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.

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.

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. 

(Wall Street Journal)

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!

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 immigration. It 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?

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.

France (bashing?) in American Politics.

Political campaigns seem much more brutal in the U.S. than in France, even presidential primaries. One of the distinct features of American politics is negative campaigning - mostly TV ads showing the opponent in a negative light, something unheard of in France.

Despite the feeling that every year, lobbyists reach new lows, negative campaigns have always been part of American politics - since the Founding Fathers.  (Adams vs. Jefferson was so bad so bad that it almost “tore the Republic apart”, says one historian - see here too)

All sorts of themes can be exploited, including surprising ones.

In 2004, for instance, John Kerry, the Democratic candidate running against George W. Bush was portrayed as “being too French”.

(John Kerry) is said to betray a dubious fondness for things French, even the language. A recent comment from Commerce Secretary Don Evans that the Massachusetts Democrat is "of a different political stripe and looks French" was only the latest of several jibes, mainly from conservative talk-show hosts and columnists, that have included allusions to "Monsieur Kerry" and "Jean Chéri." (NYTimes)

France-bashing has often been a favorite of some Americans, usually Republicans, and its popularity took a new hit among pro-war conservatives in the months following 2003 when France opposed the war in Iraq at the UN Security Council. (Remember "freedom fries"?).

To the Republicans, France embodies everything they hate about Europe:
-a penchant for conciliatory resolutions,
-a centralized government,
-high taxation,
-elitism and intellectualism and,
-a more collective mentality.

But this year, the irony is that the two most serious contenders for the GOP presidential candidacy have had some unique exposition to French culture:

• Newt Gingrich - the favorite in the poll at this point - was partly raised in France, where his step-father was stationed. Gingrich had a sort of epiphany when he visited Verdun. (here and here) and he has compared himself to... De Gaulle in the past. He also likes to present himself as a professor of history (which he has been, despite his surprising comments on international affairs sometimes). Not exactly you’re anti-intellectual Republican. 

• As for Mitt Romney, (2nd in the polls), he not only spent time in France as a Mormon missionary,  - and not exactly the kind of frugal life he has tried to present. (see here or here) - but he even speaks French and has not tried to hide it. This, however, has not prevented him from making ridiculous statement on France such as the notion that marriage in France can be “contracted in renewable seven-year terms”. Unheard of in France!

Romney’s French connection was not missed on a pro-Obama SuperPAC (political action committee) called AmericanLP who produced this video to be aired on running on MSNBC, CNBC, and Bloomberg TV.
The clip shows Romney welcoming francophone volunteers to the Salt Lake City Olympics in 2002, and it is mock-subtitled with past comments of his that show he kept changing his mind (Romney is often accused of being a flip-flop).



According to the press release, it is “payback for Republicans mocking John Kerry for his French-speaking abilities in ads”.

“So our goal here is to remind GOP primary and caucus voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina that Mitt Romney is a left wing radical who has, in all likelihood, hung out with socialistic, atheistic cheese-eaters like Jean Paul Sartre.” (here)

I personally think it is rather funny. If anything, it makes fun of France-bashing in some Republican circles.

To be fair, France can be the butt of jokes outside Republican circles:

• Comedians Conan O'Brian, Jay Leno, or David Letterman have often made a number of French jokes.

"A lot of folks are still demanding more evidence before they actually consider Iraq a threat. For example, France wants more evidence. And you know I'm thinking, the last time France wanted more evidence they rolled right through Paris with the German flag." —David Letterman

"American tourists in Paris are reported to being yelled at, spit upon, and attacked by the French. Thank God things are getting back to normal." —Jay Leno 

• The brand Subway in 2005 ran this campaign linking the French to chickens (a symbol of cowardice):

• or the derogatory term "cheese eating surrender monkeys",  coined by the writers of Simpson and later used by journalists and pundits. 

A number of reasons why France and the French are often the butt of jokes have been given over the years:

•  the power explanation: some say it's because there is no French lobby in the U.S. because French immigration to North America was more or less insignificant. (cf. Justin Vaisse)

• the Universalist explanation: others point out to the fact that both countries were born of revolutions, and claim for universalism (Bourdieu)

• the British explanation: as a follow up to the Romney ad last week, Slate had an article on where France-bashing may come from, and it may be mostly from the British. The title of their article is, however greatly misleading, I think: "Why do Americans Hate the French" is immensely exaggerated.

I believe the explanations are numerous and complex and they are based on cross-cultural differences which are both subtle and deeply embedded in our views of the world and ourselves. It is the ongoing exploration of these differences which has motivated this blog.  It is fascinating when current events give us an opportunity to reflect on these differences and misunderstandings.

