au contraire!: figuring out the frenchthe-eye.eu/public/worldtracker.org/language... ·...

Au Contraire!

The InterAct SeriesOther books in the series:BORDER CROSSINGS: AMERICAN INTERACTIONS WITH ISRAELISBUENOS VECINOSA COMMON CORE: THAIS AND AMERICANSENCOUNTERING THE CHINESEEXPLORING THE GREEK MOSAICA FAIR GO FOR ALL: AUSTRALIAN/AMERICAN INTERACTIONSFROM DA TO YES: UNDERSTANDING THE EAST EUROPEANSFROM NYET TO DA: UNDERSTANDING THE RUSSIANSGERMANY: UNRAVELING AN ENIGMAGOOD NEIGHBORS: COMMUNICATING WITH THE MEXICANSINTO AFRICALEARNING TO THINK KOREANMODERN-DAY VIKINGSSPAIN IS DIFFERENTUNDERSTANDING ARABS: A GUIDE FOR WESTERNERSWITH RESPECT TO THE JAPANESE

Coq Français (circa 1875), a sand-cast bronze by French sculptorProsper Le Courtier (1851–1924); 153/4" (40cm) tall. Best knownfor his sculptures of dogs—although his work encompasses allforms of animals.

After the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, there was a reemer-gence in French patriotism. The defiant French cock became asymbol once again of the country’s newly revived self-assurance.This bronze depicts that renewed patriotism together with thestrong symbols of the anvil and forge of the new industrial age.

Cover photo courtesy of the Bronze Gallery at:www.bronze-gallery.com

Gilles Asselin and Ruth Mastron are available as trainers/con-sultants on the subjects covered in this book. They can bereached at SoCoCo Interculturalphone: 609-631-0382, fax: 609-631-0383,e-mail: [email protected], Website: www.sococo.com

Au Contraire!FIGURING OUT THE FRENCH

GILLES ASSELIN AND RUTH MASTRON

I N T E R C U L T U R A L P R E S S, I N C.

First published by Intercultural Press. For information contact:

Intercultural Press, Inc. Nicholas Brealey PublishingPO Box 700 3–5 Spafield StreetYarmouth, Maine 04096 USA London, ECiR 4QB, UKTel: 207-846-5168 Tel: +44-207-239-0360Fax: 207-846-5181 Fax: +44-207-239-0370www.interculturalpress.com www.nbrealey-books.com

© 2001 by Gilles Asselin and Ruth Mastron

Production and cover design by Patty J. Topel

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be repro-duced in any manner whatsoever without written permissionfrom the publisher, except in the case of brief quotationsembodied in critical articles or reviews.

Printed in the United States of America

06 05 04 03 02 3 4 5 6 7

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Asselin, Gilles.Au contraire! figuring out the French/Gilles Asselin

and Ruth Mastron.p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 1-877864-82-X

1. National characteristics, French. 2. France—Social life and customs—20th century. I. Mastron,Ruth. II. Title.DD34 A77 2000306'.0944—dc21 00-046081

Dedication

To Mom and Dadfor the American bits

and to Pierrefor the French bits

—Ruth Mastron

To all those involved infurthering intercultural

understanding and peace—Gilles Asselin

vii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments xi

Foreword xv

Introduction:Not Another Book about France! xxi

1. Welcome to France 3

2. What Makes the French So French? 9

French Icons: Marianne, Astérix, and the Rooster 9

French Cultural Elements 12

3. The Weight of the Past 23

Past, Present, Future 23

Past Subjective 25

Lessons from the Past 28

4. They Drive Me Crazy! Ils Me Rendent Dingue! 33

Default Mode 33

Perceptions and Stereotypes 35

viii

Part II: Face-to-Face…

5. With the Self 43

A Cultural Approach to the Self and Individualism 43

Important American “Self”-Related Notions and TheirFrench Equivalents 50

Privacy and Protection of the Self 53

6. With the Family 59

The Family Circle 59

Child Rearing 64

Personality Development 69

7. With the School 71

The French Passion for School 71

French Culture and French Schooling 74

8. With Friends 79

The Language of Friendship and Love 79

Making and Being Friends 81

That’s What Friends Are For 85

Friendly Suggestions 90

9. With Romance 93

Lover or Friend—The Art of Séduction 94

The Dating Game and the Couple 97

You Say Tomatoes, I Say Les Tomates 99

10. With Work 103

I Work, Therefore I Am 103

Table of Contents ix

My Resumé, Your Curriculum Vitae 106

Dignity and Conformity in the Workplace 108

11. With Politics 111

Politics and Everyday Life 111

The Political Spectrum 113

Attitudes toward Politicians 117

Women in Politics 120

12. With Religion 123

Church and State 123

Catholicism à la Française 125

Other Faiths 126

13. With Society 129

French and American Realities 129

To Be or Not to Be…Perfect? 138

Sex Rears Its Ugly Head 141

Money Makes the World Go ’Round 143

14. Dialogue between Two Worlds 145

Who Do You Think You Are? 146

Worlds Apart 154

France in the Twenty-First Century 159

Part III: Coming Together: For What—and How?

15. Rhône-Poulenc Rorer: Case Study of a Successful French-American Merger 165

Corporate Culture and National Culture 166

x

Appraising the Success of the Merger 167

Blending Management Practices andDecision-Making Power 172

Conclusions 173

16. Working across Cultures 175

Analyzing Intercultural Interactions 175

Getting Together 180

Running the Business 200

Managing People 217

17. Professional Guidelines 229

Guidelines for American Managers in France 229

Guidelines for French Managersin the United States 234

18. How to Succeed in an ExpatriateAssignment: Insights and Guidelines 239

Cultural Insights 240

Cultural Guidelines 242

Appendices

A. The French School System 247

B. Nuts and Bolts of Social Etiquette in France 257

C. Sojourning: Start with an Empty Suitcase 263

References 269

Additional Readings 275

Internet Resources 281

Index 285

About the Authors 303

xi

Acknowledgments

No book is entirely the work of those whose names appear onthe cover. We were helped and encouraged along the way bya number of generous people without whom we could neverhave finished the journey. We are particularly grateful to theeditorial team at Intercultural Press—David Hoopes, JudyCarl-Hendrick, and Toby Frank—for their guidance and sug-gestions, which were always insightful even when we dis-agreed with them!

Special thanks are due to Paul Orleman, who opened doors forus at Rhône-Poulenc Rorer, and to all employees from RPR andother international companies who kindly took time from theirbusy schedules to participate in our interviews.

Other friends and colleagues who played an important role inmaking this book possible and to whom we wish to express ourthanks are

Nancy BabcockGeneviève BrameJo Ann HinshawChristy Le CozSarah ManirePierre MorelPeggy Pusch

Joseph RachelMichel de RosenGeorge SimonsDenise StarrettAnnette StevensonSeverin SwansonPierre Verdaguer

To all those mentioned and unmentioned, merci beaucoup!

comment décrire?comment raconter?comment regarder?…comment aller au-delà,aller derrièrene pas nous arrêter à ce qui nous est donné à voirne pas voir seulement ce que l’on savait d’avance que l’onverrait?Comment saisir ce qui n’est pas montré, ce qui n’a pas étéphotographié, archivé, restauré, mis en scène?

—Georges Pérec and Robert Bober

how to describe?how to tell?how to look?…how to go beyond,to go behindnot to stop at what we are given to seenot to see only what we already knew we would see?How to comprehend what is not shown to us, what has notbeen photographed, archived, restored, displayed?

—Translation by the authors

xv

Foreword

Culture and Its Effects

Culture encompasses many things. In fact, in a very realsense, culture encompasses everything. It can be definedbroadly as the sum total of the way people live, includingelements such as the environment, economy, politics, ecol-ogy, adaptation to climate, level of technology, concepts ofhealth and illness, work, leisure time, family, religion, class,values, and beliefs.

Interculturalists often use the iceberg metaphor to describeculture. In this metaphor, as in reality, only 10 percent of theiceberg is visible above the waterline, while 90 percent re-mains hidden. The visible part of culture (also called “big Cculture”) includes obvious elements such as art, literature,music, dance, traditional dress, and cuisine—all the thingsthat make a visit to a foreign culture different and interesting.

The invisible part of the iceberg (“small c culture”) be-comes apparent only after an extended period of living orworking in another culture. In fact, the part we can’t see iswhere we are most likely to founder. Here is where we runheadlong into different values, beliefs, assumptions, notionsof morality, and, in general, rules about what is and is not

xvi

done, what is and is not appropriate. Spending substantialtime abroad also allows us to understand the hidden elementsof our own culture.

We are in essence cultural beings, and yet we do not realizethe deep and important role culture plays in the ways we actand react to our environment. We are simply doing things inthe normal, natural, and proper manner. Only when we areconfronted with someone doing things differently—which weoften perceive as abnormal, unnatural, and improper—can webegin to understand to what degree we are products of our ownculture and to what extent our actions and reactions are cul-ture-bound. Particularly in cultures that emphasize individualfreedom and personal responsibility (e.g., the United States),people may be completely unaware of culture’s effects in shap-ing their convictions and behaviors. Such people tend to seetheir actions as their own individual choices rather than as theresult of cultural norms and attitudes.

We have time-honored traditional observances, while theyhave quaint folkloric festivals. In the same way, a Hispanicpoet writes of a curandera, a healer:

They call her superstitiousWe know what the facts are.

—Gina Montoya

Our culture also determines to a large extent what webelieve to be good and bad, right and wrong. If our culturetells us that a good person is someone who is autonomous,competitive, independent, and out for him- or herself, thenactions that lead to this goal are good. If instead our cultureevaluates the goodness of people by how much respect theyshow toward parents and elders, and how well they look afterthem, different actions will then become desirable. Some ofthe actions that were good because they led to autonomy willnow be considered bad because they interfere with closefamily relationships, obligations, and duties.

The challenge, then, is to imagine a place in which thingsthat seem odd or even wrong to us could be normal andproper. In other words, we must try to enter the assumptiveworld of the other culture to understand how it works andmakes sense. In order to do this, we have to look beyond whatwe are given to see, to look for the subtle, invisible connec-tions. What we note as only peripherally interesting—or notinteresting at all—may be the key to a cultural characteristic.What is not obvious or is even invisible to us may actuallyunlock a door to another culture’s reality. And our awarenessof obvious and not so obvious connections, of what “natu-rally” goes together, and of what constitutes cause and effectis the way we begin to learn another culture.

A Common Frame of Referencefor Mutual Recognition

Culture begins as soon as we are born. It is so much a part ofus that it is difficult to understand, much less express, itsessence. Sanche de Gramont, a Frenchman who settled inthe United States and Americanized his name to Ted Mor-gan, constructs an evocative French cultural collage.

The French occupy an area colored in green in my atlas, withborders and terrain features. They speak a language distin-guishable from other languages, which French writers haveused to compose a literature. They obey (or disobey) the samelaws, and are ruled by and overthrow the same governments.They recognize certain events as forming their history, andsome of these events are reinterpreted to contribute to a senseof national kinship. The past is a lesson to be learned and alegacy to draw from.

Finally, there is a common frame of reference by whichthe nation’s inhabitants know one another to be French. It isnot revealed by the study of physical appearance or personal-ity traits, for there again one falls into the stereotypes such asthe bon vivant anarchist or the rationalist-libertine. It is a

Foreword xvii

xviii

fund of data acquired by being raised in a country, knowledgeless learned than absorbed through the pores as well as themind: a mixture of proverbs like “Long as a day withoutbread” and trademarks like the Michelin-tire man, sermonsand travelogues, prohibitions and platitudes, menus and metrotickets, the inbred notion of a certain way things are doneand said. (1969, x–xi)

Roger Rosenblatt creates a similar American collage:

We celebrate ourselves and sing ourselves. We’ve sung our-selves so often we may have forgotten the reasons why. Openyour eyes and take it in. The quiet little towns sit like drowsydogs at the sides of the rivers. The city office buildings mirrorone another in walls of blackened glass. Sing airport noises,freeway noises and broad smiles and arm-wrestling matches ina Minnesota diner with the President watching Rocky on T.V.and Bix Beiderbecke tooting blues in the corner. How aboutthem Mets? O Kissinger. O Cher. The bellowing variety, thegreat mixed bag of nations. Of course we celebrate ourselves.The fact of our existence is reason enough to shout.

But can you pin it down precisely? In a week or two, ahundred million citizens will be cooing at the Statue of Lib-erty and popping Chinese firecrackers like machine guns faraway. Another Fourth. Can anyone say why, exactly, wethink we’re something special? After all, the Chinese mademore than firecrackers, and the Greeks and the Romans ranthe world once too (not that we really do). In a heavenlyaccounting, those civilizations could provide a hefty list ofwhat they offered to the world. If St. Peter asked Americanswhat they have offered, what would you say? Do car phonescount?

…And still, can you pin it down? Sitting cross-legged onthe green, sucking on your McDonald’s vanilla shake, listen-ing to the American Legion band play Dolly Parton songs ontubas, can you say what makes you feel different, special,pleased? Maybe it’s because you are in a place where the selfcame to discover what it could do on its own. Because of anunspoken awareness that all people everywhere are alone

with their possibilities and that you live where that fact, boththe menace and the dream of it, is the message of the land.Because the country is inside you: better or worse as you arebetter or worse; fairer, saner, kinder as you are any of thosethings. At night lie still and feel the struggles of your coun-trymen to make the progress of the nation fit the progress oftheir souls. They celebrate themselves and sing themselves.(1986, 24–25)

What is remarkable about these two accounts is that, in theirspecificity, they are both intensely personal and collective. Aparticular French or American person reading the descrip-tion of his or her own culture might not assign the sameimportance to each element as the authors do, but he or shewill recognize virtually all of them, and they will resonateinternally in a way that the other culture’s list cannot. As deGramont notes, knowledge of these things is acquired throughosmosis. It is “less learned than absorbed through the pores aswell as the mind” (1969, xi).

These elements are part of our internal landscape, like thetrees in a favorite park. They were in the park the first timewe visited it, and, as far as we can tell, they have always beenthere, although cognitively we know that they were plantedat some specific time. If you grew up in a Western culture, tryto remember the very first time you saw a picture of, say, theMona Lisa or the first time you heard Beethoven’s Ninth.Most of us are unable to recall at what point such things firstentered our consciousness, and yet we can all recognize theminstantly.

Foreword xix

xxi

Introduction:Not Another Book about France!

The French have been observed, analyzed, dissected, praised,and denounced by thousands of commentators from the mo-ment they became an identifiable tribe. Julius Caesar did it,as did Heinrich Heine, Thomas Jefferson, and many others.More recently, Raymonde Carroll, Laurence Wylie, and Ri-chard Bernstein have taken up the challenge. So what’s dif-ferent about this book?

Like the impressive list of people above, we, the authors ofthis book, deal with French and American beliefs, assump-tions, and patterns of living. In addition, and unlike most ofthe writers above, we specifically address the cultural inter-actions of French and Americans in the various contextswhere people come together. An understanding of hiddenand often unconscious cultural patterns is essential for achiev-ing pleasant, beneficial, and lasting relationships with eachother. We believe that with this understanding, you will havethe resources needed to deal with unfamiliar situations that

xxii

a simplistic list of dos and don’ts cannot provide. Therefore,we offer practical information that can be of immediate use.

Our approach is to bring into awareness the invisible cul-tural forces that inform or govern French and Americanbehaviors. We provide some suggestions and guidelinesthroughout the book that will facilitate interaction, but moreimportantly, we explore what lies behind the observable be-havior: assumptions, attitudes, patterns of thought and be-lief, and so on. The guidelines we offer are not checklists ortechniques for avoiding faux pas or getting French or Ameri-can people to do what you want them to. Instead, we providethe tools that will help you think through a given situationor deal with a relationship based on your own knowledge ofFrench and American cultures, thus enabling you to developyour own creative and appropriate response.

As a bilingual, bicultural team, we bring to this work ourcomplementary backgrounds and experience of living acrosscultures as well as our expertise as trainers and consultants inthe French-American intercultural arena. Born and raised inParis (Gilles Asselin) and the United States (Ruth Mastron),we each struck out early on toward new horizons. Gilles’ firstexperience of living in a different culture was three years asa technical assistant in Africa (Cameroon and Congo). Later,he headed for the United States, where he studied for severalyears and is now working. Ruth’s first intercultural experi-ence was attending secondary school in London. She alsostudied and worked in southwestern France for many years.

Our research and the intercultural seminars we have con-ducted with French and American participants have helpedus to analyze the kinds of issues that cause misunderstandingsbetween members of these cultures. We have distilled in thisbook the best and most useful analysis and advice on French-American intercultural relations that have emerged from ourwork. It is a practical response to questions we commonlyencounter “on the front lines.”

Our intended audience comprises people involved inFrench-American interactions in a variety of contexts andplaces in France and the United States: businesspeople, expa-triates and their families, government and nongovernmentorganization (N.G.O.) officials, students, teachers, counse-lors, travelers, and anyone open to learning more about theculture of the people they are dealing with. While our pri-mary focus is on Americans interacting with the French, it islikely that French people dealing with Americans will alsofind much useful information here. Readers from both coun-tries will also gain insight into their own cultures as well ashow they are perceived by the other side.

The French part of our minds told us we had to have astructural framework for the book before diving in. Since ourinitial discussion was taking place over deli sandwiches inNew York City, we came up with the analogy of a Frenchmeal, in which the proper order is an essential element. Infact, the penchant for classification and the proper order isan aspect of the French mindset. An example is the complexsystem of classification of wines and other alcohols, a govern-ment policy so stringent that it prohibited a perfume com-pany from calling its new fragrance “Champagne.” Thingsmust be called by their proper names and must occur in theproper sequence and the proper fashion. This book, there-fore, unfolds like a fine French meal: in the proper order andat the proper time, with the courses and the wines contrast-ing with and complementing each other.

Bon appétit!

Introduction xxiii

Part IFrom Far Away

3

1

Welcome to France

French cultural values, behaviors, and attitudes differ mark-edly from those in the United States. Perhaps what makesthis discovery startling is that we look a lot alike. We’ve seeneach other’s movies, read each other’s books, tried eachother’s food. We feel that we already know each other. AFrenchwoman observed,

We think that we know everything about [the United States]:the derricks, the bayou and the skyscrapers, the rotating lightsof the police, rock from Memphis, Tennessee. You can tell aTexan by his Stetson, a Californian by his biceps: seen fromFrance, America is familiar to us.

But as soon as you arrive, the signs get fuzzy…the con-trasts cannot be avoided, day-to-day American life is filledwith facts and values that disrupt the myth. (Vitiello-Yewelland Nacher 1991, 11; translation by the authors ∗ )

From the American perspective, too, the surface familiarity isdeceptive.

* Unless otherwise specified, all French translations to English areby the authors.

4

Outsiders go wrong by looking at France through their ownoptics. It is always a jolt for veteran travelers to find thatculture shock in France is more severe than in Saudi Arabiaor Bolivia. Elsewhere, things look and sound different, so youexpect them to be different. France looks like home, or atleast like familiar old postcards and paintings. Surprise.(Rosenblum 1988, 25)

Because of these surface similarities and hidden differences,French and Americans dealing with the other culture canfind themselves in situations that are uncomfortable, confus-ing, comic, or catastrophic. It’s as if, when an apple falls fromthe tree, it could just as easily fall up as down. People mightreact as you expect them to—but then again, they might not,as the following examples demonstrate.

An American walking his dog on the Champs-Elysées in Parisbehaved as any good (American) citizen would; equippedwith plastic bags especially for the purpose, he carefullycleaned up after his canine companion. A Frenchman whohad observed the performance smiled and remarked in En-glish, “Monsieur, you must be American!” Startled, the Ameri-can answered, “Yes, how did you know?” The Frenchmanexplained that in Paris, the law requires dog owners to curbor clean up after their pets. But as anyone who has walkedmore than two meters in the City of Light can attest, nobodypays the least bit of attention—except, of course, newly ar-rived Americans.

In October 1989, Michael Eisner came to Paris to launchEuro Disney’s arrival on the Paris stock market. On the Placede la Bourse an open-air stage was set up for the presentation,which featured music and Mickey Mouse in person. As Eisnerstarted to speak, he and Mickey were pelted with tomatoesand eggs by protesters shouting, “Mickey go home.”

One [American] traveler took a trip to Normandy and stoppedin a shop in Bayeux, a town not far from the D-Day beaches,

Welcome to France 5

to buy a bottle of mineral water. When the shop lady deter-mined that the traveler was American, she took theAmerican’s hand and said, “Thank you.” “For what?” thetraveler responded, not thinking that a 30¢ bottle of mineralwater could have produced such gratitude. “For saving us,”the shop lady replied. (Axtell 1994)

In the late 1980s, Coca-Cola ran headlong into Frenchculture when an aggressive American manager was sent toParis to “conquer the French soft-drink market.” Though heachieved large increases in volume and per capita consump-tion of The Real Thing, his go-getting, bottom-line manage-ment style rubbed French distributors the wrong way.

At one point, cafés in Bordeaux boycotted Coke to protestthe rapid installation of curbside vending machines, whichthey considered unfair competition. Coke had to promise towithdraw the machines.

[The American manager’s] emphasis on American-stylesales gimmicks, such as huge promotional displays, also an-noyed some French supermarket owners. So did his repeatedinsistence that they should stop worrying so much aboutprofit margin, and instead focus, like U.S. store managers, onvolume. Some businessmen complained that he was too muchof a “steamroller.” (Browning and McCarthy 1991, 43)

Before the opening of the park in 1991, employees at EuroDisney (as it was then called) were already upset about thedress code the company tried to impose. Everything frombeards to women’s underwear was specified in detail, and anydeviation from the rules was cause for disciplinary action.

Labor unions protested that Disney’s regulations about ap-pearance were an attack on the French sense of individualliberty and dignity. One spokesperson from the Communist-controlled union complained that the government, by allow-ing the company to impose such discipline, had awarded

6

Disney extraterritorial rights and that the region was becom-ing “the fifty-first American state.” (Kuisel 1993, 227)

On the other hand, once you have successfully negotiatedthe obstacle course, and after a few years (or decades), youmay almost become part of the family—or at least a goodneighbor. McDonald’s hamburgers have been a huge com-mercial success in the land of haute-cuisine, despite the res-ervations of gourmets. In 1994 the chain was number one inFrance, both in terms of revenue and number of outlets.Nonetheless, the leader of basse-cuisine ran into problemswith its French employees and was accused of violating Frenchlabor laws. The chain also met with criticism from otherquarters.

Perhaps the most galling aspect of the invasion of “McDo,”as French children and adolescents affectionately refer to it,is its success in conquering the taste buds of the youngergenerations. The Ministry of Education, working with a cur-riculum developed by the French National Council of Culi-nary Arts, has fought back with “taste education” programs inelementary schools designed to train children’s palates toappreciate finer fare than their favorite “le Big Mac” (Valente1994, A1).

An American woman shopping for perfume in the other-wise quiet cosmetics department of the Galeries Lafayettedepartment store noticed a crowd of women, ten deep, press-ing around one island.

