Rating: 
Summary: There's always something fishy about the French
Review: (The authors adapted a Cole Porter title for their book, so it only seems fair to employ a Noël Coward title for my review.)Many other reviewers have commented on this, so let's get the book's subtitle out of the way first: Jean-Benoît Nadeau and Julie Barlow don't really tell us why we love France, or why we hate the French. Perhaps the subtitle was chosen to capitalize on the frustrations many Americans feel toward the French ("freedom fries," indeed!) as a result of differences over the Iraq war. While the authors do make the differences between Us and Them quite clear in a number of key areas, the answers to "love" and "hate" have a lot more to do with personal tastes, and aren't really covered here. What the authors do give us, however, is a pretty comprehensive overview of French political society, and how French history has shaped the French people's understanding of who they are and how they relate to one another. This isn't the romanticized vision of quaint cafés in Paree and cottages in the countryside that so many English-language books about France present to us. In fact, as the authors tell us explicitly at the end of their Introduction, "We did not move to France to renovate a house in Provence. What we are trying to do is renovate some ideas." And renovate they did ... at least in my case. Although I consider myself relatively well informed in European history and politics, it was a revelation to me how *very* different the French are in their political and cultural makeup and outlook. It certainly put a lot of recent geo-political wrangles in a much clearer perspective. When the French disagree with American politicians on questions of war and economics, it's not just a matter of simple cussedness, self-importance, or (the talk-radio host's favorite) jealousy, but grows out of a mindset deeply rooted in French history. It may not make dealing with them any more pleasant, but at least reading this book can make them somewhat easier to understand. Most eye-opening to me was the centrality of the State in French life. As the authors write, "France's political culture was built around a strong penchant for absolutism, authoritarianism, centralism, and a considerable dose of intolerance" [p. 315]. Things North Americans of all political stripes take more or less for granted -- like charities, local control of education and municipal affairs, property rights, and freedom of association -- are almost nonexistent in France. The kind of unquestioned obedience medieval man may have owed to the Catholic Church, modern French people have devoted to (to borrow a phrase from David Avrom Bell) the Cult of the Nation. This tendency is as deeply ingrained in the French as "I did it my way" individualism is in Americans. No wonder we have so much trouble understanding each other. On the whole, this was an interesting, eye-opening, and very timely book. I'm still more likely to side with Noël than Cole on the question of the French. But I would recommend this title highly to everyone from fuming Freepers to new or renewed internationalists seeking a better understanding of this fascinating, infuriating, and in many ways very, very foreign country.
Rating:
Summary: There's always something fishy about the French
Review: (The authors adapted a Cole Porter title for their book, so it only seems fair to employ a Noël Coward title for my review.) Many other reviewers have commented on this, so let's get the book's subtitle out of the way first: Jean-Benoît Nadeau and Julie Barlow don't really tell us why we love France, or why we hate the French. Perhaps the subtitle was chosen to capitalize on the frustrations many Americans feel toward the French ("freedom fries," indeed!) as a result of differences over the Iraq war. While the authors do make the differences between Us and Them quite clear in a number of key areas, the answers to "love" and "hate" have a lot more to do with personal tastes, and aren't really covered here. What the authors do give us, however, is a pretty comprehensive overview of French political society, and how French history has shaped the French people's understanding of who they are and how they relate to one another. This isn't the romanticized vision of quaint cafés in Paree and cottages in the countryside that so many English-language books about France present to us. In fact, as the authors tell us explicitly at the end of their Introduction, "We did not move to France to renovate a house in Provence. What we are trying to do is renovate some ideas." And renovate they did ... at least in my case. Although I consider myself relatively well informed in European history and politics, it was a revelation to me how *very* different the French are in their political and cultural makeup and outlook. It certainly put a lot of recent geo-political wrangles in a much clearer perspective. When the French disagree with American politicians on questions of war and economics, it's not just a matter of simple cussedness, self-importance, or (the talk-radio host's favorite) jealousy, but grows out of a mindset deeply rooted in French history. It may not make dealing with them any more pleasant, but at least reading this book can make them somewhat easier to understand. Most eye-opening to me was the centrality of the State in French life. As the authors write, "France's political culture was built around a strong penchant for absolutism, authoritarianism, centralism, and a considerable dose of intolerance" [p. 315]. Things North Americans of all political stripes take more or less for granted -- like charities, local control of education and municipal affairs, property rights, and freedom of association -- are almost nonexistent in France. The kind of unquestioned obedience medieval man may have owed to the Catholic Church, modern French people have devoted to (to borrow a phrase from David Avrom Bell) the Cult of the Nation. This tendency is as deeply ingrained in the French as "I did it my way" individualism is in Americans. No wonder we have so much trouble understanding each other. On the whole, this was an interesting, eye-opening, and very timely book. I'm still more likely to side with Noël than Cole on the question of the French. But I would recommend this title highly to everyone from fuming Freepers to new or renewed internationalists seeking a better understanding of this fascinating, infuriating, and in many ways very, very foreign country.
