next »

[ideagirl]

I think "makes me desperate" or "makes me despair" would both be better than the overly long "puts me in a state of despair".

Re your first suggestion, desperation is a different emotion than despair. Now Frenchdoctor can go waste hours in dictionaries trying to see why that's the case... :-)

[frenchdoctor]

Indeed. French academia such as it is today, it is a good opportunity to learn all the synonyms : despair, desperation, desolation, depression, discouragement, grief, sorrow, gloom, hopelessness, dismay, misery...

[daurousseau]

Indeed. French academia such as it is today, it is a good opportunity to learn all the synonyms : despair, desperation, desolation, depression, discouragement, grief, sorrow, gloom, hopelessness, dismay, misery...

Let's make a movie about it and create a French New Wave.

[dellaroux]

Sorry, Daurousseau, that's been done already.

Frenchdoctor, bon courage.

[jonesey]

People with EdD will probably say that I have to respect to culture of the students, which is not inferior to mine.

Even in France, people bash and have no idea what an EdD actually entails.  : )

I'll be in Paris next week; I'll be sure to watch out for flying excrement. 

[ideagirl]

Indeed. French academia such as it is today, it is a good opportunity to learn all the synonyms : despair, desperation, desolation, depression, discouragement, grief, sorrow, gloom, hopelessness, dismay, misery...

You forgot nihilism! You can't talk about France, or at least not the French intelligentsia, without talking about nihilism!

[frenchdoctor]

Even in France, people bash and have no idea what an EdD actually entails.  : )

I'm talking about French EdD ("sciences de l'éducation", to give a proper translation). I don't know what the American ones think, but I assure you that I know what the French educationalists write, think and do. Believe it or not, I've thoroughly studied their prose and, as an active member of a few learned societies, relentlessly try to lessen their influence. My irony may be a little exaggerated, but not that much. All in all, EdD poor reputation, in my opinion, is well deserved.

Frenchdoctor, bon courage.

I don't feel that bad. In some sort of way, I'm a really fortunate person. I don't teach, but I manage to publish on a regular basis, I'm invited to seminars and conferences, and my reputation as a scholar isn't that bad. I'm trying to keep a safe distance between the French academic system and me : close enough to be an active and respected scholar ; far enough not be bothered by side effects -- like endless riots and flying buckets of excrement. This said, such situation probably makes sense only in France, where networking is paramount. It doesn't translate well into an international CV.

And nihilism is probably the keyword that explains the whole situation. Since Bourdieu, many intellectuals -- including all French EdD people I've read an heard -- think that culture is nothing else than a tool the bourgeoisie uses to self-promote (*). To them, culture is only some sort of Masonic code the rich use to keep their power. Some of them even consider culture as anti-democratic by definition. So, why bother with it ? Since it's so elitist and so evil, we can as well destroy it for the good of the People, no ?

In other words, their definition of culture is only social and political, while mine is mostly aesthetic. Hence the ongoing misanderstanding.

----------------------
(*) Paradoxically enough, nothing is more "bourgeois" (in the flaubertian sense) than this empty, utilitarian conception of culture.
 

[jonesey]

Since Bourdieu, many intellectuals -- including all French EdD people I've read an heard -- think that culture is nothing else than a tool the bourgeoisie uses to self-promote (*). To them, culture is only some sort of Masonic code the rich use to keep their power. Some of them even consider culture as anti-democratic by definition. So, why bother with it ? Since it's so elitist and so evil, we can as well destroy it for the good of the People, no ?

As an American, I find this interesting because my idea of France (and the French) is that it's a completely bourgeoisie culture.  Rich, expensive food, 35 hour work week, three hour lunches, three years of fully paid unemployment (three years!), free medical, tons of museums (free the first Sunday of the month!).  In short, a society based around physical pleasures and the idea that much of the "good life" they enjoy is their right (from being born French) rather than anything they actually have to work for.

I'm sure I'm waaaay off, but that's the way it looks from this side of the pond.  : )  (And, FWIW, I really like the French, so don't look at this as some ugly American's hatred of all things French).

[frenchdoctor]

Oh, France has a lot of very good things. For example, the current debate about healthcare in the US sounds incredibly exotic to us, even uncanny. How can some people refuse the idea of universal healthcare ? It's not a matter of being right-wing or left-wing, it's only a matter of being human.