There were so many women I couldn’t see what the fuss wasabout, or even the name of the company. Naturally, I had tofind out what the excitement was. When I finally got closeenough, I saw several saleswomen demonstrating Fashion Faircosmetics (a line of beauty products for women of color,established some twenty-five years ago in the U.S.) to massesof women of African and Arab origin and other women ofcolor. What brilliant marketing! Eventually, the French cos-

Welcome to France 7

metics companies will catch on and expand their lines—butFashion Fair already had the colors, the skin- and hair-careformulas and everything. So by the time the Europeans get onboard, hundreds of thousands of women will already be loyalFashion Fair customers. And they’ll remember which com-pany was the first to recognize and acknowledge them.

By reading between the lines of these examples, you mayalready have a good idea of what hidden differences betweenthe two cultures might account for the problems or successes.Sometimes things go well, sometimes they don’t, but it’s notjust a matter of the luck of the draw. Once you understandwhat’s happening beneath the surface, you will be in a betterposition to react appropriately or choose effective strategies.

In subsequent chapters, we analyze the intercultural di-mensions of why the French think and react the way they do,and we provide suggestions and guidelines for more mutuallysatisfying relationships. To begin, we will look at what makesthe French so French by examining unique elements of Frenchculture and how they affect French attitudes and behavior.

9

2

What Makes the French So French?

French Icons: Marianne, Astérix, and the Rooster

Marianne is the feminine symbol of the French Republic andrepresents the daring bravery of Frenchwomen fighting forthe Revolution, for freedom. She wears a red Phrygian cap,similar to one worn by emancipated Roman slaves, as a sym-bol of liberty and the republic. The very words republic, revo-lution, and freedom are feminine in French. Marianne willcontinue to represent France in the European Union, as shehas been chosen to appear on French-minted Euro coins.

Marianne also appears on French postage stamps of variousdenominations and as a statue in every town hall in thecountry. Famous actresses such as Brigitte Bardot andCatherine Deneuve have served as models for these statues.In 1999 model Laetitia Casta was chosen by the mayors ofFrench towns to embody a new Marianne. In additionMarianne can be seen in political cartoons as a symbol ofFrance, often dealing with real-life politicians in less thanstatesmanlike situations. Social commentary via comic stripsis a French tradition. In an album released during the 1995presidential campaign, each candidate was shown in the nude

10

with a naked Marianne, trying to coax her into bed in amanner suited to his political platform.

Astérix, the inseparable companion of Obélix in the fa-mous French comic book series, is loved by European chil-dren and adults alike. He and his friends are symbols of theFrench inclination toward resistance and rebellion. Fightingfor the survival of Gaul—later to become France—under theRoman occupation, he represents the clever fellow who useshis brain more than his biceps, even after gaining strengthfrom the magical potion of the Druid Panoramix. OneFrenchwoman sees the inhabitants of Astérix’s village mir-roring her modern-day descendants: “They’re like us, exas-perating but endearing. Astérix is our ego.”

Astérix turned forty in the year 2000, and his adventureshave been translated into dozens of languages. But he re-mains firmly and identifiably French, even when he is speak-ing Basque or Swäbisch. In early 1999 a film was released

What Makes the French So French? 11

with French actors Gérard Depardieu and Christian Clavierappearing as Obélix and Astérix. It was extremely successful.Astérix and his friends even have their own website:www.asterix.tm.fr. An Astérix theme park is located north ofParis; valiant Astérix may well be fighting against the inva-sion of another “threat” to France and its culture: DisneylandParis.

The rooster is to the French what the bald eagle is toAmericans. Yet a rooster does not fly high in the sky, and itdoes not soar to reach high peaks and discover new horizons.Rather, a rooster wakes up the entire village at dawn, attractsattention from others, and never retreats from his defiant anddomineering attitude toward the rest of the coop. Nowadays,French influence is certainly not as far-reaching as it used tobe, and the world is much larger and more complex than asingle coop. Still, some French roosters like to remind every-one that France has awakened the entire world to the beautyand grace of its civilization, culture, and language.

12

An Italian observer notes that the rooster is a most appro-priate French symbol:

The choice is fortuitous, of course, because of a Latin pun,Gallus, meaning both the courtyard animal and the inhabi-tant of Gaul. The English pun could probably be consideredeven more apt. The brilliantly plumed cock is the first toannounce the dawn of a new day to everybody, dominates hisimmediate world, seduces and fecundates all the unresistinghens, destroys his rivals, and crows triumphantly from the topof the dungheap. (Barzini 1983, 120)

French Cultural Elements

When trying to examine the “real” France, we need to beaware that there are, in fact, several Frances, all equally real.The nation and its culture are changing rapidly. Externalinfluences and the younger generations are making the coun-try a different place, though not necessarily less French.

The France of the chambers of commerce and industry, ofl’Administration, and of its official institutions could easilytake up a scepter and crown and step into a monarchistregime—certainly in style, if not literally. On the other hand,la France branchée (plugged in, hip, and with-it) of interna-tional companies, of the Internet, and of younger generationsdoes not fit the stereotypes of the tourist brochures. It isimportant to keep this contrast in mind as we discuss Frenchparticularities.

Deeply conservative yet avant-garde, dispassionately ratio-nal yet given to wildly dramatic outbursts of anger or affection,reserved with strangers yet passionate romantics: the Frenchtake in rationalism and logic with their mother’s milk, and yetFrance presents paradox upon paradox. Quite simply, theFrench defy classification—even their own. Robert Moranobserves, “…the French seem to abound in contradictions andare not overly disturbed by it” (Harris and Moran 1987, 450).


This being said, there are some elements that set Franceand the French apart from other nations. We can think ofthese elements as threads that, woven together, form thebackdrop of French culture and society.

The Hexagon and French Rationality. If you look at a map ofFrance, you will see that the country has a vaguely hexagonalshape. There is nothing vague about the notion of the hexa-gon in the French mentality, however, where it not only sumsup the physical shape of the land but also shapes Frenchculture. In official documents and tourist information pam-phlets, an actual geometric hexagon often serves as a visualshorthand for France, and summaries of domestic news in themedia are headlined simply L’Hexagone. The clarity and pre-cision of geometric borders are reassuring for the French,giving them a firm sense of where they stand, figuratively aswell as literally. Perhaps the dramatic shifts in France’s bor-ders over the centuries account for this need for security.

Laurence Wylie, an American professor of French civiliza-tion and culture with decades of experience in France, notes,

It is difficult for Americans to realize how important [thehexagonal shape of France] is to the French. Not consciously,but at some level, I believe French people have the impres-sion that it is good to have this geometric shape. As a matterof fact, it is rather difficult to persuade a French person thatAmericans may doubt that France actually does have thisshape, since it requires so much filling in and cutting off. Ithink France is the only country in the world that thinks ofitself as a geometric figure. And it is important to be a geo-metric figure. (1981, 31)

The French think of themselves as supremely rational be-ings—logical and intellectual. They have a high regard forreasoning, and their schooling, particularly secondary educa-tion, places a premium on philosophy regardless of thestudent’s area of specialization. Unlike in the United States,where intellectualism is vaguely suspect, it is a high compli-

14

ment to refer to a French person as an intellectual, and therealm of ideas for their own sake is valued and respected.

The vision of their country as a geometric structure—neat,tidy, organized, and clear—confirms for the French theirprowess and pride in matters of the mind, Cartesians to theirfingertips. Cartesianism, or Cartesian thinking, refers to thetypically French way of reasoning or working through a prob-lem. It is characterized by an emphasis on the proper ap-proach, the right method for addressing the situation ratherthan on practical applications. Cartesian logic will be ex-plained in greater detail in chapter 14, “Dialogue betweenTwo Worlds.”

The Republic. Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité!—the clarion callof the Revolution—still resounds in the soul of every Frenchcitizen. Attached to these republican values are notions ofunity, solidarity, and universalism. Unlike the United States,Germany, and other federations of semiautonomous states,France is one united country and one indivisible republic.This has not always been the case, of course, and the impor-tance attached to republican values may reflect France’scheckered political past: monarchies, revolution, restorationof the monarchy, two empires, assorted popular uprisings,occupation governments, and five republics. Whether or notrepublican ideals have been or even can be achieved, mostFrench people believe in them deeply. With the exception ofCorsica, even regions with a strongly marked local identitysuch as Brittany, Alsace, and the Basque country make theirpoint with particular customs, languages, and traditions ratherthan with calls for self-determination or political autonomy.

France has been divided since the Napoleonic era intoadministrative units called départements, which are groupedinto regions. For the most part regional power has been mini-mal, but in the last twenty years there has been a seriouseffort to decentralize. Regions now have their own assembliesand their own budgets. Other powers traditionally held bythe central government have been transferred to the Euro-


pean level. Both are a dramatic contrast to the centralizationtendencies that have marked French history. Despite thesechanges, France is still quite centralized compared with theUnited States.

In the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen dated1789, the Revolution’s founders affirmed that human rightsare universal, superseding an individual’s nationality,ethnicity, religion, or other particularities. Accordingly, asingle system treating everyone the same is seen as most fairand equitable, as opposed to the U.S. model, which seestaking into account particular circumstances—gender andethnicity, for example—as the best and fairest way to com-pensate for past discrimination and create a “level playingfield.” This universalist principle is still strongly reflected inFrench society and social legislation. For example, the health-care system covers all French residents equally.

Centralization and Authority. Centralization of power canbe seen as the practical side of the republican values de-scribed above. In fact centralization in the form of a central-ized administration and bureaucracy has been the one stablefeature in all of France’s political landscapes. Louis XIV wasnot speaking metaphorically when he said, “L’état, c’est moi!”(“I am the state!”). Strong leaders from Napoléon to deGaulle have personified and ruled the French state, but evenwhen not wielded by a single individual, power in France hasalways been concentrated. French ministers of education, forexample, used to boast that at any particular time on anygiven day, they could tell you precisely what was being stud-ied in every school in France and her possessions.

Paris is not just the capital but virtually the center of theFrench universe. It is the nation’s political, literary, historic,economic, artistic, financial, and cultural heart in a way thatno single U.S. city can approach. Look again at the map ofl’Hexagone and you can see that all roads—and railways, forthat matter—lead to Paris. The country’s system of transportis built on the assumption that everyone wants to, or has to,

16

get to Paris. In some cases, it is difficult or impossible to getdirectly from one major provincial city to another; you mustfirst go to Paris.

Education. Public education—“gratuite, obligatoire, etlaïque” (“free, compulsory, and secular”) in the words of thegreat nineteenth-century educational reformer Jules Ferry—is the key to advancement and acculturation in French soci-ety and the keystone in the edifice of French culture. Frenchpupils are reminded that the basic notion of sending childrento school was developed by Charlemagne, the famous eighth-century king of the Franks.

Some of those children may not be overwhelmed withgratitude, as the French school system is notorious for itsrigor, inflexibility, and competitiveness, particularly from thesixth grade to le baccalauréat, or le bac (secondary schooldegree). In fact one’s academic results and grades in second-ary school virtually determine one’s options in higher educa-tion and career; doors that remain open in the U.S. systemare slammed shut early on in France. School reforms andanxiety about falling standards are perennial themes in Frenchlife, and the fact that the entire nation is concerned aboutthe rate of success of le bac, for example, indicates the levelof interest in education.

Conscience and Practicality. In France, rules for good behav-ior tend to be defined by the individual as he or she matures.Precepts from parents and school are integrated from an earlyage, and each person develops an internal guide with a greatdeal of built-in flexibility. This internal guide is the standardagainst which a person judges his or her own acts.

Compared with the United States, French ethics are notset in stone and tend to be applied in a very contextualmanner, taking into account all variables involved. This isparadoxical in light of the emphasis placed on universalismas a republican value, but the French easily distinguish be-tween what is true in theory and what is true in practice.Everything in France happens at least twice: once en théorie


(or en principe) and once en pratique (or en réalité). The twomay be identical or may not bear the slightest resemblance.

In the contextual ethics of the French, practical self-inter-est is important, and they tend to admire someone who cangain an advantage in a situation. The American notion of thelevel playing field is not particularly meaningful to theFrench, who tend to adapt their approach to the context inan effort to give themselves an edge. Self-interest must beserved, of course, but this should be done subtly, almostindirectly. Nike’s “in your face” promotion style, which en-joyed huge success in the United States, was not appreciatedin France, where blatant self-interest and greed are seen astactless, unsophisticated, and brash. Hypocrisy in itself is notnecessarily negative, but it mustn’t be too obvious. Stylecounts; the way the result is obtained may be more importantthan the result itself, particularly if an individual displays agreat deal of cleverness and panache in the process.

Telling the French that something is not allowed is adirect challenge to their ability to do it gracefully, finding anelegant way of bypassing the rules and not getting caught.Being able to do this well is a source of personal pride andsatisfaction. It is a way of distinguishing oneself and standingout discreetly—or not so discreetly—from the crowd.

Aesthetic Sense. Many Americans are struck by how wellthe French dress themselves and their children. They admirethe elegance of French adults and the elaborate fashionsworn by French children. Even popping out for a baguette atthe boulangerie (bakery) around the corner may require properdress, hairstyle, and makeup—a source of irritation for expatAmerican women used to running errands in comfortablesweats, sneakers, and baseball cap. Although the French of-ten dress more casually than they did twenty years ago, inmost cases style still counts, and good presentation is moreimportant than comfort and convenience.

The French are willing to put up with a considerableamount of physical discomfort to maintain their appearance.

18

A Frenchwoman, for example, would sooner die than changeinto a pair of comfortable athletic shoes for the long métroride home. French children’s clothes are adorable and notparticularly practical from an American viewpoint. They of-ten require ironing or other meticulous care, and outfits forsmall babies may not have snap openings for diaper changes.These things are simply accepted as a part of daily life.

Esprit Critique. French conversations sometimes look bor-derline homicidal to someone who does not understand thelanguage. Even in the family circle, voluble arguments andintense cross fire are fairly common modes of communica-tion. For the French, even violent confrontation is not nec-essarily a loss of harmony in a group; rather, argument servesto move things along and prevent boredom and stagnation.

Consensus may or may not be achieved, but it is rarely animportant goal. In the United States groups normally aim forharmony and agreement as a way to reinforce group unity anddynamics. This can look bland and unnaturally detached tothe French, who prefer to hash out ideas together and dis-agree with an idea rather than with a person—even when thedisagreement is couched in quite personal terms.

What interests the French is not what people have in com-mon, but their differences—vive la différence! Uniformity isdull; difference, exciting. Standardization is seen as stifling toindividuality, an unacceptable attempt to impose mindlessconformity. It may seem paradoxical that the French aresimultaneously universalist and nonconformist. In fact, we cansay that the French are universalist en théorie and nonconform-ist en pratique. On an intellectual level, virtually everyoneagrees with universalist principles. However, because of theirstrong feelings about individuality, the French tend to resistrigid procedures and look for a more personalized way ofdoing things. This is a way of establishing their unique char-acter, not knuckling under to an anonymous system.

National Solidarity and French Individualism. The Frenchpolitical and social system reflects a concern with national


solidarity. Citizens in essence agree that the unemployed, thehomeless, the poor, and the sick must be protected and can-not simply be left to their fate—at the mercy of economicforces. They accept a system of taxation and social contribu-tions to make this possible. Despite calls for reforms and theFrench national indoor sport of griping about high taxes, theexistence and goals of the social welfare system are not seri-ously called into question.

The concept of solidarity can be seen in the support forstriking workers, despite the huge problems caused by a strike.A farmers’ demonstration that involved planting a wheatfield down the Champs-Elysées snarled traffic for hours, butfrustrated drivers nevertheless expressed support for the dem-onstrators’ goals—and admiration for their style. Similarly,in 1996, many French citizens showed broad support for un-documented African immigrants who, when threatened withdeportation, sought sanctuary in a Paris church.

Solidarity also involves the concept of sharing equallywhat is available rather than letting the strongest or mostpowerful get more than they need. Contrast American andFrench plans for increasing employment opportunities andthe different assumptions on which they are based. Americanpoliticians and economists see business growth as the keyelement in job creation, but the French Parliament approveda program in 1998 that involves reducing the work week fromthirty-nine to thirty-five hours by the year 2002 in order todecrease unemployment by sharing available work amongmore people.

At the same time, the French may display complete disre-gard for the welfare of those around them—smoking in non-smoking areas, for example. In public and even universitylibraries in France, books disappear and articles are torn outof magazines. That others might want to use these publicresources seems not to matter; there is little sense of civicresponsibility in relation to common property. In some cases,the need to défendre son bifteck (defend one’s own steak) can

20

be more important than high-flown notions of solidarity andunity.

Mission to Civilize. La Semeuse, the woman sowing grainwho appears on French coins and stamps, represents theimportance of agriculture in nourishing the people. By exten-sion, in some contexts, she might also be a symbol of thedissemination of French culture. A slightly modified semeuseappears in the logo of French publishing giant Larousse, blow-ing dandelion seeds that symbolize knowledge. The words Jesème à tout vent (I scatter to the four winds) were recentlydropped from the logo in an internationalization effort, butthe goal of the company’s founder, educator Pierre Larousse,remains intact: “To instruct everyone about everything.” Evenin a united Europe, la Semeuse has a symbolic role to play, forlike Marianne, she appears on Euro coins minted in France.

From the sixteenth to the mid-nineteenth century, Francewas a center of power, culture, and influence. Despite dramaticchanges in French political structure and importance in worldaffairs, the mission civilisatrice (mission to civilize) has re-mained a fixed point in the French collective unconscious. Itwas a vital element of the French colonial enterprise andcontinues to inform French foreign policy. This attitude cancome across as cultural superiority due to its implicit assump-tion that members of other societies will be improved by theirexposure to and adoption of French culture.

The French language is a primary means by which to spreadits culture. Over the centuries, the upper classes of manynations have provided a French education for their childrenin hopes of improving their chances for advancement. Frenchgovernesses ensured that generations of European aristocratscould express themselves in the language of Voltaire. Pagesand pages of the great Russian novel War and Peace are inFrench in the original text, including the opening words: “Ehbien, mon prince. Gênes et Lucques ne sont plus que des apanagesde la famille Buonaparte” (“Well, my Prince, so Genoa andLucca are now just family estates of the Buonapartes”). The


French have not accepted gracefully the decline in impor-tance of French as a world language and have looked darklyat the progress of English as the international lingua franca.They have enacted legislation to protect the purity of French,prohibiting the use of foreign (read English) words in adver-tising and in public places.

Social Classes and Democracy. Despite the French Revolu-tion and its demands for liberté, égalité, fraternité, neither theentire aristocratic class nor its attendant mentalities werefinished off by the guillotine. Status and rank still count inthis hierarchical culture, and money alone is not enough tobuy one’s way into the inner circle. Nor is money a require-ment for membership if one’s family background is distin-guished enough. Some modern-day aristocrats live quitemodestly and work for a living.

The key to the upper reaches of French society is educa-tion. The French Revolution essentially replaced an aristo-cratic class based on bloodlines with an aristocracy of educa-tional degrees. The French system is unapologetically elitist,despite efforts to reduce the pressure on primary and second-ary schoolchildren. The brightest and the best are noted earlyon and encouraged by their teachers and parents. The goal isacceptance in and success at one of the grandes écoles—agroup of institutions of higher learning, a degree from whichvirtually guarantees access to the highest levels of power,prestige, and wealth. Major French corporations often recruitdirectly from particular grandes écoles, reinforcing an old-boy network of enormous influence.

Formality and Reserve. French people may be less formalthan some other Europeans, but they are definitely moreformal than Americans, and rules of proper behavior shouldbe observed. The American habit of being instantly on first-name terms with total strangers strikes the French as slightlyinvasive and presumptuous. They reserve first-name terms formore intimate relationships. As in many other languages,there are two ways to say you in French. Vous is formal and

22

distant, while tu marks a closer relationship. The latter canalso signify a power differential, as in the case of the mistressof the household calling the maid tu and being called vous inreturn.

Even body language reveals cultural attitudes. Frenchpeople claim that they can spot an American instantly by theway he or she walks: arms swinging loosely, a bouncing stride,and an open, cheerful expression. French mothers remindtheir children, “Tiens-toi droit!” (“Stand up straight!”) andwalk properly: arms held to the sides, feet straight, and areserved facial expression.

French people are experts at creating islands of psychologi-cal privacy in crowded public areas as well as in small apart-ments. This desire to keep one’s personal affairs private meansthat two people carrying on a conversation in the métro, forexample, can barely be overheard by someone strap-hangingabove them. Americans in the same situation see nothingunusual about carrying on a conversation at a greater volumeor even from some distance apart.

23

3

The Weight of the Past

Past, Present, Future

In the United States history is a source of pride, but it tendsto be conceived of as preface: events that happened in orderto make possible the present and, above all, the future. Mov-ing toward the future in the U.S. context may imply a rejec-tion of or break with the past. This is due in part to theprofound belief Americans have in personal and socialprogress. Things are better now than they used to be and willbe even more improved in the future. From its beginnings asa nation, the United States has turned its face away from itspast and has focused on the new day dawning. Physically andmentally, Americans discard what is old and eagerly embracethe new. History is yesterday’s news. It may be interestingand even inspiring, but it has little bearing on everyday life.

It is difficult to overemphasize the importance of history tothe average Frenchman or -woman, and perhaps just as diffi-cult for the average American to understand it. A FrenchP.D.G. (Président Directeur Général—equivalent to chief ex-ecutive officer, or CEO) making a presentation on hiscompany’s plans to open a new, high-tech manufacturing

24

facility began by showing slides of the site and describing thepivotal battle that was fought there in the Hundred YearsWar (fourteenth and fifteenth centuries). The past in Franceis immediate and important. The French employees attend-ing the presentation found nothing odd about it. In fact, byfilling in the historical background of the site, the CEO wasnot just giving them an interesting footnote; he was provid-ing them with a framework within which they could fit allthe information they were given about the new facility.

In France, the present is seen as the link between the pastand the future; the future is the continuation of the past, allthree inextricably interwoven. The past often represents theroots of a successful future and gives stability to the founda-tions of decades to come. An American journalist analyzingthe strategy of a very traditional knife-making factory in themiddle of France put it in a nutshell: “In the midst of eco-nomic decline, Laguiole looked to its past to carve out itsfuture” (Carter 1996, 34); the past in this case dates back to1829. Most French people would agree with Southern Ameri-can writer William Faulkner, who said, “The past is neverdead. It’s not even past” (1994, 535).

To the French, history, continuity, and tradition are criti-cal to their conception of themselves and their culture. Thesethings are not to be taken lightly or discarded easily. Changeis not seen as intrinsically good, as it tends to be in theUnited States. The French are willing to change, but only ifthey can see a logical reason to do so; the benefits of thechange must clearly outweigh the loss of security and conti-nuity.