Rating: 
Summary: Provincial Notes
Review: As a Canadian who has lived in California for many years, I find this apology for the French amateurish, provincial, and superficial. The differences between continents are considerable, especially so from a Left Coast perspective. These authors, new to France as they undertook this book, never fail to take a shot at the States, while always appearing to maintain a "North American" perspective (funded by a grant institute in New Hampshire). It is unfortunate that the authors are not, by their own admission, well-traveled in the States either, as their sneers appear to be informed by a moral superiority many fellow Canadians find quite embarrassing. The attitude betrayed is that mired in Canadian politics, after all.
Rating:
Summary: Too many mistakes
Review: As a Frenchwomen leaving in the US for five years, I was really excited to read "Sixty million Frenchmen can't be wrong". As nice as the title sounds, I should have been warned by the subtitle. Why the authors don't like the French, as they are stating, is still a mystery to me. The book does not answer this statement. But it shows the spirit in which the book has been written.
As hard as it is to hear one's country explained and criticized by others, I was excited to have some professional opinion of the way North Americans view France. As a French living in the Midwest, I was looking forward to reading a more documented view of my country than what I had heard from my American friends. The authors being Canadian, I had expected a good deal of fairness and some open-mindness in dealing with a way of thinking so foreign to U.S. culture.
Alas! I quickly became tired of the pattern used to treat each problem. Invariantly, the authors state that something is "bad" because it is so different from the U.S. view on the matter (universal, state-owned health care is bad). Then they present some facts that refute their first affirmation (less citizen without health coverage, longer life-expectancy, better quality of life, ...) Finally they reached the same conclusion on each matter: "we don't understand it but we don't want to challenge our first impression that our views might not be universal".
Still, some of the opinions were good. Some even insightful.
They make a good point in explaining that the resistance to globalization is more an American obsession than a French one. However the authors seem to have some strange obsessions of their own (ENA (no accent on capital letters in French please!), the préfet,...). But nonetheless, I was blaming my feeling of frustration while reading, on some highly sensitive French feeling on my side.
At least, this is the opinion I held -or tried to hold- until I reached the last chapter, the one entitled "The meaning of Europe". Over and over again in this chapter, the authors write about Norway as being a member of the EEC and then the European Union, one that would have chosen not to belong to the Euro zone, ... As any eight grader of the European Union OR Norway would know, Norway does NOT belong to the European Union. Sweden does. And Sweden chose not to participate in the unique currency. This was the fact that confirmed the little attention paid to the writing and reviewing of the book. The blatant mistake that proved that the authors, not only don't know what they are writing about, but more caracteristicly, don't care.
In conclusion, I would say " Nice try, but next time get your facts straight and try to tackle the problem with -at least- some objectiveness".
Rating:
Summary: Unique and thoughtful insight
Review: Books by North Americans about Paris and France and the cultural differences they experience while traveling and living there are too often overly simplistic and do not get beneath the surface of romanticized visions of French culture. For example, Diane Johnson's Le Divorce and others are not very well written and offer little new information on why the French are the way they are and how it really is to be a modern citizen of France. This book, however, stands apart due to the authors' effort to resist indulging in stereotypes and, instead, to really explore the workings of French culture. For instance, the chapters on education are fascinating because they give real details on how the French education system works, which are very surprising to most North Americans. Understanding this system provides much greater insight into the way one's socioeconomic status is determined in France and the French understanding of a meritocracy. Similarly, the discussion of the lingering memories of WWII is incredibly insightful and helps the reader understand where the French come from in modern politics. Highly recommended for anyone interested in really learning about modern French.