That being said, the whole topic of "France bashing" should probably not be taken too seriously. As a French man who has been to the U.S. many times over the last 25 years, I have never personally experienced negative bias for being French, and I have always been very welcome. If anything, being French has helped me a great deal. 

The paradox is that the French may be the stinky Pepe Le Pew to some, yet, French perfume and clothing are among the most popular; France may be a socialist country, but a lot of Americans dream of visiting Paris (and a lot of them do). These apparent paradoxes and my own experience makes me believe that there is no  much harm done, and I strongly disagree with that "Americans hate the French".

Last, but not least, some comedians are also great defenders of France :

Obama's New Nationalism.

Last week, Barack Obama gave one of his most radical speeches (YouTube video)as of yet on the economy which may very well serve as a founding theme for his campaign.

The president’s  main topic was economic regulation and his role model was Roosevelt, not Franklin Delano but Theodore, the Progressive Republican president who attacked big business and asked for more government regulation.

President Obama symbolically gave his speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, the small town where Theodore Roosevelt gave his New Nationalism speech over a hundred years ago.
Invoking a Republican president was a clever move - it adds credibility to his claim of rising above partisan politics. (The Economist).

The most interesting part, however, was not the symbolic historical context but the crafting of the speech itself.

First, it conveyed a classic opposition between BIG (banks, factories, monopolies) and SMALL (farmers, children, innocent, hard-working Americans, women / unemployed / elderly / people with disabilities), and between the FEW (wealthy, greed, 1%) and the MANY (the middle-class). Such a systematic opposition would not fly well in American discourse for its smacks of class warfare - which the president denied doing - if it was not framed in a way that can be accepted by an American audience.  So at the core of the president’s speech lie some distinct traditional American core beliefs: the American Dream, American Exceptionalism and a strong sense of community spirit.

In order to achieve this successfully, the speech relied on two powerful metaphors often used in political rhetoric: a BUILDING and a GAME metaphor.
The main advantage of these metaphors is that they imply the participation of several people (a community) and work nicely for a good understanding of national unity for a common purpose. It also conveys the need for rules (i.e. regulation) in a non threatening way by emphasizing on the notion of fairness and justice. You need order and rules to pay a game and you need a blueprint to build something.

THE BUILDING METAPHOR
-The BUILDING metaphor can be used for positive or negative assessments depending on whether the foundations are morally good or bad. The economy can be “a house of cards”, a “business model built on breaking the law, cheating customers, and making risky bets” or on bubbles and financial speculation, or it can be “built to last”, “on the idea of broad-based prosperity, of strong consumers all across the country.”.  It can apply for the middle-class (“rebuilding the middle class “), or for the entire nation (“how America was built”, “investments that built this country”). It can also be used literally to talk about the nation’s infrastructure (“investments that built this country”).

THE GAME METAPHOR
In a similar way, the GAME metaphor is used for positive or negative evaluation: the system in Washington “can be rigged” or used by “the highest bidder”, but everyone knows that it is morally wrong “when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.”. So what naturally follows is the need for rules (i.e. regulation) so that “everyone plays by the same rules.” because rules are morally good ("They want to have rules in place that don't put them at a disadvantage for doing the right thing",). A game can also be inclusive when “the playing field is larger”; “everyone plays by the same rules, from Wall Street to Main Street.”)
The GAME metaphor is thus closely associated to the idea of FAIRNESS and JUSTICE, with the underlying image of BALANCE. This allows Obama to take a moral stance on inequality and unfairness. The GAME metaphor also plays well with the American belief that LIFE IS A RACE. (“The race we want to win, the race we can win is a race”). But here too, it is not any race, it is the “race to the top”, as opposed to “the race to the bottom” (a race for lower wages for instance) since good is UP and bad is DOWN (see conceptual metaphor theory, Lakoff). This fist well the classical social ladder metaphor (“the rungs on the ladder of opportunity have grown farther and farther apart, and the middle class has shrunk”).This is even more clearly illustrated by the final sentence of the speech : "I believe America is on the way up."

COMMUNITY
The emphasis on community is further exemplified by a call for bipartisanship (“a vision that's been embraced in the past by people of both parties for more than 200 years“), through the evocation of historical political figures from both parties - not only Theodore Roosevelt, but also F.D. Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower. A sense of national unity is also rendered by trying to 'bridge the gap' between “Main Street and Wall Street” by using positive image of wealthy figures  (Henry ford, Warren Buffet or “Andy Grove, the legendary former CEO of Intel”) as well as corporations praised for their responsible attitude (‘Big Three auto companies”) or by linking CEOs to local communities, particularly small Town America:
“For the CEO of Marvin's, it's about the community. He said: ‘These are people we went to school with. We go to church with them. We see them in the same restaurants. Indeed, a lot of us have married local girls and boys’.”