In a way that may seem paradoxical, the traditional Frenchhave a weakness for the avant-garde, although many of themprefer that it not appear in their living rooms. It is no acci-dent that the very term avant-garde is French. In fact, onceone understands how the French see past, present, and futureas a continuum, it becomes obvious that there is no internalcontradiction in being at the same time a traditionalist and

The Weight of the Past 25

a modernist. They are attracted to modern technology andgadgetry, and their infrastructure, particularly in communi-cations and transportation, has moved within living memoryfrom being worthy of display in a museum of obsolete tech-nology to being one of the most up-to-date and efficient inthe world.

Past Subjective

Here are thumbnail sketches of a few pivotal French histori-cal figures of mythic proportions who resonate strongly in theFrench soul and psyche and whose influence can still be felttoday.

Vercingétorix (72–46 B.C.). Chief of the Gauls during therevolt against Roman occupation in 52 B.C., Vercingétorixwas forced to surrender to Caesar when he was cut off fromforces trying to rescue him. He was paraded in Rome as partof a triumphal display and executed there after six years ofcaptivity. Only the French could admire a leader who actu-ally lost, albeit with courage and honor, but plucky littleAstérix inevitably avenges his real-life counterpart againstthe Roman invaders.

Clovis (ca. 466–511). Clovis was the first king of the Franksto reign over all of Gaul. He is considered by many historiansto be the founder of the French nation. To this day, Francecommemorates his conversion to Catholicism and his bap-tism in A.D. 496. He was instrumental in spreading the Catho-lic religion in a barbarian Europe.

Jeanne d’Arc (1412–1431). This young woman was themystical, religious liberator of France from the English. Heractions also began a consolidation of French power, since, atthe time, the area that is now France was divided into mul-tiple fiefdoms. She was burnt alive as a heretic, something forwhich the French have still not quite forgiven the English,and canonized as a saint in 1920. Revered as the patron saint

26

of France, she has been used by the extreme right-wing FrontNational (F.N., or National Front) party as a rallying symbol.

Louis XIV (1638–1715). Louis XIV, the sun king, waslargely responsible for the centralization of power and influ-ence in France at a national level. He reigned as absolutemonarch and was preoccupied with glory and etiquette. Thecastle of Versailles is proof of the extravagance and splendorthat characterized his domination of the country. His elegantcourt was the backdrop for many political intrigues, a tradi-tion continued in the courts of his successors. Under hisreign, France experienced her most glorious and frivolousdecades and her mission civilisatrice to the world waslaunched.

Revolutionary Figures (1789–1799). Several important fig-ures emerged during this period: Danton, Robespierre, Marat,Louis XVI, and his wife Marie-Antoinette. The Revolutioncrystallized and legitimized public protest and insurrection asa means of taking power. It was echoed in massive protestsand strikes in May 1968 and December 1995. It took itsinspiration from the Enlightenment philosophy that alsoshaped the American Revolution thirteen years earlier. TheFrench were not, however, gaining independence from a co-lonial power. They actually brought down the entire politicalstructure and ultimately replaced a hereditary monarchy witha representative democracy. It was a true transfer of powerfrom one class to another. The Revolution promoted theabolition of the class system represented by la Noblesse, leClergé, and le Tiers-Etat (the nobility, the clergy, and thecommon people). It also hastened the decline of the Catholicchurch both spiritually and politically. The bicentennial ofthe Revolution in 1989 was marked by parades, festivals,conferences, films, television programs, debates, and an ava-lanche of books and articles.

Napoléon (1769–1821). Perhaps more than any other singleperson, Napoléon, emperor of the French, left his mark onFrance and determined to no small extent what it is today.


He changed the face and destiny not only of France but ofmuch of the world as well. His original goal was therayonnement (shining the light) of French culture as expressedin the ideals of the Revolution and the Declaration of theRights of Man and Citizen—the mission civilisatrice in po-litical form. He reorganized the French administrative andlegal system (the Napoleonic Code) and consolidated andcentralized the government and the economy. He shapedFrench culture to this day by founding or reorganizing someof its most important institutions, including the Banque deFrance (equivalent to the Federal Reserve Bank), the Légiond’Honneur (France’s highest award for military or civilianachievement), and the grandes écoles that established theimportance of engineering in the French educational system.

He also supported fine and performing arts as well as sci-entific and historical research. Archaeological finds made inEgypt during one of Napoléon’s expeditions allowedChampollion to discover the key to hieroglyphics. He foundedthe Institut de France by regrouping and reorganizing fiveexisting académies, including the famous and influentialAcadémie Française, which oversees the content and purityof the French language.

Charles de Gaulle (1890–1970). Charles de Gaulle was presi-dent of the French Republic from 1958 to 1969. General deGaulle was the quintessential French hero who restoredFrance’s honor and her national soul after the defeat byGermany. He led the Free French forces from London duringWorld War II and is seen as the liberator of the Frenchnation. He led the postwar government from 1944–1946 andwas called back to power in 1958 during the Algerian crisis.He founded the Fifth Republic (new political regime), rein-forced presidential authority by implementing universal suf-frage (1962), and resigned in April 1969 following nation-wide strikes and protests by workers and high school anduniversity students (May 1968). He went on to attain a trulymythic stature in the eyes of many of his generation.

28

François Mitterrand (1916–1996). François Mitterand waspresident of the French Republic from 1981 to 1995, thelongest serving twentieth-century French president and thefirst socialist president of the Fifth Republic. He implementedthe first decentralization efforts in French history and was astrong promoter of the European Union. He was instrumentalin abolishing the death penalty in France and in expandingthe role of French diplomacy and military forces in worldaffairs, for instance, in the Gulf War and in Bosnia. He willbe remembered for his efforts toward social progress and abetter quality of life. One of his governments reduced theworkweek to thirty-nine hours and added a fifth week ofmandatory paid vacation. Through a series of ambitious andcontroversial construction projects known as les GrandsTravaux (the Great Works)—the Pyramide du Louvre, theArche de la Défense, the new Bibliothèque Nationale, andothers—he left his signature on the Paris skyline. During thefinal years of his life, several major controversies came tolight, tarnishing to some degree the reputation he had builtduring his ascent to power and tenure at the Elysée Palace(equivalent to the White House).

Lessons from the Past

The importance of history and its connection to the presentand the future can be a sticking point in French-Americaninteractions, both in politics and in business. Incidents inthe closing days of World War II have had a profound influ-ence on French foreign policy decisions. In 1940, after thefall of France, de Gaulle moved to London and formed theFrance Libre (Free France) government in exile. Churchillhelped in this effort, albeit reluctantly at times. Meanwhile,Franklin Roosevelt recognized the Pétain puppet govern-ment of France in Vichy, which was in fact controlled byGermany and had sentenced de Gaulle to death; furthermore,Roosevelt’s friend Admiral Leahy served as U.S. ambassador


to Vichy from December 1940 to April 1941. These actionsaccount for de Gaulle’s initial mistrust of Roosevelt and theUnited States.

The relationship between the French and American lead-ers became more strained after the United States entered thewar in 1941. Roosevelt, who in return did not trust de Gaulle,perceived himself as a political and military leader in a globalconflict. France was a minor player in the worldwide struggle.De Gaulle, on the other hand, was determined to put Franceback into the war and to restore its independence. Theirdiffering goals led them to take actions that were sometimesat odds with each other. Roosevelt planned for an Alliedoccupation force and military government to be installed inFrance after D-Day, as if it were a defeated enemy nation. DeGaulle instead sent his own followers in quickly to take overpositions occupied by the Vichy government and set aboutreconstructing the French army and restoring republican or-der. In a strongly symbolic move, he ordered General Leclercto march the French army into Paris, in direct defiance ofEisenhower’s plan to arrive first with the Americans.

Such events form a backdrop of mistrust and some resent-ment in French dealings with Americans. Their history tellsthem to be wary, and though they may recognize a bit grudg-ingly the role of the United States as leader of the world, theFrench prefer to go their own way when they can rather thanbe seen as blindly following the American lead. This wasclearly illustrated—by de Gaulle once again—during theNATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) crisis in 1966,when France withdrew from the military command and closedNATO bases in the country. The desire to show France’sindependence from U.S. influence in thought and action didnot die with de Gaulle and is almost a reflex in most Frenchpoliticians: France’s refusal to allow American military planesto use French air space on their way to bomb Libya;Mitterrand’s official invitation and reception of Fidel Castrofor a state visit; and President Jacques Chirac’s involvement

30

in the Middle East peace process. The pattern suggested bythese events indicates that the French may be wary of Ameri-can initiatives simply because they are American. The actualmerits of the initiative may not be the issue.

Despite the success of American pop culture, the Frenchtend to be suspicious of the tidal wave of worldwide Ameri-canization and standardization. They worry that it may sweepaway their uniqueness and identity as French people. Theirconcerns are not only political and economic; they reverber-ate in the cultural area as well, as the French see their youthbeing caught up in the dehumanization of mass consumption.

Americans doing business in France need to take thistouchiness into account. They may be seen as purveyors ofAmerican cultural uniformity first, regardless of their per-sonal beliefs or the merits of their product, proposal, or man-agement practices. Some Americans may be aware of thisperception, but in any case, the weight of the past and thehistory of French-American tensions will not make their taskan easy one. Bringing the best the United States has to offermay not be the advantage American businesspeople mightbelieve it to be, as demonstrated by the experience of corpo-rations from Coca-Cola to Disney.

The past should also be taken into account in French-American business relations if the parties involved want tobuild a better future together. This means that Americansneed to show an interest in the history of the company theyare dealing with or acquiring and acknowledge the company’sheritage and traditions that give its employees a sense ofidentity and security.

Implementing change simply to stamp the newmanagement’s mark on the organization, or because changeand the future are more valued in the United States, wouldclearly devalue this heritage and what the company has ac-complished. Taking a company in a completely new organi-zational direction without consulting or involving anyonefrom the past would cut the organization off from its roots and


send the message that the company’s past is valueless. Thewisest decision might be to rely on cultural and historicalinformants, people who have been with the company for along time, have witnessed its progress and difficulties, and areaware of its traditions, rituals, and symbols. By involvingexperienced and company-seasoned people in the process ofdefining a new direction and future, the new managementshows both respect and appreciation for what has beenachieved thus far.

33

4

They Drive Me Crazy!Ils Me Rendent Dingue!

Default Mode

Any description of a culture (The French are…; Americanstend to be…) invokes an implicit comparison or contrast:The French are…compared with what? Americans tend tobe…compared with what? Just as the mistakes of a nonnativeEnglish speaker tell you a great deal about the grammar andvocabulary of his or her native tongue, descriptions and ste-reotypes reveal at least as much about the describing cultureas they do about the culture being described.

Computer programmers use the term default mode to de-scribe what the computer does if it is not given specific instruc-tions. Using this as a metaphor, we can think of our ownculture as our default mode. When we look at another culture’svalues and behaviors, we are unconsciously comparing them toour own default mode and judging them accordingly.

For example, many Americans complain that Frenchpeople, and particularly French shop and restaurant owners,are not friendly. French default mode for a shopkeeper sellinga croissant would involve a polite smile or a more neutral

34

expression and the following interaction with the customer:“Bonjour, Madame. What would you like? Plain or butter?Anything else? That will be 5FF. Thank you and good-bye.”

This is an example of French default mode—what theFrench feel is normal, correct, proper, the right way to dothings, the way things should be done. From an Americancustomer’s perspective, it might be described as polite butaloof, distant, and not friendly or personal—compared withthe American default mode.

The notion that salesclerks should be friendly and personalis an important element in American culture, an example ofwhich is the bagger in the supermarket—a position whichrarely exists in Europe—who wears a name tag and usuallyaddresses the customer with a friendly smile: “Hi. Would youlike paper or plastic? Would you like some help loading thisin your car? Thanks for shopping at Johnson Foods and havea great day!”

Compared with the French mode illustrated above, thisU.S. mode—what Americans consider normal, correct,proper, the right way to do things, the way things should bedone—might appear forced, artificial, insincere, and even alittle invasive to the average French person.

In Southern California, and increasingly elsewhere in theUnited States, the assumption is that waiters and waitressesshould be very friendly and personable. “Hi, I’m Heather, andit’s my pleasure to be your waitress tonight. We have somereally great specials I’d like to tell you about. They’re alldelicious, but my personal favorite is the shrimp fajitas sea-soned with cilantro and epazote; they are just fabulous!”

To Americans not yet used to it, Southern California de-fault mode might seem just a bit over the top. To the French,friendly and personable servers are probably going to seemmanic and almost offensively personal. What we need toremember, then, is that we don’t have to change or give upour default mode; we just have to be aware that it is our modeand not the mode.

They Drive Me Crazy! Ils Me Rendent Dingue! 35

Perceptions and Stereotypes

French and American people know quite a lot about oneanother—or at least they think they do. Ask the averageFrench person to tell you about Americans, and he or she willprobably go on for quite some time about life in the UnitedStates—based primarily on exposure to TV’s Baywatch andFriends.

Similarly, if you were born in the United States after about1950, your first knowledge of France and French cultureprobably came from a romantic little cartoon skunk fromWarner Brothers named Pépé Le Pew. Before you ever heardof France, before you ever met a single French person, if youhad met Pépe, you already knew that the French are wildlyromantic. And that they smell awful.

We all have images or stereotypes that come to mind whenwe think about other cultures. These images may be based onpersonal experiences, what we have seen and heard fromother people, or from books, films, and television. Stereo-types are inevitable because they help us classify quickly andefficiently the world we experience, but they are neverthelessdistortions of reality and need to be examined carefully andchallenged—preferably with thoughtful intercultural analy-sis. We should also keep in mind that our images of otherpeople say as much about us as they do about them.

At one international company, managers from severalcountries who were participating in an in-house leadershipseminar were asked to give their opinions about people fromother cultures. Here are some of their responses concerningthe French and Americans.

Stereotypes and Generalizations about the French. The French• believe that if God lived on earth, he would live in

France.

• have a different idea of personal hygiene.

• are culture and language elitists; they are arrogant.

36

• engage in endless discussions without coming to a de-cision.

• seek perfection before taking action.

• are aloof and unfriendly.

• openly show emotion, are temperamental.

• are formal and class- and status-conscious.

• are reluctant to change.

• show no respect for rules, procedures, and deadlines.

Stereotypes and Generalizations about Americans. Americans• are loud, vulgar, unsophisticated, and uncultured.

• are slaves to a money culture that is no culture.

• believe that the American way is the only way.

• act first, then think; shoot from the hip.

• are superficial.

• need to be the first everywhere and are cultural impe-rialists.

• believe in the “change is best” policy.

• are extravagant and exaggerate grossly.

• give more importance to glitter and hype than to sub-stance.

• are obsessed with time.Some of these stereotypes are obviously mirror images. Forthe French, Americans are too time-conscious, while Ameri-cans find that the French are not time-conscious enough.While stereotypes are generally negative, they can also bepositive. Some of these above indicate potential for sharing,for taking the best from both cultures, or at least for findingsomething to appreciate. For example, Americans admireFrench people’s romantic flair, their ability to balance workand private life, and their joie de vivre, while the French are


impressed by American efficiency and organization, customerorientation, and ability to get things done rapidly. Beforegoing into further analysis, we will discuss some basic culturalcharacteristics that are not shared across cultures and thataccount for some of these stereotypes and misunderstandings.

Style, Form, and Substance. Style—in dress, manners, con-versation, and in presenting oneself—is an important pointof divergence. The French prefer a certain restraint, whileAmericans are more informal. The French dress with under-stated elegance; Americans like bright, even flashy, colorsand comfortable lines.

In conversation French people prefer to make their pointsquite directly but in well-phrased, articulate arguments. Thelinguistic subtleties may be lost on Americans, who hear onlythe brutally frank (for them) opinions. American conversa-tions and presentations, on the other hand, are designed toimpress. The listeners become an audience, and fancy bind-ers, graphics, and hyperbole are used to make a strong case.

The French generally feel that the “meat” of a discussionor presentation should speak for itself. An American receiv-ing a stapled stack of black-and-white documents instead ofan attractive, full-color brochure might take the lack of em-bellishment as a sign of inadequate preparation or a lack ofconfidence in the proposal. For the French person, the elabo-rate American brochure might be seen as an attempt to maska lack of substance with glitter and flash.

Cultural Superiority and Language Elitism. Many Frenchpeople feel that everyone should aspire to speak French. Anycivilized, sophisticated, and educated person should possessthis linguistic key to culture itself. While the French derideAmericans’ lack of foreign language competency, they oftentake a perverse pride in mangling “utterly unpronounceable”English words and are not themselves noted for being multi-lingual.

France reinforces its sense of linguistic superiority by hav-ing an official body that actually makes decisions regarding

38

what is and what is not proper French. The AcadémieFrançaise (www.academie-francaise.fr), founded by the Car-dinal Duc de Richelieu, was officially established by LouisXIII in 1635.

He [Richelieu] believed that we could not do better than tocommence with the most noble of all arts, namely, eloquence.The French language, which has suffered much hitherto fromneglect on the part of those who might have rendered it themost perfect of modern tongues, is now more capable thanever of taking its high place, owing to the great number ofpersons who possess a special knowledge of the advantageswhich it enjoys and who can augment these advantages. Thecardinal informed us [Louis XIII] that, with a view of estab-lishing fixed rules for the language, he had arranged meetingsof scholars whose decisions in these matters had met with hishearty approval, and that in order to put these decisions intoexecution and render the French language not only elegantbut capable of treating all the arts and sciences, it would onlybe necessary to perpetuate these gatherings. (Isambert 1906,182)

One of the relatively few institutions of the Ancien Régimeto have survived virtually intact to the present day, theAcadémie’s primary activity is to produce a comprehensivedictionary of the French language. “Every Thursday after-noon, for eight months of the year, the forty members of theAcadémie [optimistically called the Immortals] meet for onehour to discuss the dictionary. The last edition, the eighth,was published in 1935 and they have been at work on theninth edition ever since” (Marnham 1994, 29). As of Decem-ber 1999, they were up to L.

For an institution whose operations move at the pace of aglacier, the Académie provides quite a lot of action in thepolitical arena. The business of deciding who will or will notoccupy a fauteuil (armchair) at the Palais Conti is fraughtwith politicking and issues that go far beyond literature or


scholarship. Influential people in many areas of French lifeapply subtle and not-so-subtle pressure on the Immortals inthe hope of gaining acceptance for their protégés.

Another example of the linguistic aspect of the missioncivilisatrice is la Francophonie, which can be translatedroughly as “the French-speaking world.” The French govern-ment actively supports the teaching and preservation ofFrench in former colonies and elsewhere, including Louisi-ana in the United States. There is a parliamentary commis-sion for la Francophonie, L’Agence de la Francophonie, thatregularly holds a world conference. At the 1997 conferencein Vietnam, Boutros Boutros-Ghali was elected SecretaryGeneral of the organization. World Francophonie Day isMarch 20.

Conversely, many Americans don’t see why they need tolearn any foreign language, since English is by default theinternational lingua franca. In addition, many Americans,seeing the worldwide popularity of such American classics asLevi’s, McDonald’s, and Coca-Cola, may assume that every-one is Americanized to some extent.

Hygiene and Odors. The issue of cleanliness comes up againand again when French people and Americans come together.Americans complain that the French don’t wash enough,while the French find that Americans are overly concernedwith germs. While the French palate has developed to a pointwhere it can taste a certain wine and determine what side ofthe mountain the grapes grew on, the American nose seemsto be particularly sensitive to body odors. Proverbs such as“Cleanliness is next to godliness” suggest the almost sacra-mental nature of hygiene for Americans. Not surprisingly,American companies have developed a vast array of productsto help people avoid offending others.

French people feel that a little natural odor is not neces-sarily objectionable. While France remains the world leaderin fine perfumes, the idea of using deodorant to mask normalbody odor has still not gained wide acceptance. In a European

40

survey, researchers found that the French are among the mostresistant to deodorant—only half of those surveyed use it—although they were close to average in their consumption ofsoap. Despite the gradual disappearance of the famous bidetin the home, the average French person takes one bath and4.4 showers a week, making him or her one of the best-washed Europeans (Economist 1995, 56). Until they come tothe United States, the French simply do not realize thatnatural body smell can be a serious problem. Therefore,Americans in France may simply have to adapt.

Thinking and Doing. The artworks of a culture express itsvalues. It is no accident that one of the great masterpieces ofAmerican art is Grant Wood’s American Gothic, showing astern-faced farmer and his daughter in front of their farm-house. The father holds a pitchfork. These people clearlyhave work to do and are serious about it.

It is no accident either that one of the great French mas-terpieces is Rodin’s The Thinker, a statue of a man sitting—and thinking. French society values thought and ideas fortheir own sake. They may or may not have any practicalapplication, and either way is fine. For the pragmatic, “can-do” Americans, this attitude is hard to understand and evenmore difficult to appreciate. What good is something thatserves no practical purpose?

This thinking versus doing orientation is often the sourceof friction between the French and Americans, but it is rarelyrecognized, particularly in business, where the pragmaticAmerican approach clashes with the slower-paced, intellec-tual French one. We will examine this in some detail inchapter 14, “Dialogue between Two Worlds.”

In the next few chapters we look at French and Americanways of living and relating to the world around them.

Part IIFace-to-Face…

43

5

With the Self

Because of significant differences in the perception of selfbetween French and Americans, we will give this subjectspecial attention. This chapter is divided into three parts: acultural approach to the self and individualism in the twocountries, a discussion of important American “self”-relatednotions and their French equivalents, and an analysis of theconcept of privacy and its repercussions on interpersonalcommunication.

A Cultural Approach to the Self and Individualism

What do I call my “self”? Language clearly illustrates thecentrality of the self in the United States. More than onehundred words begin with the prefix self-, including self-conscious, self-esteem, self-centered, self-realization, self-denial,and self-reliance, to name just a few. The equivalent of thesewords cannot be found in most other languages, and Frenchis no exception. The only usage of self adopted by the Frenchis self-service; le self means a “self-service restaurant.”

The French equivalent of the American self would be le soi(as in confiance en soi, self-confidence), but the word hasnever been elevated to the rank of a concept or value. There-

44

fore, it is difficult to talk about a person’s soi. A more appro-priate way to relate to the French person’s self would be todescribe his or her personality, which can naturally havehundreds of facets. Personnalité (personality) is in fact one ofthe most accurate cultural translations of self in French.

Another way to approach the notion of self in Francewould be to refer to the person’s ego, as in égocentrique (ego-centric or self-centered). However, the average French per-son does not generally relate to the word ego, as the conceptis reserved for the domain of philosophers or psychoanalysts.Nor is the notion of a “big ego” a part of French culture,another indication that the concept of self is different inFrance.

This does not mean that the French do not express their“selves.” Their means of doing so, however, is very differentfrom what an American would understand as “self-expres-sion.” In general, French people tend to be more concernedwith who they are, individually and socially, than with whatthey can do or what they have achieved. They think ofthemselves in terms of what school they went to, what posi-tion they occupy in a company, or what social level they havereached either by birth or by acceptance in a specific circle.A simple word or title often says it all, and people easilyassociate the person with the context and the meaning ofthat context.