This said, I was talking, rather precisely, about education and culture. In such context, "bourgeois" is a very negative term. Everything that is perceived as elitist is considered as an unacceptable form of segregation. The basic train of thought is, for example : since everyone can't read Saint John-Perse, then nobody should read him. Therefore, if you read Saint John-Perse, you're anti-democratic. 

So it's less and less true that the French cherish their culture. Many consider it as a useless past that can be forgotten, if not eradicated. This movement is apolitic. It gathers people from the left (like the disciples of Bourdieu, who think culture is a instrument of segregation), and people from the right, who think marketing

[jonesey]

This said, I was talking, rather precisely, about education and culture. In such context, "bourgeois" is a very negative term. Everything that is perceived as elitist is considered as an unacceptable form of segregation. The basic train of thought is, for example : since everyone can't read Saint John-Perse, then nobody should read him. Therefore, if you read Saint John-Perse, you're anti-democratic. 

So it's less and less true that the French cherish their culture. Many consider it as a useless past that can be forgotten, if not eradicated. This movement is apolitic. It gathers people from the left (like the disciples of Bourdieu, who think culture is a instrument of segregation), and people from the right, who think marketing

This is interesting because in America higher education has always been traditionally elitist (especially prior to WWII and the GI Bill). 

Is the French desire to shed their own culture part of the new wave of immigrants who don't share this culture with the rest of the country?

[frenchdoctor]

OOOPS. My previous post was incomplete. Probably eaten by Big Brother. Here is the complete version :



Oh, France has a lot of very good things. For example, the current debate about healthcare in the US sounds incredibly exotic to us, even uncanny. How can some people refuse the idea of universal healthcare ? It's not a matter of being right-wing or left-wing, it's only a matter of being human.

This said, I was talking, rather precisely, about education and culture. In such context, "bourgeois" is a very negative term. Everything that is perceived as "elitist" is considered as an unacceptable form of segregation. The basic train of thought is (for example) : since everyone can't read Saint John-Perse, then nobody should read him. Therefore, if you read Saint John-Perse, you're anti-democratic.

(even the premise is wrong : many could read Saint John-Perse, if they were given the proper education). 

So it's less and less true that the French cherish their culture. Many consider it as a useless past that can be forgotten, if not eradicated. In other words : a past that is impeding the glorious march of Revolution and Progress. I've already told the story : the president Sarkozy, during a speech, said that studying classical literature was a pass-time good enough for "morons" and "sadists." I doubt that any occidental head of state, except Berlusconi, would dare to say the same thing. Imagine Gordon Brown saying something like : "Shakespeare sucks ! Let's prevent our children from knowing such useless and boring stuff !" I think the British would understand such declaration as an unacceptable and very unpatriotic statement.

Unfortunately, when he bashed French culture, Sarkozy wasn't being provocative, but mainstream. He said something that many people think. And, that's the most crazy, something that many intellectuals and academics think. Why should we bother with ancient stuff ? Silly writers long dead, who use words that no one understands anymore ?  It's elitist, anti-democratic and, to say it frankly, it's fascist. It's cultural racism. By the way, the kids don't care. And since they're young (since they're Youth incarnated, actually) the kids are always right.

This dream of a definitive tabula rasa (a new society, a new mankind, at last !) comes from the far-left, but even the right-wing today more or less agrees with it. So deep is the impregnation of far-left ideologies in France that even the right is influenced by them. Only their motivations differ : the left is waiting for the Revolution ; the right wishes to "modernize" the country by replacing culture with marketing. The far-left is throwing buckets of excrement on literature teachers ; the right is cutting their jobs. It's the same logic, really.

I can't find any source in English about this issue, about this millenarist hate we have today against our own culture. Finkielkraut, him again, wrote a splendid little text that summarizes most of the debate :

http://sauv.free.fr/archives/0,2320,seq-2070-63553-QUO,00.html

A conference by medievist Michèle Gally, in a desperate praise of the humanities :

http://www.sauv.net/univ2005_gally.php

I've already given, here and there, plenty of other references. Notheless, I'll keep repeating it : it is a shame that the catholic thinker Laurent Lafforgue isn't published in English yet (*). He wrote a few stratospheric articles on the issue.


-----------------
(*) except here : http://www.math.rochester.edu/people/faculty/rarm/whyschool.html but it's not his best article and the translation is, in the word of the translator himself, imperfect.