Rating: 
Summary: If you want insight into France & the French, get this book!
Review: Even though I never bought into the whole "freedom fries" thing, until recently I would've been less than kind in my appraisal of the French. However, after visiting Paris for four days in June of '03, I came away with a whole new appreciation for France and its people. I backpacked through four different countries during my trip, and France ended up being my hands-down favorite. Why the change of heart? Well, first of all Paris has to be seen to be believed. I'm a history buff, and the city is soaked with centuries of it. However, it was the people that really made an impression on me. I was assisted in my wanderings by a number of kind French, including a woman who gave myself and some others an impromptu tour of Notre Dame, and even had three of us over for (free) dinner at her parent's restaurant. And all that just because I asked her for directions! I confess that I fell in love with Paris, and after returning home I began looking for books to learn more about a place that could turn my opinions around so quickly. I almost skipped over this one - the title and goofy cover art made me think it was some sort of satire. But I gave it a shot, and it turned out to be one of the best books I've read this year. It answered many questions I had about France and the French, from the turbulent history that formed the French national identity, to why a Frenchman spent about a minute correcting my pronounciation of "Champs Elysees." Better yet, the authors write in an accessible, entertaining style, even when dissecting the minutia of French government. A great read from start to finish - don't let this one get away. I can't wait to go back to Paris, and if you feel as I do, or just want to know why "60 Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong", then by all means get this book!
Rating:
Summary: Understanding Gallic Gall and other misunderstood Frenchisms
Review: For over twenty years, travelling frequently between France and the United States, I have gathered and compared perspectives from both sides of the Atlantic on French (mis)perceptions of the United States and vice versa. This book adds to a collection which ranges from John Steinbeck's wonderful satire of Fourth Republic politics "The Short Reign of Pipin IV" to Harvard professor Stanley Hoffman's "In Search of France" and including French sociologist Michel Crozier's interesting works on US society. What is distinct about this attempt by a perceptive Canadian couple to explain France to a North American audience is its remarkably compact coverage of a wide range of topics - from the nature of the French state to its elitist "grandes ecoles" - with well documetned historical and other references which the general reader will find neither inacessible nor superficial. One reservation I have is a tendency to bend over backwards to be culturally neutral, avoiding criticism of any aspect of France, but instead showing why North American tendencies to crticize might be misplaced. But then, this is the prupose of the book, it seems. On the whole, the North American reading this with an open mind will also better understand many aspects of U.S. and Canadian society.
Rating:
Summary: An excellent "contemporary" review of France
Review: For readers wanting to obtain a fresh perspective on French culture with a contemporary slant, this book is a wonderful study. I had read enough books on the French Revolution, Louis XVI, and Napoleon. Although this book rightly acknowledges how the past influences the present by referring to both World War II and the French experience in Algeria, it, nontheless, keeps its lense focused on the current landscape. Fortunately, it doesn't become weighed down by an author wanting to spend the rest of his days in Provence and build a house or grow grapes. There are enough books on this subject! But the book does provide a keen analysis of life and politics, education, and the authors' conjectures about the foundations of certain French characteristics, such as the desire for order and centralization which the Republic or State molded through its wielding of power from Paris. All in all, it's a good read.