Many American sociologists believe that because of theerosion of traditional values in American society, the self hastaken on the importance of a “cultural quantum,” occupyingcenter stage in a person’s life, with activities chosen andcarried out in order to satisfy or fulfill that self. Americansociety encourages us with numerous success stories based onthe achievements of a single individual, the self-made man orwoman. Even the popular notion of leadership implies indi-vidual success when a person stands out from the crowd inorder to lead the group.

For Americans, the importance of one’s achievements is

With the Self 45

paramount. The American expression of the self takes theform of action or “doing,” whereas a French person wouldrather express her or his “being” with insights, ideas, or cre-ative observations. What the person is really capable of doingor has achieved is secondary. The French language does nothave an equivalent for this action-oriented word, achieve-ment. The closest translation would be accomplishment orrealization, in the sense of making something real (e.g.,réaliser un rêve, “to make a dream come true”).

Difference in France is valued because it brings creativityand originality to the fore. In this sense, the French valueindividuality: the right to be different, to express one’s opin-ions, and, most importantly, to stand out from the rest of thegroup while remaining part of it. This contrasts with theAmerican approach to individualism, understood as self-reli-ance and independence, where actions are taken in order tobenefit the self and fulfill its desires. Individualism worksdifferently in the two countries, and generalizations aboutWestern cultures being individualistic need to take this intoaccount.

A vivid example of French individualism in action tookplace on an overnight flight between Washington, D.C., andParis. A seasoned traveler in a two-seat section offered hisseat to a young woman who wished to chat with his neighbor.As the central five-seat section next to him was occupied byonly one Frenchwoman, he thought he could simply sit therefor a few minutes. “I’m sorry,” the woman told him, “butthese are my seats and I’m just about to lie down so I can getsome rest.” At that point, the Frenchwoman’s husband camefrom behind and sat in the first seat of the middle section,preventing the startled traveler from sitting there. Hethought, Okay, I’d better give in or things will heat up à lafrançaise. It’s not worth getting into a fight with these twomorons!

French individualism is expressed toward others in thesense that it tends to negate other people’s contributions or

46

even their presence. A person lighting up a cigarette in anonsmoking area could be sending this implicit message toothers: I don’t care about your well-being and I don’t care ifsmoke is going to bother you.

A French person who keeps bringing up his or her argu-ments in a group well after a consensus has been reached [theperson arguing can also be part of the consensus!] sends themessage: I don’t care about the harmony of the group, mypersonal ideas are still more important and more valuablethan the group’s making a decision.

A person “borrowing” a book in a public library in France—and, as we’ve noted, not returning it—is indirectly saying, Idon’t care if no one can use the book after me. I need it formyself, and, after all, the city is there to provide for thepublic good. They will replace the book anyway.

This attitude may seem close to simple selfishness, but it isdeeper than that. At its root, French individualism negatesthe “Other.” As British writer Richard Hill noted, the Frenchhave “a visceral urge to assert their individuality on theother” (1994, 53). In the examples above, an individual af-firms his or her individuality by negating the Other, whichcan be a person, a group of colleagues, or the general public.The Other is not instrumental to one’s growth and develop-ment, and one neither needs nor expects positive feedbackfrom the Other in order to thrive. In many situations, thebasic assumption is that little can be gained from the Other,and one’s ideas or personal satisfaction remain more impor-tant in any case.

We can say that for French people, the Other is part oftheir contextual environment, but without much value. Of-ten, the Other is a stranger, an unknown person, or thegeneral public. It might also be a colleague or an acquain-tance who impedes one’s satisfaction or happiness. However,family and intimate friends are never considered Others.They are rather an extension of the self. Family ties andobligations of friendship must be honored and leave no room

With the Self 47

for the standard expressions of French individualism describedabove. In other words, the type and strength of personalrelationship involved determines who is Other and who isnot.

This kind of detachment and extreme independence isforeign to Americans and distresses them when they encoun-ter it in the French. American individualism does not negatethe Other. Instead, it needs the Other in order to reinforcethe self. Feedback provided by colleagues or supervisors boostsa person’s self-esteem, and compliments are continuallysought. The Other—and his or her opinion—constitutes anessential nourishment for a person, and Americans place agreat deal of value in what Others have to say about them.The importance of the Other in American culture is illus-trated by a strong need to be liked and a tendency for peopleto avoid, or at least soften, negative criticism when providingfeedback. In general, one is expected to be a “nice guy” whopromotes peoples’ ideas and spreads a positive attitude. Froma French perspective, American individualism appears closerto self-centeredness.

Paradoxically, France, as we’ve noted, is a country wheresolidarity matters, regardless of lack of concern about theOther. People are willing to pay huge social dues to supportthe unemployed and the poorest citizens. Even the tax systemreflects this value with a not particularly popular tax on thewealthy called Impôt de Solidarité sur la Fortune (SolidarityTax on Wealth).

The French might complain when the country is caught upin massive strikes but are generally not outraged. Other “revo-lutionary” efforts to make things happen are, in typical Frenchfashion, also usually well received by the public. More thantwo-thirds of the Parisians polled in December 1995 sup-ported the claims of the employees who shut down the publictransportation system for three weeks in Paris. While com-muters were inconvenienced and lost time and money, theydid not judge the situation only in terms of how it affected

48

them individually, since the actions were being taken for thegreater good of a specific group or for the benefit of the entireregion.

Americans hardly ever experience the paralytic effects ofa true strike, but when they are forced, for example, to strugglethrough traffic jams on the way to work because of a shut-down of public transit, they take it almost as a personalattack. “How dare those clowns prevent me from getting towork? Just who the hell do they think they are?”

The French lack of regard for individual Others—even thetendency to affirm one’s self by negating them—does not,then, generally extend to social and political affairs, wherethe French are usually more likely than Americans to standtogether against an institutional Other such as the govern-ment or top management. The paradox between French soli-darity and individualism can be summed up as follows: “On apersonal level, I don’t care if my cigarette smoke irritates you,but I will hold up the other end of your protest banner as wemarch together against the government!”

The contrast between French and American individualismand the concept of the self can be further illustrated by thekinds of heroes they idealize.

French heroes reflect the importance of doing somethinggood for the people or the nation. Jeanne d’Arc, CharlesMartel (who stopped the Arab invasion at Poitiers in 732),and General de Gaulle are typical French heroes. By theirtalent and actions, they saved France from foreign invasionand bestowed upon the country a sense of pride and glory.Despite the controversy surrounding him, the Abbé Pierre,an activist priest, represents the typical French hero of mod-ern times. His dedication to help the homeless and fightpoverty has made him one of the most popular men in Francetoday. Other modern heroes might be sports figures such asMichel Platini, a famous soccer player during the 1980s, and

With the Self 49

Zinedine Zidane, who led the French World Cup team tovictory in 1998. All these people have brought fame, honor,or glory to France and, from a French point of view, havemade it more worthy of respect in the eyes of the world. Ofcourse, Americans also admire similar heroes such as ThomasJefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Eleanor Roosevelt, MartinLuther King Jr., John F. Kennedy, Rosa Parks, and others whoimproved the lives of millions through their personal effortsand struggles.

In recent years, though, another type of American herohas emerged, possibly in connection with the adulation ofcelebrities: the individual who succeeds by surmounting somebarrier to self-realization or by surviving personal challenges.People like Christopher Reeve or Captain Scott O’Grady,the American pilot who survived for six days in the woodsafter being downed in Bosnia in 1996, could hardly reach thehigh levels of popularity in France that they enjoy in theUnited States. Similarly, “rags to riches” self-made individu-als such as Andrew Carnegie would be admired in Francemore for their philanthropic efforts than for fighting theirway from poverty to wealth. These people’s individual ac-tions and struggles wouldn’t make them especially worthy ofrespect; they merely fought or are fighting for their ownsurvival, something anyone would do in a similar situation.Although their endeavors are valuable, they did not save anylives or work for the good of others and thus, in French eyes,did not achieve anything extraordinary.

But in American eyes, these heroes represent role modelswho inspire people. Because of the examples of strength andcourage they offer to Others in their daily lives, they havebecome popular. An American then uses these examples,these Others, to strengthen and develop his or her own self.Because they serve as great models of self-reliance and self-help, the behavior of such American heroes affects everyindividual.

50

Important American “Self”-Related Notions andTheir French Equivalents

Since the self and its attendant concepts have a central andunique role in American culture, it is useful to examine someself-related notions that have no direct equivalent in Frenchculture.

Self-Help and Self-Reliance. These two notions exemplifythe importance of a person standing on his or her own twofeet in American culture. These ideas are taught early on toyoung children, who are expected to strike out on their ownand be responsible for themselves as early in their lives aspossible. Even though these concepts are positively receivedin French culture, they do not carry the same weight as in theUnited States. “God helps those who help themselves” trans-lates into French as “Aide-toi, le ciel t’aidera” (“Help yourselfand heaven will help you”)—but in everyday life, help isprimarily understood as being given from one person to an-other.

The wide range of books on “self-help” in any Americanbookstore would puzzle a French person accustomed to adifferent and more relational support system, though smallself-help sections featuring translations of American worksare beginning to appear in large Parisian bookstores. At theFNAC, France’s largest and trendsetting bookstore, however,the self-help books were not up front with the best-sellers,but were in a subsection of “Esoteric Readings.”

Self-reliance does not translate directly into French either.The word indépendance expresses a person’s ability to func-tion on his or her own, and a reliable person is by definitionsomeone you can count on. It is difficult to express in Frenchthat a person should count primarily on her- or himself.

A sense of independence is certainly favored by Frenchparents when socializing their children, and youngsters rap-idly learn to live and navigate within the parameters of Frenchsociety. In other words, being self-reliant means not just

With the Self 51

going along with the complexities of French society but alsobeing able, through a combination of cleverness and daring,to use it to one’s advantage. A person with this capability iscalled débrouillard(e), which translates culturally into Englishas “resourceful.” Brouillard literally means “fog” and unepersonne débrouillarde knows how to untangle things, where togo, or whom to reach to make things happen and avoidhassles. The typically French notion of débrouillardise refersespecially to the ability to deal with complex situations andto find one’s own way out of the maze of red tape in Frenchsociety.

Esteem and Self-Esteem. Americans base their awareness ofself on the assumption that their individual actions will bringresults and lead to greater personal development and ad-vancement. The importance of action is reflected in notionssuch as self-realization or self-actualization, which are syn-onymous with growth and development.

Self-esteem, then, is a direct and significant result of rec-ognition by Others. Consistent with notions of individualismdiscussed earlier, esteem works the other way around inFrance. The term self-esteem can be created in French (estimede soi), but it does not exist in common parlance and is notused as in the United States.* Estime in France is an expres-sion of the respect and appreciation you show toward others,not yourself. You can have a lot of esteem for someone, and“to esteem” is a transitive verb in French (J’estime cettepersonne). Esteem is a feeling of admiration and respect onedevelops for another person once a relationship of some sorthas been established.

* In April 1999 a book called Estime de soi: S’aimer pour mieuxvivre avec les autres (Self-Esteem: Love Yourself to Live Better withOthers) was published by the Editions Odile Jacob in Paris. Thisis the first usage of the term that we are aware of in a book aimedat the general public. Written by two psychiatrists, ChristopheAndré and François Lelord, it cites primarily U.S. source mate-rials in the bibliography.

52

Although the verb to esteem and the notion of esteem forsomeone else are given in an English dictionary, the currentusage of esteem shows how American culture has shifted to-ward a more self-oriented pattern of appreciation. This read-ing of self-esteem may not resonate with French people, butthey will fight fiercely to preserve a core characteristic oftheir self: their honor.

The French Sense of Honor. An American woman teachingEnglish to adults in France had an unnerving conversationwith a prospective student.

He wanted to sign up for an intensive two-week program andwas convinced that he could just about become bilingual inthat time. When I asked him why he wanted to learn Englishso quickly, he explained that he had applied for a job with aninternational development project and that fluent Englishwas required. He had apparently sworn on his honor that hespoke fluent English, so now he had to learn it, and fast.“Vous comprenez, Madame, mon honneur, j’y tiens!” (“Youunderstand, Madam, that I have a great sense of honor!”) Iwas so flabbergasted that all I could say was, “Then why onearth did you lie?”

Honneur in French is specifically the feeling that one hasmoral dignity, personal pride in dealing with others. It is some-thing that must be defended, but not always in the way thatAmericans might expect. In the example above, the studentfelt he had to defend his honor by learning English, bringingreality into line with his oath. For the American teacher, hehad already lost his honor by making an oath that was false.

Many foreign observers agree that the French value per-sonal honor and integrity above all. A French person’s honorrefers both to his or her personal pride and to notions ofindividual dignity. It represents a person’s most importantmoral asset. “Je déclare sur l’honneur” (“I swear on my honor”)gives the strongest proof of the person’s good faith and hon-esty. It would be roughly equivalent to a more popular form

With the Self 53

of oath taking in the United States: “I swear to God.”Perdre son honneur (to lose one’s honor—for instance, in

the example above, if the employer finds out that the appli-cant doesn’t speak English) would certainly be the most ter-rible thing that can happen to a French person. Dependingon the circumstances and the environment, it might alsomean the person will lose face, a very embarrassing situationin a culture that strongly values relationships and commu-nity. In France if one becomes known as a liar, one’s reputa-tion is tarnished, and as a result, that person may never againbe taken seriously. Saving face in the United States is less aquestion of establishing facts and more a matter of maintain-ing one’s image. Spin management and skillful counterat-tacks are more important than a simple denial—or evenproof—of wrongdoing.

To safeguard one’s honor is as important in French cultureas preserving one’s psychological privacy. Yet, the Frenchnotion of privacy isn’t quite the same as what Americansfight for in their efforts against invasions of privacy.

Privacy and Protection of the Self

Privacy has been defined by L. Robert Kohls as the “ultimateresult of [American] individualism” (1988, 8). Privacy in theUnited States involves more than just keeping one’s nose outof other people’s business. Americans demand the right to beleft alone, to have time and space to be alone without inter-ference. Such a concept simply doesn’t make sense in morecollective cultures, and many French people find it odd thatsomeone would want to be alone just for the sake of beingalone. Phrases do exist in French to express such a need:Laisse-moi tranquille! or Fiche-moi la paix! However, they mightbe better translated as “Stop nagging me!” or “Get off myback!” Such a situation is quite specific and usually verybrief, plus you can ficher la paix to someone without leavingthe room.

54

Conversely, there is a stronger expressed need for privacyin France than in the United States in terms of physicalprivacy (protecting one’s territory) and psychological privacy(protecting one’s private realm). Foreigners notice how theFrench protect their physical property with fences and closedshutters at night. Also, the French invitation to “make your-self at home” entails many more restrictions than the Ameri-can equivalent. Guests in France have limited access to vari-ous areas in their host’s house. If they need an extra towel, forexample, they ask their host or hostess to get it for themrather than rooting through cupboards to find one. Americanguests, on the other hand, try to be helpful and not treat theirhosts like servants, while American hosts normally expectguests to help themselves—within reason—to what they needfrom kitchen and bathroom cabinets or the refrigerator.

Interestingly, there is no word in French to translate theAmerican concept of privacy. Depending on the context,people might use words and phrases like freedom, private life,personal intimacy, and even individual liberty and dignity, asillustrated by the Euro Disney incidents (see pages 4, 5). Afamous wiretapping case involving the RenseignementsGénéraux (French equivalent of the CIA) was labeled asatteinte à l’intimité de la vie privée (violation of the intimacy ofprivate life). Such elaborate phrases might sound pompous oreuphemistic to Americans, whose language allows them tosum up the incident more succinctly.

The French psychological privacy, the need to keep thingsto oneself or a tendency not to open up, is also a character-istic that often strikes Americans in France. There sometimesseems to be a wall around peoples’ private lives, the height ofwhich varies according to the person they meet. A totalstranger will get very little attention, not even a smile, whilean acquaintance may receive better treatment. An Americanpsychologist who lived in France for several years describedthe French personality with a brilliant metaphor:

With the Self 55

The French personality is like a solid house surrounded by abeautiful formal garden and protected by a high wall in whichare set pieces of [jagged] glass. It is difficult to get in the gate,but once you are inside, you are cordially received in a fasci-nating atmosphere. One is overwhelmed. Then the problemarises about how you’re going to get out. (Wylie 1981, 60)

We often use the metaphor of a coconut and a peach tocontrast French and American personalities. The coconuthas a tough and not very appealing shell that contains pleas-ant meat and liquid within. The peach, on the other hand, issoft and inviting but has a hard core that is difficult orimpossible to get into.

French culture strongly emphasizes a characteristic calledpudeur in relation to interpersonal communication. The clos-est English translation would be “self-restraint.” Frenchpeople learn early on that personal information should not berevealed to just anyone and that a certain degree of intimacymust be reached before a person can open up. The amount ofprivate information French people deliver in public is there-fore much less than in the United States. Talking about one’sprivate life, or personal or family problems, to a person youdo not know intimately would be considered inappropriateand weak, not to mention shallow.

As an example, compare the behavior of people sittingnext to each other on domestic flights in France and in theUnited States. In France—and in fact, in most of Europe—people sitting next to each other rarely speak and rapidly finda book to read or another “safe” occupation that maintainsthe psychological wall around them. Even if they decide toenter a conversation, it will always be very casual and neu-tral. Americans, on the other hand, are much more inclinedto strike up a friendly conversation with seatmates, some-times getting into relatively personal subjects.

A French person who reveals details about his or her pri-vate life to un inconnu (an unknown person) would be con-

56

sidered promiscuous in the sense that he or she is sharingintimate information with a total stranger in the same way heor she would with a spouse, parent, or close friend. This is notacceptable to the French, who open up only to their familiesand to friends with whom they have long and trusted rela-tionships.

Americans would react similarly to a person who gives thesame Christmas gift to everyone—office colleagues, family,and friends—regardless of the significance of the relation-ship. Imagine someone giving identical boxes of chocolatesto coworkers, spouse, children, the mail carrier, and parents.People with a close relationship expect that a little more carewill go into the choice of a more personal gift.

Because of differing public and private spheres, it is some-times a challenge for Americans to bridge the cultural gapwith their French acquaintances and arrive at a mutuallysatisfying level of intimacy. French people, on the otherhand, know at what point they would invade another’s pri-vacy, and treat Americans the French way.

A few years ago, Alain, a French grad student at a Mid-western university, became involved in a French-Americanexchange program. At one point, he was asked to help clarifysome issues that were still unclear after lengthy telephonecalls between a French mother and an American motherregarding their children’s exchange visits.

While speaking with the French mother, Alain realizedshe was suffering from a serious disease. The American mothergot the same impression, but neither of them dared to ask anyfurther questions. Alain later escorted the American boy tothe French family’s town. Although she was obviously under-going serious medical treatments, the French mother nevermentioned anything to Alain or the young American boy andacted as if she were just fine. A year later, Alain learned thatthe mother had died from lung cancer. On hearing the news,the saddened American mother had a revelation: “This isFrench privacy.”

With the Self 57

While many people in the United States might like toshare their grief and suffering in order to receive emotionalsupport, such an attitude was deemed inappropriate by theFrench mother. She did not want to bother anyone outsideher family with news of her frail health. Such an attitude mayseem aloof and cold to Americans, but they should not takeit personally. Preserving one’s intimate circle and privacy isat the core of French culture.

In conclusion, there is no magical way to build relation-ships with the French. Americans should simply wait for therelationship to develop and for the person to open up a littlemore each time. Because of this “peach and coconut” differ-ence in personality, friendship has a somewhat differentmeaning in France than it does in the United States. De-tailed analysis appears in chapter 8, “With Friends.”

59

6

With the Family

The Family Circle

As in many European countries (particularly in the Latinones), the family plays a central role in French socializationand in French life in general. The French are not as likely asAmericans to relocate away from their families and, when itis economically possible, prefer to stay in the same geo-graphic area. The concept of family tends to include ex-tended family as well, often three or four generations.

A cultural assumption shared by many Americans is thatdependence, if not bad, is at least suspect. American parentsraise their children to be independent, to stand on their owntwo feet. Somewhere deep in [the American] psyche therelurks the conviction that in the end we have only ourselvesto fall back on.… In [French] culture, parents raise theirchildren to be dependent on the family, not in the sense ofbeing helpless but in the sense of relying on the family foradvice and support (both financial and emotional) and re-garding the family, rather than oneself, as the primary focusin life. (Wylie and Brière 1995, 81)

60

French families neither expect nor encourage young peopleto strike out on their own as early as possible. Universitystudents continue to live with their parents, if they can, and,if they cannot, return home for weekends and holidays.

A French student in the United States was amazed to findthat many of his classmates had chosen the university pre-cisely because it was located at some distance from theirparents’ home. Some of them had actually come from largecities with better schools, which he took as evidence thattheir desire for independence outweighed their concerns foreducational quality and reputation. Many American studentspay some or even most of their own expenses, working part-time or receiving financial aid, and this may also play a rolein establishing themselves as independent adults.

This tendency among the French to stay with one’s parentsas long as possible is reinforced during hard economic times.The difficulty of finding a first job and the perceived neces-sity of studying longer for a better degree make young adultsmore cautious about venturing out on their own. When prob-lems arise, they experience an especially strong urge to getback to the family circle for support and advice. Even youngadults who are working full-time may continue to live athome, and this raises no concerns about the adult child’scapacity to achieve independence. When a couple marries ormoves in together, however, they usually prefer to have theirown place, ideally not too far away from either family. Fami-lies often gather for the sacred tradition of Sunday lunch,either in the parents’ home or in a local restaurant. Lookaround the dining room if you have your Sunday lunch at acountry restaurant; you will see grandparents, parents, aunts,uncles, and cousins spending hours in animated conversa-tion. These traditions continue even with rising divorce ratesand other social problems.

In the United States, the concept of family usually encom-passes only the nuclear family, just the parents and children.This is the essentially autonomous unit, and these narrowly

With the Family 61

constituted families are expected to make their own decisionsabout where to work and live, what to do on vacation, andhow to spend or save their money pretty much indepen-dently.

The importance of retirement communities in the UnitedStates reflects the expectation that “active seniors” still wantto live and pursue their interests independently. Retirementfacilities in France are not developed in the same way. Re-gions like the Côte d’Azur, where climate attracts retirees, donot usually provide separate communities to meet their spe-cial needs. Retired couples or individuals simply buy a houseor apartment in the area and do not necessarily try to inte-grate with the locals or other retirees.

When an American couple marries, they establish theirown home and set their own priorities. Parents may be con-sulted for important decisions, but if, for example, a good jobis offered in another city or state, the offer is likely to beaccepted. If a French couple or family have to move away foreconomic reasons such as better job opportunities in Paris orother large cities, they will make an effort to return as oftenas possible on weekends and holidays. In fact, if a relative hasa large home in the country, at the beach, or in the moun-tains, the entire extended family may gather there during thelong summer vacation. This tradition is not reserved for thewell-to-do, as it tends to be in the United States.

The résidence secondaire (country home or apartment) playsan important family and social role in France. Some peopleeven prefer renting to buying their main residence in order tohave their own cottage in the country or apartment at aseaside resort. This attitude also suggests the importance ofquality time to be spent with relatives and friends outside theregular working and living environment.