[daurousseau]

Since Bourdieu, many intellectuals -- including all French EdD people I've read an heard -- think that culture is nothing else than a tool the bourgeoisie uses to self-promote (*). To them, culture is only some sort of Masonic code the rich use to keep their power. Some of them even consider culture as anti-democratic by definition. So, why bother with it ? Since it's so elitist and so evil, we can as well destroy it for the good of the People, no ?

As an American, I find this interesting because my idea of France (and the French) is that it's a completely bourgeoisie culture.  Rich, expensive food, 35 hour work week, three hour lunches, three years of fully paid unemployment (three years!), free medical, tons of museums (free the first Sunday of the month!).  In short, a society based around physical pleasures and the idea that much of the "good life" they enjoy is their right (from being born French) rather than anything they actually have to work for.

I'm sure I'm waaaay off, but that's the way it looks from this side of the pond.  : )  (And, FWIW, I really like the French, so don't look at this as some ugly American's hatred of all things French).

What you are describing are mostly hard-won demands won by a working class willing to fight for it's well-being. Unlike the bourgeoisie, which inherits that leisure for the most part. Five week vacations, free health care, pensions for all at retirement, and the short work week are what any sane person wants.

The difference between the French and us is that they know that all wealth is something they actually worked for, but that trick is getting their share of what they created from the hands of those who own it but did no work at all. You don't get it by sucking up or by whining about life's unfairness. You get if through force.

[frenchdoctor]

The French expression for that is "acquis social" (plural : acquis sociaux). I don't believe a proper english translation exists. It means, well, what Darousseau said. A hard-won social progress, something the people seized in a struggle against the bourgeoisie. It's more an ideal, a way to think politics than an actual truth. The left, especially the Unions, fight to defend them ; while the right considers them as something that slowers down economic progress.

To understand the whole thing, you need to know that the idea of Revolution shapes all our political conceptions. Everyone is revolutionary in France. There is no such thing as a "conservative" party here (*). The left is revolutionary because they stick to the "acquis sociaux" gained through social struggles ; the right is revolutionary because they think the "acquis sociaux" belong to an outdated model of society that needs to be eradicated. In other word, everyone is waiting for the Big-Change-That-Will-Set-Things-Right-At-Last. The idea that this Big Change will occur very soon is part of our political DNA since 1789. Indeed, French politics are easily overrun by millenarianism, which explains why communism is so pregnant even today. A party that would say : "let's slowly evolve" would never be elected. Real conservative thinkers, like Raymond Aron yesterday and Alain Finkielkraut today, are hated by nearly everybody.

This said, it's more a speech -- almost a form of collective mythomania -- than a reality. French society is as conservative as any other. People don't like change that much. But, through strikes, riots and violent speeches, we still need to fancy ourselves as Heroes of the Revolution.
 

-------------------
(*) Actually, It's probably true in the USA as well, these days. The neo-cons aren't "conservative" at all, since they want to create an entirely new society by erasing the state. The reps haven't realized yet that you can't be at the same time conservative and libertarian. It's one or the other. Old Abe Lincoln would shudder with horror, seing what his GOP has become.

[parispundit]

While I agree with much of Frenchdoctor's story, I think he is wrong about the absence of a conservative party in France. There is one. It is called the Socialist Party, and it is against any sort of change. Charging individuals 50 cents for a prescription sounds like a neoliberal revolution to them. By contrast, the Sarkozy branch of the UMP has adopted the traditional winning strategy of the last century or so in France, talk like a revolutionary, make very small, incremental changes. In fact, this has been the practice of the French right since De Gaulle, with the exception of the paralyzed Chirac years. Explaining Mitterand within this would take longer than I have time for, but anyway that was before the Socialists became conservatives.

Also, it must be pointed out that for the first time, really, an acquis social has been taken back: the 35 hour weeks has been mostly gutted by successive reforms. I have mixed feelings about this, but it is a case of something very rare in France - a change that can be considered a real reform of a practice, rather than a revolutionary refounding of it.

[frenchdoctor]

But the socialists also fancy themselves as revolutionaries. They sing "le temps des cerises", sometimes even "l'internationale," they march every first of may, they appear at the "fête de l'huma" ...

If they are against change, it's in the name of a greater change (don't ask for logic here).