Rating:
Summary: fantastic book on all things French
Review: France is a land of contradictions. It is nation where people have seven weeks of paid vacation a year, generally take an hour and a half for lunch, have one of the longest life expectancies on the planet, work in the fourth largest economy in the world, and have one of the finest health care systems in the world. It is also a nation that has one of the lowest rates of charitable donations in the developed world, where people expect the State to do everything because they pay so much in taxes, where the civil service makes up about a quarter of the working population, and where local initiative or self-rule is virtually non-existent. What explains these many paradoxes? Authors Jean-Benoit Nadeau and Julie Barlow sought to discover the source of these contrasts and to learn why the French were so different. Living for three years in France, they worked almost as ethnologists, delving into all aspects of French political, cultural, and economic life, uncovering many things from an outsider's perspective. Writing about the French civil service, economy, media, education, charities, unions, social welfare system, courts, politics, foreign policy, history, and language, they provide a thorough and very readable primer on all things French. One thing they point out is that the French as a people love power. They have a great disdain for compromise - both in politics and even in personal conversations - instead preferring winners and losers, embracing particularly in politics what the authors termed "jusqu'au-boustisme" (until-the-bitter-end-ism), of the tendency in politics to pursue winning even to destructive ends. An ultimate expression of this might be found in the fact that State is absolute in French politics and society; it tolerates no rivals, whether it was the Catholic clergy's onetime dominance over the nation's education system or the existence of any meaningful regional government tied to a local culture, though the latter has changed some in recent years. The French love for their politicians to exhibit grandeur (and the politicians love to exhibit it), practicing something called cumul des mandates (or simply the cumul); it is possible for one to hold more than one elected office at the same time (for instance for a time President Jacques Chirac was also mayor of Paris, the prime minister, deputy from his home region of Correze, and a deputy in the European Parliament). Indeed the French President is one of the most powerful heads of state in the democratic world, in many ways more powerful that the American President. Some of this lover of grandeur is exhibited in the fact that the French state is very much a unitary one, not a federal one; the central government in Paris reigns supreme, even in matters in the U.S. that would be regarded as strictly local affairs, such as the choosing of school textbooks or in most cases the management of local police. For instance the mayor of Paris does not control local police or transport, but they are instead controlled by the central government. Only towns of less than ten thousand citizens are allowed to control their own police. This tendency to have a highly centralized, almost absolutist democracy though is not entirely due to a French love of grandeur. Much of dates back to the centuries long attempts to create the nation of France and keep it together, to impose French culture and language on more distant regions. At the time of the Revolution, the doctrine of the Republique was that "nothing should come between the citizen and the State." The French State actually created what we today call France, assimilating very diverse populations, giving them a single nationality, eradicating any local power or local language, acting for decades with extreme suspicion of anything (including churches) that fostered any sense of local community beyond the instruments of the state. Though France has levels of local administration - the Commune, the Department, and the Region - these do not exactly correspond to Canadian provinces or American states in that they have no sovereign rights themselves or exhibit any significant sense of French separation of powers, but instead are for the most part representatives of the central government. In the case of the 99 Departments, they were created as a result of the Revolution, often designed to deliberately break up regional identities, dividing lands with local identities into more than one Department, often given non-historical, sometimes deliberately meaningless names. The advent of the Region in 1982 reversed this to an extent, as Regions reflect natural cultural divisions in France, such as the areas inhabited by the Bretons, Occitan, or Corsicans, though some in France fear that this may lead to federalism one day (while at the same time France has given increasing powers to the supranational European Union). This is not to say that the French State is anti-democratic; it was founded with three principles, assimilation (or eradication des particularismes; eradication of local differences), interet general (or common good), and equality (not only equality of opportunity but also equal or identical law throughout France). The principle of assimilation had been a driving force in creating the Departments (though ironically has made integration of the growing Muslim community in France difficult as it has until recently been regarded as illegal to even recognize special status or differences among French citizens). There are checks on the Republique. In addition to civil and criminal law, the French have administrative law, an entirely parallel legal system for dealing with matters relating how the State relates to the citizens, administrative tribunals that can rule against government and the state. The growing independence of judges is another check. Protests are a way of life in France, a legitimate method for citizens to curb the system, the authors detailing this uniquely French form of political expression at some length. I have barely scratched the surface in my review of this fascinating book. It is an absolute must read for anyone wanting to do business or live in France.
Rating:
Summary: Not only good, READABLE!
Review: Great insight, extremely well written. Answers the questions I had after living in Lyon for a year. Made me want to go back to France with new eyes (I will next summer, I promise!).
|