Family time is so important in France that people rarelysacrifice it for additional income. Many Americans are eagerto make extra money by working weekends, evenings, or evena second job. For the French, the additional income does not

62

make up for the loss of time relaxing with family and friends.French employees may simply refuse to work overtime or onweekends, and this cultural position is reinforced by lawslimiting the demands employers can make.

The amount of time French families spend together, aswell as the physical proximity of relatives, supports a level offamily involvement in its members’ lives that many Ameri-cans might find irritating or even intolerable. Advice is of-fered, requested, and debated on many issues that in theUnited States would remain within the nuclear family or thecouple involved. The extended family serves as an activesupport network. Relatives, including godparents, are re-sources for finding a job, an apartment, a car, and any numberof products or services.

Isabelle, a young Frenchwoman living with her fiancé’sparents in Atlanta and looking for a job, was surprised torealize that she would not receive the same level of help fromher American prospective in-laws as she would expect inFrance. “They were willing to make introductory phone callsfor me but apparently unable or unwilling to ask friends andcolleagues directly for a job. I had a name and phone numberand it was up to me to take it from there.”

Like the hexagon, the circle is an important symbol inFrench social geometry. It describes the grouping pattern ofFrench families and friends, which has apparently remainedunchanged for centuries. At the end of each story of Astérix,the whole village gathers for a huge banquet to celebrate thevictory of its heroes. The table is an open circle, with winebarrels and wild boars roasting on a spit in the center. Onlyundesirable people—like the off-key bard Assurancetourix—are kept out of the circle, for obvious reasons. Anne Goscinny,daughter of one of Astérix’s creators, underlined the impor-tance of the ritual banquet that closes each story. With thecircle reestablished, cohesion returns to the village and acalm descends to silence the aggressions of the outside world.

If you are invited to a French family meal, you become part

With the Family 63

of this social circle. All guests gather around the same table,sharing the same food and the same conversation in mostcases, depending on the size of the table. A French meal canlast for hours, and five- to six-hour meals for special familyoccasions such as an engagement, first communion, and bap-tism are common. For weddings, the dinner often continuesthroughout the night and, in some regions, ends with thetraditional onion soup served at dawn.

This French tendency to form and preserve the circle isvery strong. In one instance we conducted a seminar with agroup of French expatriate women. Lunchtime arrived and acold buffet was set out. We all stood up and formed a circlearound the food, breaking that circle only to serve ourselves,and then getting back into our places. There was no formingof little clusters, as often happens in informal discussion inthe United States.

In another instance, a French expatriate woman recentlyarrived in the United States was having lunch with a groupof colleagues. She finished her dessert early and was eager togo out to smoke a cigarette, but she confessed to us, “I don’tfeel like I should get up and break the circle. We’re havingsuch a nice moment together that I would feel bad about it.”

Finally, the French family is a source of identity and iden-tification for its members. Being from a family with a goodreputation is an advantage in many situations in France,while membership in a disreputable family may be an impedi-ment. In the United States, people are supposed to be judgedon their own individual merits and are therefore able tosurmount more readily a disreputable family background. TheFrench family’s region of origin is also an important elementin an individual’s identity, even if no one in the family hasactually lived there for generations. A French person’s rootsgive him or her a vital sense of continuity and connected-ness, a sense of place and a sentimental attachment to thatplace. This accounts for some of the French reluctance tomove. Even moving “up” to Paris for improved job opportu-

64

nities, though necessary for personal advancement, may bedone with a heavy heart and plans will be made to go “home”as soon as economically possible.

In a large country such as the United States, where mobil-ity is an integral part of life, coworkers in San Antonio,Texas, will not be aware of the social status of a fellowworker’s family in Pasadena, California, and if they are in-formed of it, they are unlikely to be impressed or concerned.What you do as an individual is what counts and what formsthe basis of identity for most Americans. In other words, thefamily as a source of identity reflects the more communalaspect of French culture and its grounding in the past, whileidentity in the U.S. is an individual matter, grounded in thepresent and the future.

Child Rearing

An American told us about a particularly striking contrast hehad noticed between French and American cultures.

In Paris last month [Autumn 1999], I was walking down thestreet just behind a young mother and her two kids. As wepassed by a middle-aged woman and her small dog, the kids—about five and six years old—growled playfully at the dog.The owner turned around and scolded the kids brusquely andloudly. It was severe enough so that the children instantly fellsilent. They ran up to tell their mother, who was walkingahead, what had happened. At first she thought they meantthat the dog barked at them. When she realized it was thewoman who had “barked,” there was no real difference in thereaction—a grand indifference. A normal, acceptable hap-pening.

In a coffee shop in New York City last week [also 1999] at7:30 A.M., a young mother in her early thirties, with a two-year-old toddler, entered and greeted a friend, then sat down.The focus of the entire breakfast was the child. Both women

With the Family 65

encouraged the kid to react. Each loud screech was greeted bylaughs, approval, and encouragement for more vocalizing,“Oh, aren’t you cute!” The child strolled freely around theentire café, approaching other tables, with benign smiles fromthe mother and friend. Nobody in the café really seemed tomind (except me). (Wallace 1999)

French parents do not simply “raise” or “bring up” theirchildren. When speaking of child rearing, the most com-monly used term in French is éducation and the verb iséduquer—to educate, with a much broader definition inFrench than in English. A child’s éducation refers to his or hersocialization within the family and the wider community aswell as formal schooling. It implies that French parents are,to a far greater extent than American parents, responsible forboth training and teaching a child what is necessary in life tobecome a successful individual.

The relationship between parents and children has signifi-cantly evolved since the 1970s in France, and younger par-ents tend to be more considerate of their children’s develop-mental needs, while promoting dialogue and a more equalbalance of power. Children nowadays have a degree of au-tonomy and liberty which was unknown to their elders. How-ever, there remains a sharp contrast between the way Ameri-can and French parents raise their children.

In very general terms, American child rearing emphasizesthe child first, while French child rearing emphasizes thefamily and society, and to some extent the child. Americanparents usually try to give their children every opportunity toexpress themselves. They try to see things from the child’sperspective and will inconvenience themselves to encouragetheir children’s development. French parents are no less dot-ing or loving than Americans, but they see their role astraining and socializing the child to adapt to the adult world.As adults, they have the responsibility of guiding their childtoward maturity and helping him or her see the world from an

66

adult perspective. French children are normally toilet-trainedby age two—without apparent catastrophic effect on theiradult sex lives—thus accommodating themselves to theirparents’ convenience and reputation in the community.

Children who misbehave in public in France reflect poorlyon their parents and their child-rearing abilities. They havea responsibility to society to control and socialize their chil-dren, and total strangers may feel free to remind them of thisby commenting on a child’s behavior, or even by scolding thechild themselves, since the parents are not fulfilling theirduty.

A child who is behaving beautifully in public is “wellbehaved” in America, responsible for his or her own actions.Such a child in France is bien élevé (well reared)—by theparents and thus reflects well on the parents who did such agood job. The emphasis and locus of control in the UnitedStates is the child. In France, it is the parents. Similarly, aFrench parent whose child brings home good grades will say,“We’re so proud of you!” underlining the importance of pa-rental input in the child’s life and the centrality of the familyrather than the individual. An American parent might saythe same thing or might emphasize the child’s independentactions and achievements by saying, “You should be proud ofyourself!”

Conversely, a French parent who says to a child, “Tu peuxêtre fier de toi!” (“You can be proud of yourself!”) is usingsarcasm to underline the fact that the child has done some-thing wrong. This is typical of French negative feedback,where the blame is clearly and implicitly put on the personwho has failed to do what was expected of him or her. Likemany other aspects of French child rearing, negative feed-back continues to play an important role in adult life, influ-encing many areas.

French schools normally do not provide the range of extra-curricular and enrichment activities found in the UnitedStates. It is expected that the family will organize such things

With the Family 67

for its children, providing them with music or art instructionand athletic activities through specialized clubs. Parents donot normally take active roles in their children’s clubs, whichare subsidized and run by local municipalities. French moth-ers and fathers are not expected to be Brownie Troop leaders,Little League coaches, and so on.

Beginning in childhood, there is already less overlap thanin the United States between the private sphere of the familyand the social sphere outside. Like the tendency to givenegative feedback first, this is another characteristic thatreappears in the work situation in France, where public andprivate remain distinct. Given this attitude, it’s hard to imag-ine a “family values” public debate in France. Family valuesare the prime realm of each extended family, and the school(read, the government) never interferes in such private mat-ters.

American parents encourage their children to make choicesand to think for themselves at an early age. Quite youngchildren may be allowed to decide which restaurant table afamily will sit at, what they will wear or eat, and othermatters that French parents would never think of throwingopen for debate. This is in accordance with the value Ameri-can culture places on autonomy and independence. Indepen-dence is gradually instilled in French children, but the par-ents retain the essential element of control and guidance. Forexample, even very young American children often receivean allowance to help them be responsible for their own moneyand manage their own affairs. French children under the ageof ten rarely get their own pocket money.

The degree to which Americans value equality also plays arole in child rearing. Some American parents feel they shouldbe their children’s friend, even their “best friend.” Childrenare often asked to participate in their own upbringing bymaking decisions regarding which school to go to and whichcourses to take. Parents may negotiate with their childrenabout when to do their homework and when bedtime should

68

be. Such collaboration would strike French parents as pa-tently absurd, since it is based on an assumed egalitarianrelationship between parents and children. Parents in Franceare in charge of their children and have the duty to guidetheir growth properly.

A French mother newly arrived in the United States wasin for a shock when she registered her son in the local middleschool. The principal asked him directly what he wanted tostudy from the à la carte elective curriculum. Even harder toswallow for the mother was that she was apparently expectedto sit silently through this process and was not consultedregarding her son’s decisions.

Conversely, Americans in France often get the impressionthat French parents behave in a very authoritarian mannerwith their children and do not pay enough attention to themand to their developmental needs. A French child who tries tointerrupt an adult conversation by saying, “Mommy, look atme! Look what I can do!” is likely to be reprimanded and toldthat the grown-ups are talking. A French person talking to anAmerican parent might be surprised and somewhat insulted ifthe interrupting child, rather than being corrected, becomesinstead the center of praise and attention: “That’s wonderful!You’re getting to be such a big girl! Now let Mommy get backto her conversation.” Many Americans consider that the child’sneeds are primary in such a situation, that the parent’s effortsshould be directed at encouraging the child’s self-expressionand independence and building her self-esteem. French adultsgenerally consider that the child’s interests and needs in mostcases should not supersede adult concerns and, accordingly,teach the child to understand and accept limitations on his orher sphere of action and expression. By not allowing childrento interrupt, French adults help them to learn proper mannersand behavior. Such knowledge is essential to their success inschool and in adult life.

Teaching the rules of proper behavior—appropriate tablebehavior, conversation with adults, social functions outside

With the Family 69

the home, restaurant visits, and so on—takes up a lot of theparents’ time. Mealtime plays an important role in childsocialization. In France, the function of a meal is not only tofeed oneself and others but also to communicate with others.All family members usually gather around the same table fora substantial evening meal. It is very uncommon for membersof traditional French families to pick what they want fromthe refrigerator or to eat sandwiches while watching TV.Such antisocial behavior would in fact eliminate most familyinteraction, as it often does in the busy American family. Inthe French home of one of the authors, children were notexcused from the table until after dessert. Then, and onlythen, was it possible to watch TV in the living room.

Personality Development

The combination of differing socialization processes and fam-ily values in the two countries produces very different person-alities. Some of these personality differences have been high-lighted by Laurence Wylie:

By age ten, then, the French children have become bien élevés(well reared). They have learned about limits, boundaries,delineation, and appropriate behavior…. They have learnedcontrol over themselves, over their bodies. They have ac-quired tremendous inner psychological independence, I think,that American children do not have. I think they have notlearned what American children do learn, that is, the empha-sis on striking out for themselves, venturing out, trying newthings. (1981, 58)

…And, when verbal expression is not permitted, there isthe expressive power of the eyes, the body, the importance ofmime. And finally, there is fantasy. I think that French chil-dren have an inner personality, an inner independence, aninner life that American children lack. And they illustrateand embellish it in a way that gives French literature andcinema a particular and very beautiful cast. Each individual is

70

surrounded by his own [psychological] wall, enclosed in hisown circle, but through these escape mechanisms, he canexist even though there are social controls. (62)

Thus, French children learn early on that there are two maincompartments in their lives: an outer world full of socialrules, codes, and regulations to obey if one wishes to pleaseparents and society at large, and a more intimate, inner worldfull of imagination, fantasy, personal feelings, and ideas. AFrench child is encouraged to develop this inner world, tonurture and protect it. But the secret garden is not open toeveryone. To maintain this private territory, French childrenneed to establish personal space—through physical separa-tion into one’s own room, for example—but often the senseof psychological separation is enough. When adult guests arepresent, quite small children play happily by themselvesnearby, free from the influence of others, including theirparents.

This distinction between internal and external worlds isnot as obvious in American culture, where children—andadults—tend to express more easily and more consistentlywhat goes through their minds, what’s going on in their lives,and what they expect from others.

The effect of child-rearing practices on personality devel-opment cannot be underestimated, and many of the misun-derstandings between French and American adults are theresult of differing ways of being brought up. Since our earlyyears are so critical to how we perceive ourselves in relationto our environment, it is no wonder that Americans andFrench people come to different positions or conclusions inso many situations.

71

7

With the School

This chapter discusses the goals and structure of education inFrance and the United States, including the influence ofculture on education and vice versa. Appendix A describesthe French curriculum and school system from preschool tohigher education.

The French Passion for School

The other partner in French education is the school system.The philosophy, aims, and methods of French schooling bothillustrate and support many French cultural values.

Public schools are free of charge and compulsory from theage of six to sixteen, although most children go to l’écolematernelle (preschool and kindergarten) starting at age three.La Maternelle is divided into three sections, according to thechildren’s ages. The first two years correspond to U.S. pre-school or nursery school (ages three and four), while thethird year (age five) is equivalent to American kindergarten.Government-subsidized and managed day-care centers lookafter younger children.

School is the most important of a French child’s activities.How the child performs and masters knowledge in the early

72

grades will determine to a large extent what he or she willachieve later in life. Most teachers agree that CP (CoursPréparatoire; first grade) is where the child must acquire asolid foundation and learn basic reading, writing, and math-ematics. Parents are aware of the stakes and tend to put ahigh degree of pressure on the child from the beginning. Anelementary school student normally hears a daily barrage ofquestions from concerned parents: “Did you do well today?”“Did the teacher give you any grades?” “Did you get anybonus points?” “What do you have to do for tomorrow?”“Show me your school correspondence booklet.”

Americans working on a children’s film in France discov-ered that culture played an important part in the reaction ofparents of prospective child actors:

[T]he idea that a child can survive missing three months ofschool…is apparently mostly an American phenomenon. “TheAmerican parents said, ‘What’s three months in a child’s lifecompared to the experience?’ ” …. “And the French parentssaid, ‘Oh, my God, three months in a school year?’ ”(Hohenadel 1998, 22)

French parents have good reason for concern. The Frenchschool system does not give children much slack and de-mands a minimum level of performance for promotion to thenext grade. Although things are changing, starting at agethirteen or fourteen insufficient average grades may result ina child’s being held back to redoubler (repeat) a grade, not anunusual occurrence. For this reason, students in their finalyears of high school may range in age from sixteen to twenty,depending on how many grades they have skipped or re-peated. Although there is presently a strong countertrend inthe United States demanding that children must be intellec-tually ready to move on, “social promotion” is fairly wide-spread. This means that a child with inadequate grades ispromoted to avoid damaging self-esteem and to prevent teas-ing by other children.

With the School 73

School in France is like a series of hurdles the child mustnegotiate with the assistance of devoted supporters: parents,teachers, school administrators, and advisers. It’s hard forAmericans to imagine the level of competitiveness in Frenchschools, especially when the child enters high school andapproaches le baccalauréat. In June 1998, an assistant to theMinister of Education referred to the bac as the rite of pas-sage to adulthood (France 2, 14 July 1998). French parentsare concerned with preparation for le bac well before theirchild enters his or her last year of secondary school.

A French person’s academic career plays a more importantand profound role in his or her life than it does for anAmerican. The various academic tracks diverge quite early,and the system is unforgiving: it is virtually impossible tomove from a lower-level track to a higher one. Academictalent is noted and nurtured, but average and less-able stu-dents are in effect consigned to lower-level manual and ser-vice jobs. As early as age eleven or twelve, students may beassigned to shortened study tracks leading to vocational quali-fications. Once the evaluation has been made, it is prettymuch final and changes are extremely rare. The bac alone isfar from a guarantee of success, since only the Bac S (sciencespecialization) really opens important or prestigious doors.The level of concern French parents show about theirchildren’s schooling is a reflection of its decisive role in theirfuture success or failure.

French teachers and parents are less concerned than theirAmerican counterparts that their children enjoy school, sinceit is essentially a place to acquire knowledge. Teachers some-times try to assign special projects, but French students tendto see this as additional work required of them—maybe evenan assigned punishment—rather than a chance to exploreand discover.

Educational reforms are a regular preoccupation of Frenchgovernments, teachers, parents, and, of course, students.School reforms are passionately discussed, from the Assemblée

74

Nationale (equivalent to the U.S. House of Representatives)to the corner café to the family dinner table. Reforms maymean changes in the pacing of the school day, week, or yearto match children’s “natural rhythms”; they may involveminor pedagogical changes or major philosophical ones. Re-forms have completely revamped the organization, attitudes,and methods of nursery and elementary schools; another re-form outlines plans for teaching foreign languages starting inelementary schools; still others propose radical rethinking ofthe entire educational system from nursery school throughsecondary school.

Despite increasing autonomy for individual schools andacadémies (large regional school districts), most educationaldecisions are still made and applied on a national scale. Sinceall French public schools are run by the central Ministry ofEducation, the curriculum is the same throughout France,although some class time can now be spent according to localpriorities—the study of regional languages and cultures, forexample.

The typical school day in France runs from 8:30 A.M. to12:00 noon and 1:30 P.M. to 4:30 P.M. It is also very intense.Children attend school Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, andFridays and, in some cases, Saturday mornings. Many schoolsoffer extended supervision after normal hours (l’étude), andmost children eat lunch at school, except in smaller countrytowns and villages, where everything shuts down for twohours and the whole family gathers at home. In recent years,some schools have remained open during the summer vaca-tion, offering remedial and enrichment activities with volun-teer teachers.

French Culture and French Schooling

Thinking and intellectual skills are of paramount importancein a culture that, according to seventeenth-century philoso-pher Blaise Pascal, defines man as un roseau pensant (a think-

With the School 75

ing reed). Schooling at all levels tends to be focused ontransfer of information from teacher to student and is essen-tially a one-way process. Logic and clarity are stressed in allsubjects, and French teachers present knowledge in a waythat favors deductive reasoning: first, the abstract and theo-retical framework is established, then particular cases andillustrations are discussed. A modern first-grade Frenchteacher introduces parts of speech by first giving functionaldefinitions of nouns and verbs, then providing examples ofeach in simple sentences, and finally asking the child to marknouns and verbs in exercise sentences. In the United States,by contrast, a modern first-grade teacher would be more likelyto encourage inductive reasoning by first giving examples ofnouns and verbs as isolated words, then having the childrenfind nouns and verbs in sentences, and finally providing thedefinitions to solidify and reinforce the learning points.

The amount of homework also differs in the two systems.French children take home a substantial amount of work. Byhigh school they are expected to spend up to three to fourhours per night on their assignments. Parents are usuallyheavily involved in their children’s schooling, particularly inhigher grades, and closely supervise their progress. To a cer-tain extent, a student’s lack of preparation or poor resultsreflects badly on the parents. American schoolchildren areexpected to be fairly autonomous in completing their home-work. Although some parents do substantial amounts of re-search or typing, parents who more or less do their child’sassignments for them are considered to be undermining theirchild’s learning and independent development.

Schools in the United States generally make every effortto include parents as active participants in their child’s edu-cation. Parents may volunteer at schools to help teachers inthe classroom, as chaperones for field trips, as tutors forchildren needing extra help, as fund-raisers, as sponsors forafter-school clubs, and so on. French public schools, on theother hand, are considered the reserved domain of teachers

76

and the state. Parent-teacher associations exist, but parentsare not directly involved in their child’s school life. Thesecontrasting expectations caused friction at a French-Ameri-can school in the United States. French parents were sur-prised to find that their participation was expected in volun-teer work at the school and in special fund-raising events.Newly arrived French teachers were also at a loss, since theyhad never had volunteer parents in their classrooms beforeand didn’t know what to do with them.

Several incidents at the same school highlighted anothermajor difference in parental expectations across cultures. Ingeneral French parents showed more deference toward theteachers and respected their authority as the final word indecisions concerning their child’s schooling. American par-ents were more likely to question teachers and challengetheir decisions. Some even went so far as to request changesin the curriculum. In one exceptional case, French parentsand teachers were shocked when an American parent toldthe teacher point-blank that his child would not completethe homework she had assigned.

French exams almost never take the form of a multiple-choice test. This would contradict the basic school philoso-phy, which demands reasoning backed by knowledge andfacts. Therefore, depending on the subject, a small problem,a short essay, a creative exercise, a dictée (dictation), or acontraction de texte (précis) tests the student’s knowledge andskills. Except for courses in the French language itself, purememorization leads only to failure. Bachoter (to cram factswithout understanding) is one of the worst educational sinsa French student can commit. French, especially French gram-mar, is essential and is stressed through the first ten years ofschool. Language is in fact the foundation that supports soundreasoning. Teachers remind their students that the threeessential elements in French are “clarity, clarity, and clarity.”Students learn to write so their work flows well and is articu-late.

With the School 77

Grading and feedback in France do not reflect concernwith building (or lowering) a child’s self-esteem. Generally,grades are lower than what we normally see in Americanschools. On a scale of 1–20, 19 and 20 are “reserved for God”in France. This contrasts with the American system where aperfect A+ (and sometimes even A++) can be and is achieved.Paradoxically, for a culture that values privacy, grades inFrance are a matter of public record. Students’ grades areposted for all the world to see, and university exam resultsmay appear in local newspapers in rank order.

Teachers comment publicly on an individual student’swork, usually when returning homework assignments. Thesecomments may be quite sarcastic; in any case, words will notbe minced: “Dupont, stop playing video games and concen-trate on Corneille, it will do you good.” “Corinne, this ismuch better than last time, but work on your punctuation.”An English teacher at a lycée was tutoring a student whoneeded extra help in preparing for the English oral examsection of the bac. “Work on your math,” he said. What hemeant was that the student’s English skills were so poor thathis only hope of passing the bac was to bring up his mathscore.

The way in which French children are taught to think andlearn tends to stay with them as adults. They expect superiorsto be experts and to have the information required. A man-ager who asks subordinates how to solve a problem is notlikely to be held in high regard. Imagine a schoolteacherasking her pupils what they think they should learn.