Obama frames the argument by appealing to American pragmatism, claiming that the trickle-down theory has been tried before but history shows “It has never worked”. Yet, at the same time, he acknowledges that “rugged individualism” and “healthy skepticism of too much government “  is part America’s ‘natural’ identity, making it even part of “America’s DNA”. One might draw from this an opposition between nature and culture. But more importantly, it implies some (protestant) belief in the deterministic nature of the American identity. It is something determined by nature, or determined by logic. The rationale for regulation is not simply that it is morally right, but it is also (and foremost) that it makes economic sense: “That is not politics. That's just math”. Henry Ford is praised for his pragmatic approach: “Henry Ford made it his mission to pay his workers enough so that they could buy the cars he made”

THE AMERICAN DREAM
In the same way way, the reality of the American Dream is made evident by a traditional pragmatic argument - the very fact that “immigrants from around the world historically have flocked to our shores” is proof that the promise that “even if you're born with nothing, work hard and you can get into the middle class” is real.
The expression The American Dream itself is never used in the speech but the narrative is - “that this is a place where you can make it if you try.” is believed to be “at the very heart of America”. Even if it has been said before that Obama himself may be the embodiment of the American Dream, he cleverly uses another a personal personal and  highly symbolic illustration - the very story of his grandmother who “started as a secretary, ended up being a vice president of a bank”, which means that Obama himself cannot be biased against banks on principle. Unfortunately, this is a reality of the past and now “the basic bargain that made this country great has eroded” because “hard work stopped paying off for too many people”.
The solution lies in the community because MANY is better than A FEW and “we’re greater together than we are on our own”. This is an effective way to provide a positive backdrop for his political solutions:  more progressive taxes, and universal health insurance, which are based on the idea of an entire community sharing the burden.

AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM.
The other uniquely American narrative is American Exceptionalism: if LIFE IS A RACE and if UP IS GOOD, then America must be at the top. Here again, Obama takes for granted the narrative of American Exceptionalism by presenting a series of superlatives and comparatives:
“the largest middle class and the strongest economy that the world has ever known;
the most productive workers;
the most innovative companies turned out the best products on Earth.”
And this is not just a thing of the past, it is still true today:
“still home to the world's most productive workers.
still home to the world's most innovative companies.
prosperity and a standard of living unmatched by the rest of the world.
nobody does innovation better than America. Nobody does it better. No one has better colleges. Nobody has better universities. Nobody has a greater diversity of talent”
If nothing else, the logical conclusion to this series of superlative can only be “That's why we're the greatest nation on Earth. That's what our greatest companies understand.”.
One of goals is of course to boost confidence in America in these times of crisis and renew a value highly praised in American credo: optimism.

OBAMA & ROOSEVELT.
President Obama treats Theodore Roosevelt as a prophet with "a vision" who "took the same message across the country". But if Obama gave one of his most radical speeches, it is still rather consensual and tells a very conservative national narrative if you compare it to Theodore Roosevelt’s speech in 1910:

It has become entirely clear that we must have government supervision of the capitalization, not only of public-service corporations, including, particularly, railways, but of all corporations doing an interstate business.One of the chief factors in progress is the destruction of special privilege. The essence of any struggle for healthy liberty has always been, and must always be, to take from some one man or class of men the right to enjoy power, or wealth, or position, or immunity, which has not been earned by service to his or their fellows.

Quoting Lincoln, Roosevelt also said:

“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration”.

Of course, this sort of strong radical rhetoric would be unthinkable in today’s American political discourse especially from a former or current president, let alone a Republican. In fact, president Obama is careful to say that “This isn't about class warfare. This is about the Nation's welfare.” (notice the nice parallelism and the alliteration) thus not only raising the stakes but also making it a question of patriotism.
In fine, the parallelism between 1910 now implied by Obama’s choice of venue and references is a smart move as it also demonstrates how different the Republican party has become. (Washington Post). This will undoubtedly be a theme used by democrats in the presidential campaign.

Even if Obama’s speech in Osawatomie was cleverly crafted, one may deplore that his argumentation which, while being pragmatic, only relies on economics. As Jedediah Purdy reminds us, Roosevelt “put citizenship -- civic and political engagement -- at the heart of the good life he wanted for Americans." In Obama’s speech, “even education, that most civic of public investments, is just about economic opportunity.”
That being said, different times, different words, and Obama’s speech probably reflects quite well the priorities of today’s world in which well-being and happiness must be measured in material terms.