphor enables the politician to exploit an existing shared system of beliefs and values in order to advance a particular policy (Beasley). Thus studying metaphors in American political discourse should tell us more about the way Americans view themselves and the world.

Last week, President Obama laid down some of his basic themes for his campaign. He presented himself as a strong commander-in-chief, a unifier, and a defender of American prosperity for all, at the core of which is what could be called his fairness doctrine.

In order to persuade his audience, the President used four essential metaphors:

  1. The War metaphor ('the Army is the Nation'),
  2. The Construction or Building metaphor ('the Economy/The Nation is a Building'),
  3. The Game metaphor ('Life is a Game'),
  4. The Journey metaphor ('Life is a Journey').

These metaphors illustrate very well the speech’s main themes:  the need for unity, the need for regulation and the existence of a strong national leader.

The choice of those particular metaphors are meaningful as they are meant to establish common ground with the voting public by referring to familiar domains of personal experience and social activity only relevant in an American context.


THE WAR METAPHOR
As Jon Stewart noted, President Obama introduced his speech by praising the troops and claiming victory over bin Laden and al Qaeda. It is a classic tale of heroes (“this generation of heroes ; heroes returned home from combat”) winning over villains (“bin Laden; Al Qaida's top lieutenants”).

But contrary to his predecessor, Obama did not dwell on the evil nature of the enemy but rather on the heroic nature of the troops who symbolize the American values of courage, selflessness, and teamwork. As always with the American hero, it is the hero’s character that makes him or her a hero, not his powerful tools.

The troops are role models and the president makes this very clear (Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example.”). At the end of his speech, he compares America with the SEALs who captured bin Laden.

This is of course a powerful metaphor for illustrating the need for unity and collaborative effort. It also emphasizes the role of the president as a strong and decisive commander-in-chief and is likely to appeal to more conservative Americans.

As Lexington noted in the Economist this week: “This is the fantasy of many a president. They deploy untold power and enjoy total obedience as commanders-in-chief, but in the civilian domain are checked and balanced at every turn by a fractious polity.”.
In other words, it negates the democratic nature of the nation as America's Armed Forces are presented as a substitute for the democratic institutions (“At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down”.). The anti-democratic natureof the American superheroic tale is something worth exploiting (see Jewett).

This war metaphor also shows that the rhetoric violence in discourse is something Americans are probably familiar and comfortable with and if the president uses it as a tool of persuasion, it is because it is viewed positively by a large part of the audience (“from the blows we've dealt to our enemies, to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back.”). Combat is even seen as a right for citizenship for illegal aliens (“the chance to earn their citizenship.”).

Finally, the war metaphor evokes an underlying religious discourse of American Exceptionalism (“The renewal of American leadership can be felt across the globe.”), thanks also to the ambiguity of the word “mission” (“in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard”) which carries a religious connotation.


THE CONSTRUCTION METAPHOR is another metaphor prevalent throughout the president’s speech.  The words ‘build’, ‘built’, or ‘building’ are used 20 times and refer either to the economy  (“lay out a blueprint for an economy that's built to last”, “an economy built to last”) or to the nation itself (“So much of America needs to be rebuilt.”, “That's an America built to last”). The construction metaphor is quite common in American political discourse (Charteris-Black): it emphasizes an essential theme of American mythology of creation (Marienstras) as it is related to the Frontier myth of building a civilisation out of the wilderness.

Just like the war metaphor, it is also a great way to illustrate the need for collaborative work – building requires a team of hard working people led by an architect (the president) who lays out the blueprint. Obama makes it abundantly clear: “No one built this country on their own. This nation is great because we built it together.”. It can also be opposed to bad constructions: “the house of cards (that) collapsed.” or to Washington that is “broken”.

Finally, the ‘blueprint’ used for construction means you also need to follow certain rules and have a plan.


The GAME METAPHOR also implies some form of collaboration - you usually play with other people – but it is even more useful to illustrate positively the need for rules, or, in economic terms, ‘regulations’.
This metaphor allows for the presentation of a moral dichotomy between discriminatory rules (“Wall Street was allowed to play by its own set of rules.”) and common rules (“everyone plays by the same set of rules”.), or between ‘good bets’ when “We bet on American workers (…) on American ingenuity.” and ‘bad bets’ when banks “make huge (….) risky bets”. But risk can also be good when it’s “every risk-taker and entrepreneur who aspires to become the next Steve Jobs.”, and more importantly when people or institutions are held accountable.

The game metaphor is also a common metaphor used for justice through the idea of ‘fair play’ (“the American values of fair play”, “if the playing field is level”) at the center of the concept of the American Dream (“where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share”) in which “Americans work hard and play by the rules every day”.

The idea of balance is central to the way Americans envision relationships, and it is closely linked to the idea of exchange. This latter notion has religious and legal significance in its earlier form of the Covenant that promises rewards in exchange for certain actions (“promise”; “to keep that promise alive.”; “In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility”; “let's offer schools a deal.”, “And in return…”; “But in return”).

The game metaphor also reflects another traditionally American view of the world of economics by giving a positive evaluation of competition (“my education reform offers more competition”), more precisely illustrated by the “Life is a Race” metaphor (“Don't let other countries win the race for the future.”).


The last major metaphor used in this speech is that of the JOURNEY METAPHOR: “as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, and our future is hopeful, and the state of our Union will always be strong”. It enables the audience to understand time in spatial terms, (“too far to turn back now.”). It is a powerful metaphor in politics because it presents policies as a purposeful activity (you travel to a destination) which requires time and patience, while it also evokes freedom (of movement), including the potential obstacles on the path – in this case Congress (“to fight obstruction with action,”).

Just like the construction metaphor requires an architect, the journey metaphor gives the president the role of a guide, which is illustrated in the rhetorical change from “WE will not go back” to “I will not walk away” and “I will not back down from”.

The journey metaphor has a particular resounding meaning in American political discourse because it is rooted in the American historical experience of people undertaking voyages across the sea and then by people undertaking overland journeys westward. (Charteris-Black).


CONCLUSION

President Obama’s speech may not have been his most inspiring, visionary or transformational discourse but it is politically efficient. It uses familiar cultural domains of concepts: war, construction, game and journey to make a case for somewhat controversial ideas such as or the need for more regulations - something that can easily spook Americans - or the need for the rich to pay more taxes. President Obama’s theme of war is likely to appeal to more conservative voters and certainly to the American sense of patriotism and nationalism. It is also successful because it meets one of the requirements of the State of the Union genre  (Campbell & Jamieson) by linking past and future and by addressing questions of continuity and change.