79

8

With Friends

French people and Americans both value their friends, butideas about who is a friend, how friends are made, and whatfriendship means are very different. Since these differencesare the source of frequent misunderstandings on both sides, itis important to analyze and clarify them.

The Language of Friendship and Love

In English, we can distinguish among acquaintances, col-leagues, and friends, at least linguistically. In the UnitedStates, though, people rarely do so, using the word friend torefer to someone they met yesterday or to someone they haveknown since childhood. About the only distinction normallymade in the U.S. is between a “casual” friend and a “close” or“best” friend.

The French language allows for the most subtle of grada-tions in the nouns we use to speak of people we know, andFrench culture requires they be used.

un(e) ami(e): a friendune connaissance: an acquaintance, someone you know super-

ficially

80

une relation: mainly a colleague or other professional contactun(e) camarade: a good pal from youth, school, university, or

military serviceun copain (f. une copine): a buddy; etymologically someone

you share bread withun(e) pote: like copain, but more familiarun(e) petit(e) ami(e): boyfriend or girlfriend; may be in a

romantic sense depending on the contextun(e) ami(e) d’enfance: a friend from childhoodun(e) ami(e) de toujours: an always and forever friendun(e) meilleur(e) ami(e): best friendmon ami(e): normally means “my lover” but depends on the

contextun(e) cher(e) ami(e): a dear friend—more distant than a simple

friend, oddly enough

Notice that the gender is evident in written French, but itmay be obscured in spoken French.

Paradoxically, the French verbs of friendship and loveoffer a much smaller choice than English. One French verb,aimer, does yeoman’s duty, expressing all the gradations offeeling from mild affection to passionate love. This may seemodd given the French romantic reputation. The French donot use the word love outside a fairly intimate relationship.French friends do not say that they love each other or signtheir letters with “love” or “lots of love from,” as Americanfriends do. They might say “Je t’aime bien,” but this meansonly “I like you.” In fact, most adverbs used with aimer—forexample, bien, beaucoup, infiniment (literally, “well,” “a lot,”“infinitely”)—actually weaken the verb rather than intensifyit, as is usually the case in English.

An American woman who had lived in France for someyears enjoyed a very pleasant—and platonic—relationshipwith one of her neighbors, an older Frenchman. Before sheleft to return to the States, she wanted to tell him how muchshe had enjoyed their friendship and how much she likedhim. She said, “Monsieur, je vous aime.” His reaction to her

With Friends 81

passionate declaration was probably “She’s getting ready toleave, and now she tells me!”

Another example revealing the differences between Frenchand American usage comes from Michel, a young Frenchmanstudying for a master’s degree at an American university. Hehad briefly met the twenty-year-old sister of a classmate dur-ing a visit to the classmate’s home. Some of their discussionsincluded what struck Michel as deeply personal revelationson her part. They wrote to each other after he returned toschool and she signed each letter “Love, Laura.” She evensent a greeting card signed “Love always, Laura.” The inti-macy of her tone suggested to Michel that her feelings forhim were very romantic indeed, and he found himself fallingin love with her. He even wrote her two or three love lettersbut received no response. He was horrified to learn throughhis classmate that she already had a steady boyfriend.

Making and Being Friends

Americans “play it by ear” with their friends and take friend-ships as they come. Most American friendships begin withsome kind of physical proximity, often involving a sharedactivity. While working out at the gym, chatting over coffeeafter church, arranging carpools to kids’ soccer practice, hang-ing out at the mall, borrowing garden tools, and similar ev-eryday connections, Americans discover common interestsand affinities they can pursue with invitations to meals, to amovie after work, or to a football game on Saturday. Ameri-can friendships may last a few weeks or a lifetime; they maybe superficial or deep.

The French, with their passion for classification, have veryclear boundaries for their relationships with specific peoplein specific situations. For example, French neighbors are notautomatically counted as friends or even as acquaintances.Because most French people, particularly in large cities, lackthe personal space that Americans take for granted, regula-

82

tions exist to protect people’s privacy. And these regulationsare strictly enforced, as any foreigner who takes a showerafter ten at night is reminded by apartment neighbors. AParisian joked that French children grow up traumatized be-cause they are constantly told to avoid disturbing the neigh-bors: “In the U.S., you scare kids with the Bogeyman, but Ithink French kids imagine the Neighbor as a child-eatingcreature with bloody fangs and claws. Maybe that’s why weavoid neighbors when we grow up.”

A good French neighbor does not disturb others, followsrules concerning common areas of the building, and generallykeeps a low profile. An Englishman living in France reportedthis story to us:

A neighbor in the next flat, a psychiatrist (I knew this onlybecause of the plate on his door), saw me frequently for abouta year. One evening we entered the lift together. He asked,“Quel étage?” (“Which floor?”) I replied, “Cinquième, commed’habitude” (“Fifth, as always”). At the time I felt I had strucka small blow for Britain.

Whatever the cause, the virtue of neighborliness is not ap-preciated in France as it is in other cultures. An Americanwoman living in a small town in southwestern France learnedthat her landlady’s elderly mother was very ill. The landladyhad gone to another region to look after her, leaving herhusband and adult son to fend for themselves. “I put togethera big lasagna, took it across the street in a pretty casseroledish, and told them that they could leave the empty dish onour stoop. They looked confused and a little embarrassed.They thanked me profusely, though, and so did my landladywhen she got home, but I think they were really baffled bythe whole thing.”

While colleagues from work may become well acquaintedin France, the relationship may be limited to drinks or dinnerafter work. It is not normally expected that people who worktogether will develop close friendships. It’s fine if workmates

With Friends 83

do happen to become friends—and it indeed happens—butthere is no expectation that they will nor is there any obli-gation to do so.

Close friendships are rarely made across social classes. Aninteresting exception to this is Le Club Med, which adver-tises itself as “the antidote to civilization.” A story tells oftwo Frenchmen who met during a vacation at a Club Medvillage in Greece. They developed a warm friendship andspent a great deal of time together during their stay. Inkeeping with the French tendency to separate work and pri-vate life, they did not even mention what they did back inFrance. It was only when they exchanged addresses just be-fore leaving that they discovered one of them was the direc-tor of a company while the other was a night watchman atthe same company. The story does not reveal what happenedonce they got home, but chances are they both understoodthey could not possibly maintain the friendship (Ardagh1970, 441).

So, where do French people make friends? French friendsare often made early in life, at school or university, in theworkplace to a lesser extent, and, until recently, during man-datory military service for men. The French tendency to stayclose to home and the small size of the country, comparedwith the United States, make it easier to maintain such long-term friendships, particularly at the depth French friendsexpect. Once French people have struck up a friendship, theyhave made an emotional investment in each other. This issomething that must be attended to and not taken lightly.The French do not confer the status of ami quickly or easily,and rightly so. Friends in France are bound by mutual obliga-tions and mutual responsibilities. They expect friends to docertain things for them in certain circumstances, and theyexpect friendships to be deep and long-term.

Different conceptions of the nature of friendship some-times create problems in French-American intercultural in-teractions. The following diagram shows this difference

84

graphically: the walls surrounding the core personality ineach culture are in fact concentric circles, so you would seetwo target-shaped figures if you looked down on the diagramfrom above.

Americans are open, friendly, easy to approach. They areinstantly on first-name terms, and invite virtual strangersinto their homes with a generous ease that amazes the French.But if the first walls are easy to step or jump over, the barriersrise as you get closer to the core. The core itself may never bereached, even by a spouse, children, and intimate friends.Because the bonds that link friends do not necessarily go verydeep, American friendship is not necessarily considered amajor commitment—although it may be, depending on itsduration and the circumstances. Coworkers may share somefairly deep revelations with each other, but once one of themmoves on to another company, they do not necessarily spendmuch time together or even keep in touch.

The French, on the other hand, are not so easy to get toknow. There is a tall barrier between those who are outsideand those who are inside. But once you have scaled the outerbarrier, they become lower and lower, so that you may, aftera considerable amount of time and shared history, reach thecore. To return to the diagram, there may be a differencebetween which level you think you are in and which levelsomeone from the other culture thinks you are in. For ex-

With Friends 85

ample, French visitors to the United States are astounded tobe admitted quite readily into the family circle. They takethis as evidence that the other person has made his or herpsychic investment and that the potential for a deep friend-ship is there—which is normally not in fact the case.

Friends in France operate according to the unspoken rule,“Say what you mean and mean what you say.” They expectpromises to be followed up and do not understand that “I’llgive you a call” or “We’ll get together sometime for lunch” inthe United States can easily mean “We may never see eachother again.” Many French people living in the United States,after finding that such statements are not firm commitments,hastily conclude that Americans are phony and unreliable.From the American perspective, on the other hand, such acomment reinforces a pleasant and positive encounter with-out an obligation to follow through. Autonomy is maintainedand respected, and the choice of continuing the relationshipby getting together again is left open.

That’s What Friends Are For

As mentioned earlier, the American culture is strongly ori-ented to doing. Accordingly, American friends often get to-gether to share a specific activity. If friends share a particularhobby or interest such as quilting or fishing, it is likely thatthis activity will be the focus of their time together.

Friends in France may also share specific activities or tasks,but they do not always feel the need to do so; simply beingtogether is enough. This reflects the French cultural orienta-tion toward being. A group of friends may get together withno particular purpose in mind. During their time togetherthey may discuss possibilities such as a picnic at the beach ora film. These plans are hashed out and critiqued by the entiregroup, perhaps in a café over endless cups of coffee, and mayor may not be followed up; the discussing is more importantthan the doing.

86

Rick, a young American, was puzzled by this when, as aforeign student newly arrived in Poitiers, he was invited tospend an evening with a group of French students:

I thought, “Great! The natives are friendly.” So all of us—about a dozen kids altogether, male and female—met up atthis café and started to talk about what to do. Somebodysuggested a movie, but a couple of other people had seen italready, or heard from someone else that it wasn’t very good,and then everyone talked about movies for awhile. Thensomebody else suggested we go out someplace to dance, whichled to a critique of every dance place in town, but no consen-sus. Same thing when I suggested we could go out and grab abite somewhere. In the end, we spent the whole eveningsupposedly deciding what to do until about three in the morn-ing, when everybody went home.

What this young American could not see was that the groupwas doing something very important: developing and rein-forcing the ties of friendship that held them together.

The important thing [in a French conversation] is to establishties, to create a network, tenuous as it may be, between theconversants. The exchange of words, in the “thread” of con-versation, serves to weave these ties between the speakers. Ifwe imagine a conversation as being a spider’s web, we can seethe exchanging of words as playing the role of the spider,generating the threads which bind the participants. The ideal(French) conversation would resemble a perfect spider’s web:delicate, fragile, elegant, brilliant, of harmonious proportions,a work of art.… We [French] create the fabric of our relation-ship in the same way and at the same time that we “make”conversation. (Carroll 1987, 25–26)

While Americans value their connections to family andfriends, they feel that ultimately they must act in their ownbest interest and stand on their own two feet. The individual

With Friends 87

is the basic building block of society. In a culture that valuesindependence and autonomy, close and interdependent rela-tionships may seem dysfunctional, if not actually pathological.

In contrast, as far as the French are concerned, Marx wasright about at least one thing: the smallest unit into whichhumanity can be divided is two, not one. One is a fiction. Afriendship in the French sense blurs the boundaries betweenfriends. It develops as an organic whole: two people mergewith nothing in between. A relationship has no existencebeyond the people who live it, since they simply embody it.Friendship in French culture cannot be understood as a step-by-step approach where both parties are making progresstoward an implied goal of becoming friends. As French peoplespend time together and get to know each other, their cerclessimply begin to overlap.

In the United States, even very close friends are careful torespect each other’s individual space. Balance and reciproc-ity based on mutual respect for the other’s independence andindividualism are vital foundations for friendships amongAmericans, who generally act on the principle that adultsare—should be and want to be—independent, not beholdento anyone. “Owing” someone as a result of the other person’skindness is a debt Americans take seriously. Accordingly,they strive to maintain harmony in the nature and type oftheir exchanges.

French friends see obligations not in the context of reci-procity but rather as elements in the network of their rela-tionships. “Perhaps Emmanuelle will not ‘return’ what I dofor her today, but she will certainly do something for some-one else when the chance comes up, and someone else maydo something for me, or for another person altogether.” Inthe end it’s not important, because the goal is not to main-tain some kind of cosmic bookkeeping. For those outside yournetwork, your obligations are minimal; for those inside, yousimply don’t count up what you do or receive.

88

Raymonde Carroll suggests that, for the French, their net-works are what defines them, whether the actual effect of thenetwork is positive or not.

The cultural premise which might take the form “I exist in anetwork” molds my French way of seeing. I am as much fed,carried, made significant by the network of relationshipswhich defines me as I can be trapped, stifled and oppressed byit. Without this network, I am out of my element, and I sufferall the more as I am not conscious of this.

Similarly, an American cultural premise…could take thefollowing form: “I exist outside all networks.” This does notmean that these networks do not exist or that they have noimportance for me (an American), but that I make myself, Idefine myself. Whoever I am in American society, whereverI come from, whatever I have, I create the fabric of myidentity, as is evoked, in a more limited context, by theexpression “self-made man.” (1987, 145)

The importance of networks or webs in a French person’s life canhardly be overstated. Perhaps the closest equivalent in Ameri-can culture would be a large and very close-knit family. Imagine,then, that a French person operates within several overlappingwebs of this nature. We can see that working this way requiresan enormous effort in relationship building and maintenance,in responding to the needs of others in the network, and indirecting requests to the proper person in the proper way. Butspeed is not of the essence, since it is the relationship thatcounts, after all—how good you feel and not so much whatyou have achieved; the process, not the task.

A French person also needs to be quick to operate in thisway, and very intuitive. Life looks like a vaudeville plate-spinning act: one has to keep an eye on all of the plates atonce, giving them enough of a turn to keep them goingwithout knocking them off the stick. But things don’t alwaysgo smoothly, and sometimes one has to step carefully overshattered crockery.

With Friends 89

Friendships in the United States, based as they are onshared tastes, opinions, or interests more than on commit-ment, need to be relatively free of friction. Edward T. andMildred Reed Hall suggest,

The American drive to be liked, accepted, and approved of bya wide circle of friends and associates means they must inevi-tably sacrifice some of their individuality. The French are lesslikely to hide their real selves, and hence the French areequally less likely to be good team players in business orelsewhere. (1990, 152)

American friends try to offer positive support to each otherand to establish harmony. If they disagree, they may downplaytheir differences, agree to disagree, or try to smooth thingsover to maintain good relations. Bickering, argument, andopen disagreement are signs that people are not getting alongwell and that the relationship may be in danger of fallingapart.

French friends do not seek to maintain harmony but ratherto cultivate distinction and avoid boredom. They expect todisagree, to criticize, even to argue. A friend may be verydirect, even frankly critical, but this is part and parcel ofinterpersonal relationships and not necessarily meant or takenas insulting. The French find it tedious to always be in agree-ment and for this reason may be attracted to friends who arequite different from themselves. Since the relationship is notbased on agreement, it is not threatened by disagreement,and French friends expect one another to comment honestlyon their actions and choices. Support can be expressed inconfrontation as well as by acquiescence. The bond betweenfriends is not fragile and can stand up to this tension, even bestrengthened and deepened by it.

Americans, raised to avoid sensitive subjects in conversa-tion, are often taken aback by the vehemence and evenrudeness (as they see it) of French conversations about pre-cisely those sensitive topics, for example, politics. One Ameri-

90

can woman had gone to a great deal of trouble to prepare aspecial meal for her first dinner party in France. While hercooking was a success, the evening, she thought, was cata-strophic:

I almost died when everybody started arguing about politics.It got so bad I just about crawled under the table and waitedfor the battle to end. But later, as everyone was leaving, theyall said what a terrific time they’d had, how delicious themeal was, and how much they looked forward to gettingtogether again.

Friendly Suggestions

As Americans looking to make French friends, you would dowell not to rush the process. Take your cue for pacing fromyour French acquaintance, and try not to “come on too strong”in the early stages. Remember the implicit personal commit-ment inherent in French friendships, and either take it seri-ously from the beginning or make it clear you are not inter-ested.

Once you have decided to pursue the friendship, by allmeans put your heart into it. Your French friend certainlywill. However, you do not need to stress this overtly as youmight in the United States with statements such as “It’s greatto get together with you. I really enjoy the time we spendfishing (or shopping).” The explicit way in which Americanstalk about their friendship sounds artificial to the French,almost like you are trying to convince them of something.

Keep in mind the obligations of friendship from a Frenchperspective, and the fact that you and your friend are part of eachother’s inner circle. You may be fortunate enough to be includedin get-togethers with your friend’s old classmates or family. Whenthis happens, try to “go with the flow” and don’t get anxiousif things seem vague or are not moving forward. Just beingtogether is an important part of friendship.

With Friends 91

Finally, try to be consciously aware of your unstated as-sumptions and expectations in personal relationships, andwatch for signs that these match—or don’t match—those ofyour friend. The Golden Rule does not apply in interculturalrelationships, since the other person may not want to havedone to him or her as you would have done to you. Find outwhat it is your friend does want—celebrating a birthday athappy hour with a bunch of coworkers or a quiet dinner withfamily and close friends—before taking off in the wrong di-rection.

93

9

With Romance

While the French can’t actually take credit for inventinglove, they have certainly raised it to an art form. Frenchmenand -women have a spectacular reputation in this area, andmost of them seem to have accepted upholding it as theirpersonal responsibility. The French are also given to discuss-ing and philosophizing on the affairs of the heart and body inways that are unimaginable in the United States. Two well-known French writers and thinkers, Françoise Giroud andBernard-Henri Lévy, developed an entire book from a seriesof conversations concerning love, desire, seduction, jealousy,infidelity, marriage, and falling out of love. They discussthese themes using literary and historical references as well aspersonal observations and experiences. This type of discoursecan trace its lineage back to the Courts of Love of the MiddleAges.

One thing they emphatically agreed on is that relation-ships between men and women in France are certainly betterthan in any other country. Giroud observed that stable, adultmen do not feel their virility threatened by women takingpower, while others may be knocked off balance by powerfulwomen. “Fortunately,” she adds, “there are fewer such men inFrance than elsewhere!” (Giroud and Lévy 1993, 212).

94

Lover or Friend—The Art of Séduction

Americans tend to view romantic and intimate relationshipsas a deeper level of friendship. Wedding invitations in theUnited States may read, “Today I will marry my friend,”greeting cards may say, “Happiness is marrying your bestfriend.” These sentiments are baffling to the French, who, asgood Cartesians, distinguish between relationships of friendsand relationships of romantic and intimate partners. Thesecategories do not overlap, and each has a different set of rulesand expectations.

Elisabeth Badinter, a Frenchwoman who has written widelyon gender issues, summarized the French attitude thus: “Lapire des choses dans une relation homme-femme, c’est d’êtrecamarades” (“The worst thing in a male-female relationship isto be friends”). She notes that séduction—in the French, notthe American, sense—is a vital component in most male-female interactions in France (1995).

Séduction in French means attracting by means of irresist-ible charm. Seductiveness is only one aspect of desire. It canbe playful, serious, or a combination. It is a quality of men aswell as of women, although women are particularly skilled atit. Séduction is a game that just about everybody plays whenthey feel like it. In order to walk down a busy street in Paris,a well-dressed businesswoman was forced to squeeze betweena large crowd of men on the sidewalk and the window of theelectronics shop where a wall of TV sets was tuned to theTour de France. Many men made comments about her block-ing their view of the race. With a knowing smile and a tossof the head, she laughed and said, “Well, messieurs, if youwould rather look at bicycles.…”

The unstated assumption—not shared by Americans—isthat men and women will want to please and charm eachother, but that such mild flirtatiousness is harmless and es-sentially playful as long as the participants remain in thecategory of friends. Thus, a Frenchwoman may go out to a

With Romance 95

restaurant, for example, with a man other than her husbandwithout necessarily raising eyebrows. For Americans, the lackof clear category boundaries means that in many cases such asituation is suspect, at best.

Hannah, an American woman who had lived in France formany years, returned to the United States with her Frenchhusband, Jean-Paul. One rainy weekend, he was away onbusiness. Knowing that the wife of a French couple theyknew was also away, she phoned the husband and suggestedthey get together for Sunday brunch and a movie. “Betterthan rattling around the house all alone.” Hannah realizedthat she had been operating in French mode when her next-door neighbors—an American couple—came into the restau-rant.

I saw them out of the corner of my eye, then they disappeared.They were hiding behind the hostess stand. I realized theyhad seen me with Olivier and, knowing Jean-Paul was out oftown, had jumped to a really wrong conclusion. Fortunately,we know each other well enough that I could go over andcoax them out of hiding, introduce them to my friend andexplain everything. I think.

Frenchmen and -women can be flirtatious with each otherwithout breaking any taboos, while in the United States,communication between the sexes is straightforward andmonitored internally to avoid any shadow of sexual innu-endo—unless that is what is intended. Men and women inFrance can remain friends while they flirt, but in the U.S.,flirting instantly changes the tone of the relationship andmay even make it impossible for the friendship to continue.Since the American boundaries between friendship and ro-mance are fuzzy and do not provide an external definition forthe relationship, the interaction between men and womenmust provide an internal one. Thus, the tone and pattern oftheir communication have to make it clear that they are “justfriends.” The firmer French boundaries provide the external

96

definition for the relationship, which gives freer play to theinteraction between those involved.

An American character in a French novel notes thatFrenchwomen seem to have such easygoing, uncomplicatedrelationships with the men in their lives, regardless of thenature of the relationship. “Karen had talked about it withDaphne—these Frenchwomen had a certain ‘something’ intheir relationships with men. It was inexplicable, but itworked. And Karen found that ‘something’ suspect”(Hermary-Vieille and Sarde 1997, 299).

In recent years, gender issues in the United States havebecome so fraught with tension that, in many situations,Americans simply try to neutralize their interactions by elimi-nating any recognition of sexual difference. Asking theFrench to behave in a gender-neutral fashion is like askingthem not to breathe. Rather than trying to erase or eliminategender differences, both Frenchmen and -women prefer toemphasize them.

[Corinne] always thought that the difference between menand women was precious, something to be preserved. Sheadored little games of seduction with men…and then, Corinneloved men…she had a hard time understanding the visceralantipathy toward the male that she noticed in [some Ameri-can women]. (295)

Frenchwomen in the United States often complain of feelingignored by American men, who neither look at them appre-ciatively nor display the galanterie of Frenchmen. Americanwomen are confused by this attitude. For them, calling atten-tion to women’s sexuality in a nonsexual relationship orsetting is by definition an affront because it reduces womento the status of objects. And, when in France, they are ap-palled by precisely those behaviors that seem to charmFrenchwomen. “When I arrived in Lyon,” recalled one youngAmerican character, “I just couldn’t take the wanderinghands, the staring, getting touched in the metro” (291).

With Romance 97

The Dating Game and the Couple

It is essential for French and American men and women tounderstand the differences in how people see relationshipsbeginning and developing and how these different viewpointsaffect their encounters with members of the other culture.For example, French students coming to the United Statesare baffled by American dating behavior. In French culturethere is no equivalent to the concept of a date and no parallelin what we can call the courtship ritual. In the U.S., the firstcouple of dates are usually seen as a no-strings-attached trialperiod; the couple goes out together to find out if they getalong and if they like each other enough to pursue the rela-tionship.

In France, a woman who agrees to go out with a man isconsidered to be past that initial stage. She and the manhave, in effect, agreed that they want to see more of eachother. They may spend a pleasant evening and each one gohome alone, or they may spend the night together, but bothdefinitely feel there is at least potentially some substantiveinterest. This has come as a surprise to more than one Ameri-can woman, thinking she was going out for a first date witha friend. The Frenchman may seem pushy, aggressive, andmoving too fast, but for him the first steps have already beentaken. He cannot understand why she seems to be movingbackward. Similarly, a Frenchwoman invited for a date by anAmerican man may be surprised by his tentativeness, sinceshe assumes they are a step beyond where he thinks they are.He may think she is the “fast” one.

Younger high school and college students in the UnitedStates as well as in France tend to “hang out” in mixedgroups, but the pairing up of couples generally happens at anearlier age among Americans. The formal and ritualistic as-pects of a U.S. dating relationship are also puzzling to youngFrench students and professionals. An American woman whoeventually married a Frenchman became aware of the differ-ences as a student in France.

98

There was little pairing off and dating. When I explained howin the States a boy and a girl first dated, then wentsteady…then got engaged, they wouldn’t believe me. Theyshook their heads and said it sounded like standing in line. Sowherever we went, we’d pile onto the scooters, the eight ofus, the girls with their arms around whoever was in front ofthem. (Grearson and Smith 1995, 202)

Of course, people eventually do pair up in France. Thecontrast between French and American cultures emerges inthe reaction of the new couple’s group(s) of friends. In theUnited States positive support is usually offered; the woman’sfemale friends ask for all the “juicy details,” while the man’smale friends joke about his finally being “roped and branded.”The French group, on the other hand, usually “retaliates”against the new couple’s breaking the circle by humorously“roasting” them. They may be taken aside discreetly andasked, “Are you really serious about this? Have you seen herwithout makeup?” or “Maybe his other sixteen girlfriendsknew something you don’t!”

In fact, this teasing is partly a recognition of a change instatus. Rather than being just two people in a group of friends,the man and woman have declared that they should now beconsidered a couple. And for the French, a couple is a par-ticular social entity.

“[T]he couple” is a social category (for the French). It is theaffirmation of certain social values: to be part of a couple isto proclaim sexual bonds that are approved, made legal, le-gitimate, or licit by marriage, living together, or simply by thetacit, public approval of social as well as sexual ties. Forminga couple is a social act, unlike having a lover. Indeed, need-less to say, forming a couple is different from coupling. Thismeans that in order to exist, my couple relationship must be“spoken”: we put others in the habit of combining our namesby doing so ourselves, by our discourse in front of others, andby our behavior in the presence of others. (Carroll 1987, 61)

With Romance 99

In November 1999 the French National Assembly approvedthe Pacte Civil de Solidarité (PACS, or Civil Pact of Solidar-ity), legal status somewhere between living together andmarriage. Once they are “pacsed,” couples—heterosexual orhomosexual—have most of the same rights and responsibili-ties as married spouses. They have a common fiscal regimeand can file joint tax returns after three years together. If onepartner is not already covered by the social security system,he or she is included in the partner’s coverage. Some areassuch as inheritance are still being decided, and unlike theirmarried counterparts, pacsés cannot adopt children or gainFrench citizenship through the arrangement.

You Say Tomatoes, I Say Les Tomates

Words that mean the same thing in different languages maycarry very different nuances. Dugan Romano, a writer onintercultural marriage as well as a participant in one, notesthat love may mean different things to different people and“is defined differently by different cultures—something whichmany intercultural spouses have learned to their dismay onlyafter they are married” (1997, 16).

All relationships require communication, but interculturalrelationships require communication on many different lev-els. One of the difficulties in personal intercultural relation-ships is that so many different aspects of people’s characterscome into play. Does my wife behave in this way (whichstrikes me as odd and possibly offensive) because she is French,because she is female, because she is Parisian, or is it just apersonal quirk? As one American wife of a Frenchman ob-served, “I finally found out that he wasn’t a jackass after all,just a typical Frenchman!”

Conversely, we may excuse behavior in a partner fromanother culture that we would find unacceptable in a personfrom our own. Romano quotes the French wife of a Kuwaiti:“I forgave him all sorts of things I’d never let a French guy get

100

away with because I thought that was just the way they didthings in his country. Was I mad when I found out that insome ways he was a boor even in his own language” (104).

Where does the culture end and the person begin? Is itpossible to distinguish between the two? Probably not, and itwould not be an especially useful distinction even if we could.“In order for intercultural couples to overcome their commu-nication handicaps, they have to work harder at listening,using the heart and mind as well as the eye and ear to avoidmisunderstandings” (133).

Apart from the language issue, which can be enormouslysignificant for couples, perhaps the biggest difference in com-munication between French and Americans lies in their styles:direct or indirect, implicit or explicit, linear or nonlinear.An American woman recalls her French boyfriend’s unusualimplicit marriage proposal:

I came home from work one evening to find him filling outreams of bureaucratic paperwork concerned with marrying aforeigner in France. I asked, “Planning to marry a foreigner?”Deep in concentration, he nodded. “Anyone I know?” Ipressed. Finally, he looked at me like I was the village idiotand said, “You, of course.” I realized later that as far as he wasconcerned, the question had already been answered, so therewas no need to ask it.

One French-American couple jokingly provide each otherwith “scripts” of what they want to hear the other partnersay: “Now you should put your arm around my shoulders andsay, ‘Pauvre bébé, you must be exhausted. Sit down and let meget you a little apéritif—what would you like?’ ”

Susan Tiberghien, an American married to a Frenchman,wrote a delightful piece called “At Home in Two Languages.”After detailing a typical day as it would be lived in French orEnglish, she concludes,

With Romance 101

Bilingualism or split personality? Once the two patterns fit,the choice is mine. I wake up and write down my dreams inthe language I dreamed them. I read the newspapers in both.I live my day as it comes along. I say either “tu” or “vous,”whichever one I wish. And I make “I love you” sound just asbeautiful as “Je t’aime.” (Dicks 1995, 140)

When things are going smoothly, we find differences en-riching and enjoyable: “Americans are just so open, so freefrom all the traditional French restrictions”; “The Frenchhave such great style.”

When things are not going well, we quickly find fault withwhatever cultural characteristic is annoying us: “These damnAmericans just don’t know how to behave. Look at the wayshe throws herself into the chair.” “It’s just a slice of leftoverpizza—why does he have to set the table as if he were eatinga five-course banquet?”

Couples often react to each other as though the other’s be-havior were a personal attack rather than just a differencerooted in ethnicity. Typically, we tolerate differences whenwe are not under stress. In fact, we find them appealing.However, when stress is added to a system, our tolerance fordifference diminishes. We become frustrated if we are notunderstood in ways that fit our wishes and expectations.(McGoldrick, Pearce, and Giordano 1982, 21–22)

The husband and wife in an ideal American marriage walkhand in hand through life, smiling sweetly at one another.The French ideal is harder to picture, but the couple mayvery well be gesticulating wildly, yelling at each other at thetop of their lungs—but at least they’re not bored. In Frenchculture, as we have seen, harmony may not be a desirablestate. Where the American partner may feel the relationshipitself is at stake and try to defuse a tense situation by compro-mising or placating, the French partner may not feel thateven a serious argument means major problems. As far as he

102

or she is concerned, nothing truly fundamental has beenthreatened by the argument.

In an intercultural relationship, it may be easier and lessthreatening to interpret differences as a culture clash. Thestatement “It’s a cultural problem” can paper over cracks ina relationship. Many people, particularly those with littlepersonal intercultural experience, mistakenly believe thatculture is simply a given, somehow carved in stone. Whenthe strain reaches a crisis point in an intercultural marriage,the couple generally focuses on the cultural differences, oftenexaggerating them, and blaming them for every problem. Acultural conflict may be less threatening than a personal one.It may be easier to think that one has married the wrongculture rather than the wrong person.

103

10

With Work

In this chapter, we analyze some fundamental differencesbetween the French and American conception of work andits place in an individual’s life and identity. Specific discus-sion of intercultural issues in the workplace will be providedin Part III, chapter 16, “Working across Cultures.”

I Work, Therefore I Am

The cliché is accurate for most Americans, who live to work.Americans tend to define themselves by their job or profes-sion and find it quite normal to introduce themselves in thisway: “Hi, I’m Maria Lopez, and I’m HR Manager at X Com-pany.” If asked to describe themselves further, they usuallylist their activities: “I’m a Cub Scout Den Mother, I playtennis, I’m the vice president of the church women’s group,and I volunteer at Children’s Hospital.” Americans’ activi-ties, and particularly their jobs, are how they establish andaffirm their identity. Not surprisingly, American employeesare expected to give the highest priority to their work, sacri-ficing personal and family time if necessary.

Research on the meaning of work in the U.S. shows thecentrality of work in people’s lives. In one study, about two-

104

thirds of the people interviewed said that they would con-tinue to work even if they had enough money to live decentlyuntil the end of their lives. The researchers concluded that“people want to work because they are intuitively aware thatwork, be it ‘bad’ or ‘good,’ helps to shape them.” Work givespeople a sense of direction and allows them the opportunityfor personal creativity and fulfillment. (Asselin 1994, 19)

Manual work also plays a central role in American-style egali-tarianism. Seeing the wealthy or the powerful engaged inmanual labor reconfirms the American belief that all peopleare created equal. The White House once sent out a pressrelease with a photo of former President Clinton and VicePresident Gore helping to rebuild an African American churchdestroyed by arson. They were dressed in worn jeans and poloshirts and shown wearing work gloves and handling power tools.Clinton was shown on a stepladder wiping the sweat from hiseyes while Gore drilled a hole in the wall. The photo resonatedpositively with the American public because of the typicalAmerican values it illustrated: self-reliance, taking action,pitching in to help a neighbor in need, informality, and thenotion that no one is too high-and-mighty to do such a job.

In contrast to Americans, the French work to live. Theyare more likely to introduce themselves in terms of wherethey live or have lived, their family’s roots, what school theywent to (especially if it was a prestigious one), and personalinterests such as the type of music or books they prefer. Inshort, French people tend to make a much looser connectionbetween who they are and what they do.

The French public would be surprised to see a photo oftheir leaders engaged in manual labor as Clinton and Gorewere. It would be considered inappropriate and undignified.When an enterprising American couple purchased the tradi-tional Quimper Faïence factory in Brittany, they put on jeansand pitched in with their employees to clean the place up.This was so unusual that the local newspaper sent a reporterto record the event.

With Work 105

In addition to respect for and deference to hierarchy, theFrench admiration for things intellectual corresponds to adevaluing of manual labor. Those who make a living withbrawn may be appreciated as good people and good workers,particularly when the bathroom is flooded, but they willnever have the status of those who make their living withtheir brain.

Work is important to the French, but it is not the primaryfocus or source of satisfaction in life. Philip Harris and RobertMoran note that “…[the French] are seldom willing to sacri-fice the enjoyment of life out of excessive dedication to work.Qualité de la vie [quality of life] is what matters” (1987, 452).Depending on the position and level of responsibility, workmay simply not be as high on the French employee’s list ofpriorities as it is on the average American’s list. Promotionsmean more money, but also more work and responsibility, andmay not be as eagerly sought in France as in the United States.Spending time with one’s family and friends or pursuing per-sonal interests may be just as important as professional ad-vancement. Although there are some “workaholics” in Frenchcompanies, someone who seems to have no outside life, at-tachments, or interests will be considered a bit odd. Withquality of life as one of their top priorities, the French may notbe as psychologically devastated by the loss of a job as Ameri-cans often are. You have lost your position, which may indeedbe very serious, but you have not lost part of your identity.

The importance of living a balanced life in France is re-flected in the more laid-back attitude toward work and thework schedule. All employees receive by law at least fiveweeks of paid vacation per year, three of which must be takentogether. The desertion of Paris for the entire month ofAugust is legendary, and much of the nation’s business isvirtually shut down as well. In addition the eleven paidholidays per year (twelve in Alsace-Lorraine) are often ex-tended through the custom of les ponts (bridges). If a holidayfalls on a Tuesday or Thursday, the French often take Mon-

106

day or Friday off as well, whether paid or not, to gain a four-day weekend. The number of holidays in May (three to four),combined with les ponts, can make for a very light workmonth.

In the United States, the phrase “quality of life” is oftenunderstood to exclude the quality of life in the workplace. InFrance, the broader concept of quality of life includes work.The French have a reputation for being bons vivants who livethe good life, taking pleasure in it and stopping to smell theroses—even to eat them in elaborate confectionery. Frenchpeople are not risking core concepts of self on their jobperformance, and their approach is therefore less intense.French managers may work late or on weekends to completean urgent project, while subordinates generally leave at theusual time and get back to the project the following morning.Americans at all levels facing a deadline or a demanding taskhave an essential part of their identity at stake and will oftenwork extra hours to meet the challenge.

Where American workers pride themselves on workinghard (“We really worked hard today; we got a lot accom-plished”), French workers are more likely to congratulateeach other for working well: “On a bien travaillé aujourd’hui”(“We worked well today”). In this connection, it is interestingto note that there is no good equivalent in French culture forthe term work ethic. The closest would be conscienceprofessionelle, or professional conscience. This term refers to anindividual’s professionalism and seriousness on the job butdoes not include the American concept of commitment towork, one’s job, or the company. As in English, éthique (ethics)is used for a group of people who abide by the same professionalrules under un code déontologique (a code of ethics).

My Resumé, Your Curriculum Vitae

We can gain some interesting insights if we examine thecultural values that underlie the preparation and evaluation

With Work 107

of resumés in both cultures. Resumé writers in the UnitedStates are advised to use “action words” like achieved, accom-plished, and managed. The resumé itself is a fairly hard-sellsummary of what the individual has accomplished. People tryto present themselves positively as active, dynamic, hard-working individuals. While actual fabrication of informationis frowned upon, the writer is encouraged to edit or “manage”the information to impress the potential employer. An im-pressive, eye-catching presentation is important so that theresumé and its writer will stand out from the crowd. Themessage is, “Here is what I can do for your company.”

French resumés are more straightforward, a relativelyunembellished listing of raw data such as position held anddates of employment. Personal details such as age, maritalstatus, number of children, and possibly a photo are oftenincluded. Although some details may be judiciously left out,there will be no effort at “impression management.” In fact afancy presentation will be suspect; it looks too slick andsuggests that the writer may be trying to hide something orglossing over a lack of substance. The message here is, “Doyou think the position your company is offering might suitme?”

By playing up a person’s achievements and playing downpersonal details, American resumés aim for objectivity, for astraightforward indication of an individual’s potential. If thecandidate has the education, background, and skills to do thejob, the rest is considered irrelevant. In France, the feeling isthat education, credentials, professional background, andskills may not be enough; personality and temperament mat-ter as much as qualifications. French recruiters look for a fitbetween the individual and the context of the job beyond thecandidate’s ability to accomplish the tasks. They look at theperson’s qualifications, of course, but they also look at whothe person is.

108

Dignity and Conformity in the Workplace

The act of working and being productive in American cultureis in itself an affirmation of an individual’s worth. Americanstake pride in what they do, and if they have to put up withadverse conditions to achieve their goals, they take addi-tional pride in overcoming them: “We had to work aroundthe clock and order in pizza at three in the morning, but theproposal looked great and we got the contract.”

Such a comment from a French employee might sound toco-workers like a flimsy rationalization for aiding and abet-ting one’s own exploitation. Intrinsic rewards such as pride inone’s work and accomplishment are not enough in them-selves to counterbalance personal sacrifice in a country wherea wide range of employee benefits is mandated by French law.In addition to the vacations and holidays mentioned earlier,French employees have comprehensive health-care benefits,including prenatal care, child immunizations, regular check-ups, and dental, vision, and prescription benefits, which theykeep during periods of unemployment. There is also paidparental leave, job protection for pregnant workers or thoseon parental leave, subsidized day care, and family and childallowances. All of these are felt to support human dignity andare seen as a right, not a privilege.

Dignity in France, and especially social dignity, is closelyrelated to the concept of solidarity. French citizens need tosupport one another against negative forces that dehumanizeindividuals and deprive them of their dignity—for example,unemployment. Americans tend to see unemployment as aneconomic rather than a social issue, but for the French, itgoes deeper. Because they are no longer active participants insociety, the long-term unemployed are in danger of beingmarginalized, becoming second-class citizens cut off from thesocial world. Such a person is called an exclu (excluded per-son) in France, torn out of the social fabric. Attached to thenotion of joblessness is a powerful element of shame. In the

With Work 109

United States the fact of being without work may not in itselfbe cause for shame, particularly amidst the layoffs anddownsizings of recent years, but failing to make every effortto find work, on the other hand, is considered shameful.

These notions of dignity and respect are present in theFrench workplace as well, especially in the treatment ofemployees, which accounts in large part for the reaction ofDisney employees in France to regulations regarding theirdress and grooming. They felt that the company had no rightto dictate such personal things, that they were being reducedfrom human beings to “employee units” devoid of personal-ity. A common American reaction might be “If they don’tlike it, they can go work somewhere else.” But Americansalso agree that there are some things that no company canrequire of its employees. Imagine the outcry at Americancorporations if employees and their families were required toattend a specific church every Sunday morning as a conditionof employment. The difference between France and theUnited States lies mainly in where the line is drawn.

Belonging is an important goal for American employees.Americans’ pride in being part of the team makes them morewilling—even eager—to play down individual differences andquirks. They may wear company logo clothing even outsidethe workplace or decorate their cars with company bumperstickers.

From a French perspective, it is hard to understand whyemployees with little loyalty to a specific company are willingto allow their employer to codify their professional attitudesand behaviors in the form of corporate values, vision, andmission statements. The French feel that work is importantand provides people with a sense of social dignity, but topmanagement had better not tell them how to behave or whatto think.

As an example of this attitude, consider what happenedduring a contentious companywide meeting at the headquar-ters of a large French manufacturer. The CEO and founder of

110

the company, a highly respected gentleman in his eighties,was making the case for austerity measures to improve prof-itability. He was publicly challenged by an assembly-lineworker who argued that the need for such measures was proofof managerial incompetence and demanded the resignationof the entire board of directors. Such a confrontation is rarein France, but it is virtually unimaginable in the UnitedStates.

This anecdote illustrates a paradox that is not easily ex-plained. While the French tend to be more respectful ofhierarchy and more accepting of authority, they do not hesi-tate to voice their opinion to those occupying the highestlevels, as the line worker did. In the United States, where theculture is less authoritarian and employees are more autono-mous and empowered, such a confrontation rarely occurs.

111

11

With Politics

Politics and Everyday Life

The state plays such a central role in French life that politicsis one of the most serious national preoccupations. Decisionsmade at the highest political levels can have instant andsignificant effect on the daily routine of someone as distantas, for example, a farmer living near the Spanish border. Forthis reason, politics is more of an everyday affair in Francethan in the United States and is an eternal source of conver-sation and debate. Everyone has an opinion and expresses itwith great energy. Arguments, even when quite heated, areenjoyed by participants and bystanders alike, particularlywhen laced with wit, irony, and a clever turn of phrase.

Television news broadcasts always cover political affairs indetail. From unions and employee demonstrations to the roleof the state in education, every aspect of French economicand social life has some underlying political element. Whatmatters to the French, though, is not just the actions of suchand such a party but also the ideology and purpose behind theaction. Although the political gap between left and right hasclosed somewhat since the 1980s, each party retains a dis-

112

tinct ideology.∗ In recent years people have tended to defineand choose their political affiliation not so much in terms ofleft or right sensibilities but rather in terms of a few impor-tant economic and social issues: the discrepancy between the“haves” and the “have-nots,” France’s role in the EuropeanUnion, immigration, and the debate over immigrants’ rights.More wary than they used to be, the French tend to considerissues on a case-by-case basis before aligning themselves withany political party and even then do not necessarily supportall aspects of the party program.

American grassroots activism and lobbying politicians arenot features of French politics. This is not to say thatbackroom deals do not exist in France, but the notion ofprivate, nonprofit, or corporate lobbying groups meeting withpoliticians to influence legislation before it is debated andvoted into law is simply not the French way. Perhaps becauseof the Revolution and other popular uprisings, the relation-ship between the governed and those governing tends to beadversarial and comes into play primarily after a law has beenproposed by the government. Then opponents take their caseinto the streets via protests, strikes, and other actions thatcan range from cheerful, colorful parades to violent confron-tations with police and the Compagnie Républicaine de Sécurité(riot squad). Lawmakers act and the people react. This pro-cess is reflected in the way policy decisions are made andhanded down in business as well.

Political issues and the nature of the political debate inFrance are a far cry from what happens in the United States,where demands for tax cuts and reduction of governmentintervention, for example, have gained widespread support.Although working citizens in France pay close to half of theirannual salaries in combined national and local taxes (includ-ing social security payments), there is no serious call for

* See pages 114–15 for a brief description of political parties.

With Politics 113

individual tax cuts. Instead, French politicians are more likelyto ask, “How much more can we ask French citizens to con-tribute to maintain the social security system and to keepFrance a strong leader among European countries?” Budgetcutting in the U.S. is normally undertaken to bring down thedeficit or reduce taxes. In France austerity measures wereintroduced in 1995 to ensure that the country could meet theeconomic criteria required for participation in the EuropeanMonetary Union. In addition the necessity of ensuring mini-mal survival with dignity—for example, by increasing or pro-longing social benefits—has stretched resources further in acountry suffering from a stubbornly high unemployment rate.

In a diverse country where immigration issues becomemore sensitive each day, the rise of the Front National, anextreme right-wing party supporting the “French race,” raisedthe anxiety level of many citizens and political leaders. De-spite official opposition and popular protests, the party se-cured mayoral posts in a number of midsized cities, and manyresidents and observers noticed a corresponding drop in ra-cial tolerance and an increase in instances of hate crimes.The F.N. received 15 percent of the vote in the 1995 presi-dential election and reached an alarming 40 percent in somelocal elections. One of the many controversies generated bythe F.N. was the criticism by its leader, Jean-Marie Le Pen,of the multiracial nature of the French national soccer teamin 1996. His remarks provoked angry reaction from everypolitical persuasion. The dawn of the twenty-first century hasseen the strength and threat of the F.N. reduced as powerstruggles have split the party into two factions.

The Political Spectrum

The French are baffled by the apparent paradox of Americanpolitical life: in a culture which supposedly values a widerange of ideas and diversity of all sorts, why are there—for all

114

intents and purposes—only two viable and credible politicalparties? The French could never make such simple politicalcategorizations. They tend to see more nuances in addressingpolitics and other issues than do Americans—a spectrum ofgrey areas between extreme opposites. K.I.S.S. (Keep itsimple, stupid!) would not be an effective rallying cry inFrance.

Use of the terms right and left to denote political viewscame from the seating plan of the French AssembléeNationale, formed just after the Revolution. Today there are577 seats in the Assemblée, covering a range of politicalparties from far left (French Communist Party) to far right(National Front), with everything in between.

The major conservative parties are the Rassemblement pourla République (Rally for the Republic, or R.P.R.), the partyfounded by Jacques Chirac, which seeks to bear de Gaulle’slegacy into the future, and the Union de la Démocratie Française(Union of French Democracy, or U.D.F.), a grouping ofsmaller conservative parties and movements. Following theEuropean parliamentary elections of 1999, a new party, theRassemblement pour la France (R.P.F.), emerged under right-ist, anti-European leadership. While not sharing the Ameri-can Republican ideology of self-reliance and spending as littleas possible on social programs, the French conservative par-ties tend to support the interests of business owners andmanagement. At the far right is the Front National, theextremist party described above.

The major left-of-center party is the Parti Socialiste (Social-ist Party, or P.S.). The Parti Communiste (Communist Party, orP.C.) is still very much part of the French political landscape,although its influence has decreased since the early 1990s. Aleftist coalition of radical, green, and ecological parties is fairlysmall but has a loyal following. The left-wing parties generallysupport measures favoring the common citizens, protection ofworkers and families, and equitable distribution of wealth andresources. Left-wing parties have traditionally been more hesi-

With Politics 115

tant toward involvement in the European Union, fearing a lossof French cultural identity and erosion of workers’ rights andprotections by an increased dependence on market forces.

During the 1980s and 1990s, French voters opted threetimes for a dual political system called cohabitation, meaningthat executive power is shared by the president and the major-ity coalition parties that control the Assemblée Nationale.An approximately equivalent situation in U.S. political termswould involve, for example, a Republican president with aDemocratic vice president, cabinet, and Congressional ma-jority. The French feel such an arrangement ensures a balanceof power and distribution of responsibilities.

Most parties, regardless of their orientation, agree that thestate should play an active role in citizens’ lives. The Ameri-can idea of “the less government, the better” strikes theFrench as illogical and impractical. This approach, they feel,gives too much weight to the private sector and to capitalism.Private enterprise will not and cannot replace the state as theequitable provider of social services, protection, and justice.Despite budget problems and heavy tax burdens, the centralpremise—that the state has certain obligations toward itscitizens—is nearly sacred in French life. Because of the levelof state involvement, governmental decisions often reverber-ate into everyday life in very concrete ways.

Most politicians in France come from the ranks of thenation’s most prestigious institutions of higher learning (usu-ally the ENA, Ecole Nationale d’Administration—NationalSchool of Administration, a grande école). Education is theyellow brick road to the highest ranks of civil service, includ-ing ministerial positions and the presidency. An ENA profes-sor got a surprising reaction when he asked his twenty-five-year-old first-year students, “How many of you would like tobecome president of the Republic one day?” A dozen students(out of approximately 140) raised their hands. Nurtured bythe system and to a lesser extent by families, political ambi-tion starts early indeed.

116

The idea of a political career built on success as an athleteor a film star is incomprehensible to the French, who expecttheir politicians to be experienced, consummate political ani-mals. Most French politicians begin their careers early in lifeand work their way up to positions of power in their parties.Even if they disagree with the opinions expressed, Frenchcitizens expect politicians to be educated and articulate.

Personality, eloquence, and public speaking skills are alsoimportant requirements for a political career. A proof of goodeducation and intelligence and the ability to deliver a bril-liant and articulate speech that goes right to the people’sheart and soul is always a strong asset in politics. The Frenchpolitico must have a fund of classical and historical refer-ences that indicate the speaker’s level of culture and refine-ment. The late President François Mitterrand, a former law-yer, was often praised for his ability to produce an excellentspeech on the spot with minimal preparation. American-style “cheerleading” is not enough and is not always appropri-ate. This kind of balloon-dropping, confetti-throwing politi-cal feel-good extravaganza—typical at U.S. party conven-tions—has no place in the more serious, intellectual Frenchpolitical scene.

In a culture built on networks, connections play a politicalrole as important as the message delivered or the competencedemonstrated. It is well known that leaders of major Frenchpublic companies—which are still legion despite privatizationefforts—owe their top positions to political affiliations. Aprominent businessman from a midsized company was pro-moted to the highest ranks of a pharmaceutical and chemicalgiant, thanks to a personal recommendation from formerPresident Valéry Giscard d’Estaing. Changes in governmentor cabinet shake-ups often precede major promotions anddemotions within the top-management strata of public insti-tutions and companies. These decisions are generally made invery private meetings—the opposite of open, transparentdecision making.

With Politics 117

A notable exception to “business and politics as usual” isthe case of Bernard Tapie, a go-getter entrepreneur whobecame a business raider after a mercifully brief singing ca-reer. Tapie’s case is so far out of the accepted French moldthat it is useful to examine it in detail.

Casting himself in the American model of the self-mademan, Tapie was involved in everything from sports to TVshows to public political debates. He rose rapidly. The crown-ing achievement of his career was his election as both aFrench and a European deputy and appointment as Ministerof Urban Affairs under a socialist government in the early1990s.

As might be expected, such a maverick was never reallyaccepted by the French establishment. He was attacked forunethical and illegal practices, forced to declare personalbankruptcy, stripped of his positions in French and Europeanpolitics, and sent to prison for bribing soccer players to throwa game. Before his imprisonment, he became a movie star,demonstrating a remarkable ability to bounce back. Atypicalin France, he resembles, in a way, the American hero who atfirst makes it against all odds only to then fail. He has beenvery popular among members of the middle and lower classesin France and at times has been compared with Lee Iacocca.

Attitudes toward Politicians

A life of public service in France is respected, though politi-cians themselves may be the target of vitriolic below-the-beltsatire. One of the most popular programs on television is apuppet show entitled Les Guignols de l’Info on cable channelCanal Plus (www.cplus.fr), in which political figures of allpersuasions are regularly skewered. In their wickedly accuratefoam rubber incarnations, French politicos are portrayed asbumbling cretins, rapacious power-hungry swine, and viciousback-stabbers.

118

The program’s writers had a field day with Mitterrand’sdeath. In one episode, his ghost haunted the Elysée Palacelike an evil spirit from The Exorcist. Rubbing his hands as hemade his successor’s life a living hell, he chuckled, “This isgreat! I can still be a pain in the ass even if I’m dead!” AsChirac shaves, the word “JACKASS” appears in red letterson the mirror.

While the TV puppet show Les Guignols could never beaccused of subtlety, its jokes tend to become fairly elaborateand assume considerable familiarity with politics and currentaffairs in France and beyond. In the United States, politi-cians are also fair game for humor, but until recently it hasbeen of a somewhat gentler nature. The jokes tend to bequick sketches or one-liners that are easy to understand. Oneneeds to be familiar only with headlines—and the more scan-dalous, the better.

Regardless of the status and prestige they attach to promi-nent political leaders, French citizens tend to judge the effec-tiveness and integrity of a public person rather than thediscourse and the ideas he or she professes. Fed up withincreasing fiscal pressure and facing an uncertain future, theFrench have progressively lost faith and trust in the institu-tions that make up the Fifth Republic. Deputies and minis-ters are less credible, and unions have seen their ranks rapidlydecline. Union membership in 1998 was at its lowest level indecades, at less than 12 percent of the working population.

This attitude of political discontent has frayed the socialfabric, reinforcing feelings of malaise within French society.The French are still awaiting the strong, uncompromisingleader, perhaps in the image of de Gaulle, who can give thema sense of confidence while enhancing the prestige and statusof France in the world.

Although pointed criticism and cynicism are part of thepublic scene, the privacy of French politicians is guardedbehind high walls that no reputable journalist would scale.Investigative journalism in the Woodward and Bernstein tra-

With Politics 119

dition is nonexistent in France, and British-style “tabloidtell-all” revelations tend to focus on movie stars and foreignroyalty rather than politicians at home.

In France, politicians’ privacy involves more than theirsexual and financial activities. A major controversy eruptedafter the death from prostate cancer of former PresidentFrançois Mitterrand. His physician published a book reveal-ing that the president knew long before his death that he wassuffering from an inoperable disease. The book was bannedafter one day due to the family’s protest (and available imme-diately on the Internet from a cybercrêperie in Besançon).What shocked the French about the book was not so muchthe disclosure of Mitterrand’s illness, or even that he wasaware of his fate when running for a second term in 1988.These aspects of the issue never raised any serious ethicalconcern in the media. At the core of the controversy was therevelation of such a secret: the betrayal of Mitterrand’smemory and of the trust he had put in his doctor. It simplyviolated basic rules that call for the respect of people’s dig-nity and privacy.

Another privacy scandal made news when a prominentjournalist revealed that President Mitterrand had not only amistress but also an illegitimate daughter by her. Again, theFrench were shocked not so much by the material facts of thecase but by the revelation and public dissemination of knowl-edge appropriately shared only by intimate members of thepresident’s circle. The journalist’s scoop did his career nogood at all. As one Frenchman noted at the time, “In France,it’s a scandal if a political figure doesn’t have a mistress.”

Mitterrand’s mistress and their daughter Mazarine lived inthe apartment adjacent to his, while his wife occupied theofficial residence. When the Socialist Party presented a newTwingo (a Renault subcompact) to the president, no one wassurprised to see Mazarine driving the car shortly afterward.She and her mother even attended Mitterrand’s funeral alongwith his wife and their two sons. This certainly raised eye-

120

brows in France, but it is simply unimaginable for a similarscene to take place at the official funeral of a U.S. president.

While the sexual indiscretions of American presidents—Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Eisenhower, for instance—wereonce ignored by the press, such is no longer the case. Themedia now dig for dirt and make it extremely public. Ameri-cans finally got tired of the excesses of the media in theClinton scandal and impeachment trial, but not because theydisapproved of the invasion of his privacy.

Women in Politics

Despite social barriers and a linguistic awkwardness (until1998 a female cabinet minister was addressed using a mascu-line article as “Madame le Ministre”), Frenchwomen have madeconsiderable strides in politics. Women were given the right tovote in France in 1944, and a woman votes under her maidenname all her life. A number of women have served at thecabinet level in various French governments, and one, EdithCresson, was briefly prime minister in the early 1990s. Asnoted earlier, many social benefits and protections for workingwomen and working mothers are already in place in France.

In 1998, the twenty-seven-member French cabinet in-cluded eight female ministers, or 29 percent. Frenchwomenalso held 12 percent of the seats in the Assemblée Nationale,doubling the percentage of previous years. The percentage ofwomen in congress or parliament is 10 percent in the UnitedStates, 25 percent in Germany, and over 40 percent in Swe-den (Lacorne 1998).

That same year, the Constitution of 1958 was modified toensure that women have equal access to politics. Many fe-male politicians and commentators agreed in general termsthat more women should be included in politics at the na-tional level but rejected the call for quotas, maintaining thatthey are simply not necessary, since equality is already guar-

With Politics 121

anteed by the Constitution. In concrete terms, the amend-ment in effect requires that political parties must chooseequal numbers of female and male candidates.

Quotas indeed violate the French universalist principle.Some Frenchwomen echo the fears expressed in the Ameri-can affirmative action debate: that a woman who gains aposition because of a quota will be perceived as less thancompetent. People may assume she would not have achievedsuccess on her own merits. Despite such concern, women inthe United States have been less reluctant to use quotas totheir advantage.

Nobody likes quotas, but that’s the only way to make thingschange, to get women into positions of power so they canshow what they know, what they can do. It’s not quotas perse that are bad but the way they are used. The idea was to givewomen the chance to make their mark, not to shove incom-petent women into important jobs they would be taking awayfrom men. (Hermary-Vieille and Sarde 1997, 300)

Nevertheless, some Frenchwomen say that politics in Francewill always be a man’s game and that the political arena issimply too misogynist for women to make much progress.Some Frenchmen—and Frenchwomen—maintain that poli-tics is too dirty a business for women to get entangled in.

123

12

With Religion

Church and State

Separation of church and state is another precious republicanvalue of the French. Since 1905, when church and state wereofficially split, many French citizens have been eager to keepthe church away from any influence in the country’s affairs.Nonreligious matters are termed laïques. While laïque can betranslated as “civil” or “secular,” there is a sense of missionabout the word that the English equivalents do not transmit.Particularly in the area of public education, laïcité (nominalform of laique) suggests a dedication to the values of reason,openness, and tolerance.

In a 1998 poll 85 percent of the French people who werequestioned supported the principle of laïcité. Most of themfelt that the state should practice a laïcité d’équité (secularegalitarianism), which promotes equality among religions.At the same time, 28 percent felt that the state should notbecome involved in religious affairs (France 2, 4 April 1998).

Church and state are separated in France to the extentthat the state does not even recognize religious ceremonies aslegal marriages. A priest or other clergy can marry only in the

124

name of the Lord, not of the state. A couple must first bemarried legally by the local mayor or the mayor’s representa-tive. If the couple or their parents want a church ceremony,it takes place later.

In 1996 France marked the 1500th anniversary of thebaptism of Clovis, France’s first Christian king, with com-memorative ceremonies and other special events. ManyFrench people questioned whether the state should be in-volved at all in a religious event, despite its historical impor-tance. Should the whole thing have been toned down orplayed to emphasize history rather than religion? Should thegovernment have merely allowed private and religious groupsto organize the event rather than being a direct participant?Demonstrations and debate on such topics suggest that sepa-ration of church and state is still a very sensitive point. Itattracted further attention during the pope’s visit to Francefor the International Catholic Youth Days in the summer of1997.

It is difficult for the French to understand the importanceof religious activity in Americans’ public lives and the placeof religion in political debate. It would be inconceivable forelection campaigns in France to show candidates and theirfamilies attending church. An editorial writer in a Frenchnewsmagazine not noted for left-wing radicalism expressedcomplete bafflement that the Republican Party in the UnitedStates wanted to support “family values” by allowing prayerin public school. He could not understand what possibleconnection there might be between family values and prayerin school. Furthermore, he was taken aback at the very ideaof prayer in a public school.

Despite official separation of church and state and con-tinuous litigation over the issue, religion plays a major role inU.S. public life. Individual French athletes may cross them-selves before a race or a match, but in the United States youcan witness a ring of burly professional football players hold-ing hands and kneeling to pray together. Businesses may be

With Religion 125

listed in the “Christian Yellow Pages” with the implicationthat people patronizing them are assured of a high degree ofethical responsibility. The White House Christmas tree andEaster egg hunt are long-standing traditions, and the lightingof a Chanukah menorah by the president has been added tothe list of celebrations.

Catholicism à la Française

In France, religion is virtually synonymous with Catholicism.French people tend to assume that nearly everyone is at leastnominally a Catholic and may be quite taken aback whenthey find this is not so. For most of the French, Catholicismis simply a given. In fact French Catholicism is more a matterof tradition than of faith, but anything else is consideredmarginal. Reference is often made to a “three times Catho-lic,” who appears in church for baptisms, weddings, and fu-nerals.

Religious events and milestones are often more importantas family traditions than as spiritual ones. Baptisms, firstcommunions, and weddings bring out distant relatives fromall over the region or even the country; they become a kindof family reunion. Again, the extended family gathers arounda special meal to celebrate and catch up on all the news and,above all, to maintain the network of relationships that bindsthem together.

Many French Catholics are finding renewed meaning inchurches and spiritual groups that strive to preserve tradi-tions such as the Latin Mass or that lead the way in activismfor social justice. Both strains have run afoul of the Vatican,which is seen by many as the guardian of medieval traditions.The pope’s condemnation of artificial birth control, his strongopposition to abortion in a country where it has been legalfor more than twenty-five years, and his staunch support forthe celibacy of priests are in opposition to generally acceptedFrench norms. Not surprisingly, France has been called the

126

“wayward daughter of the church” since the Middle Ages.The French tendency to disagree, argue, and rebel appears inreligious matters as much as anywhere else.

Jacques Gaillot, an activist bishop, was removed by theVatican from his diocese in Normandy and reassigned to thediocese of Partenia. Neither the unpromising location of hisnew diocese—under a sand dune in the Sahara—nor the lowpopulation of Catholics, or for that matter anyone else, dis-couraged the bishop. With the help of some technically in-clined friends, he is now spiritual shepherd to a cyberflock inthe Virtual Diocese of Partenia (www.partenia.org), wherehe continues to send regular open letters to the pope. Hardlysurprising, really, in a country which had its own pope for awhile and bred some fairly spectacular heresies.

Other Faiths

Religious freedom in France is important, but the concept isnot understood in the same way as it is in the United States.The range of religious options found under “Churches” in theYellow Pages of American cities would be incomprehensibleto the French, who also have difficulty understanding theway Americans seem to shop around for a church or a min-ister they like.

Religious affiliation in the United States is often an im-portant element in a person’s identity. To say that an Ameri-can is Episcopalian, Southern Baptist, or Orthodox Jewishreveals something about that particular individual. Sayingthat a French person is Catholic provides no such insight.Being Catholic in France is virtually generic. Religion in theU.S. is also more public than in France, and a greater rangeof religious expression is permitted without inviting odd looksfrom neighbors or coworkers. In France religious conviction,beliefs, and practices are in the private sphere and left to theindividual and the family. However, if a French person wantsto be considered part of the French mainstream, it is better

With Religion 127

for him or her to be either Catholic or atheist than to belongto some other “exotic” religion. As in many other areas,foreigners are accorded more leniency. They are not expectedto convert to Catholicism as part of their assimilation intoFrench society, but they are expected to keep their religiousconvictions to themselves.

The stronghold of Protestantism in France is mainly theeastern areas that border Protestant countries—Germany andSwitzerland—and in the southwest. This region was the homeof Henri III de Navarre (Henri IV of France), a colorfulwomanizer who converted to Catholicism in order to becomeking of France. His comment on his conversion was, “Paris isworth a Mass.” French Protestantism, perhaps because of itssmaller number of adherents, does not present the wide rangeof variations found in the United States. French Protestantshave historically stood up against powerful, entrenched en-emies, including governments and religious institutions. Thiswas seen during World War II, when the devoutly Protestantvillage Le Chambon-sur-Lignon became famous for its unspo-ken “conspiracy of goodness.” Under the very noses of theNazis, virtually the entire population became involved insaving the lives of hundreds of Jewish children.

Islam is the fastest-growing religion in France, primarilybecause of the arrival of immigrants from former Frenchcolonies in North Africa. Mosques have been built in mostmajor French cities and in quite a few smaller ones. Asantiimmigrant and antiforeigner prejudice has become morecommon in recent years, relations between Muslims—eventhose who were born in France or who have acquired Frenchcitizenship—and their neighbors have been strained. French-born citizens of North African Arab descent are known asBeurs, a word that means “Arab” in verlan,* a sort of French

* Words in verlan are formed by placing the syllables in “back-ward” order; for example, copine (female friend) is pineco, pos-sible is bleusipo, etc.

128

pig latin, and which has entered mainstream discourse. Thecultural discrepancy between France’s secular traditions andthe more theocratic practices of many Arab countries makescommunication and understanding difficult. The sight ofMuslim crowds praying in the streets on Friday afternoonsdoes not sit well with many French people, for whom publicreligious expression represents a social disturbance and arefusal to fit into the French public mold.

Jews have been present in France for centuries. They havealternately thrived and been subject to bloody persecution aswell as less physical expressions of institutional antisemitism.In 1998 France celebrated the hundredth anniversary of EmileZola’s famous letter, “J’accuse,” in which he exposed perva-sive official antisemitism. Unlike most of the rest of Europe,many French Jews are Sephardic, having their roots in theIberian peninsula, North Africa, and Turkey. Interestingly,Napoléon instituted the office of the Grand Rabbi of Franceand reconvened the Sanhedrin, a traditional Jewish religiouscouncil.

129

13

With Society

French and American Realities

The structure of French society is fundamentally differentfrom that of the United States. Many important elementsdifferentiate them: their origins and history, the role of thestate, their judicial systems, the importance given to othercultures, and on and on. Such differentiation is to a signifi-cant degree the result of diverging if not opposing worldviews.The following four societal characteristics are among themost outstanding categories that differentiate these twoworldviews.

Multicultural or Monocultural. Refugees and émigrés havetraditionally found a haven in France, particularly if theybring outstanding artistic or intellectual gifts with them. Atthe core of the French welcome has been the assumption thatforeigners arriving in France can and should assimilate toFrench culture. This is an example of the French universalistattitude, which requires that everyone in a given situation,regardless of origins and particular circumstances, be treatedexactly the same.

130

The United States, too, has a history of assimilationistthinking. After all, Americans are the originators of the ideaof the melting pot. But from the beginning of Europeansettlement of the North American continent there has alsobeen a strain of thought that valued pluralism and todaypromotes diversity. To many Americans, therefore, Frenchassimilationism seems rigid and chauvinistic.

The July 1998 victory of the French team in the soccerWorld Cup seems to be a milestone in the recognition of thepluralization of French society. Front National leader Le Pen’s1996 outrage over the inclusion of nonwhite players on thenational team was drowned out as the entire country unitedto celebrate the team’s victory. Almost half of the playerswere born outside France, and the son of Algerian immi-grants, Zinedine Zidane, became a national hero after scoringtwo goals in the final game. In a word play on the colors ofthe French flag (bleu, blanc, rouge/blue, white, red), the vic-tory was hailed as “black-blanc-beur” (black-white-Arab).Local officials were pleased to report the theft of French flagsfrom public buildings, and young people of all ethnic back-grounds were seen waving and wearing them across the coun-try (Lacorne 1998).

According to one news source, the victory represents the“triumph of diversity in a country infected by right-wingextremists.” Soccer suddenly became more important thanpolitics, and some journalists claimed that “it became a con-stitutive element—and possibly the only one—of a tatteredsocial fabric. The World Cup turned into the Holy Grail”(France 2, 13 July 1998).

Yet, as the editor of the newspaper Libération remarks, “AWorld Cup victory does not change social reality, but it canchange the image the French have of themselves” (Economist1998, 43). In fact, beyond sports and music, people of foreignorigins are underrepresented in most political and social areasof French life. Apart from representatives of overseas Frenchdominions, only one person of color serves as mayor of his

With Society 131

town. The other 36,550 towns and villages have white mayors.France, with its traditional duty to spread its knowledge

and civilization the world over while protecting its own bor-ders from invasion, has never been culturally open to otherpopulations. In a well-known 1976 book, Le mal français (TheTrouble with France) author Alain Peyrefitte points out thatthe inability of France to learn from other cultures is one ofits most persistent ailments. Traditionally a “nation of immi-grants,” the United States has incorporated elements from allthe world’s peoples into its unique cultural mosaic. This richand dynamic mixture has been a source of both conflict andstrength throughout American history. Whereas the domi-nant culture in France and many other nations is a given,many of the dominant culture’s assumptions and practices inthe United States in recent years have been called into ques-tion. Quite simply, the U.S. is a great and continuing experi-ment.

The American ideal of valuing diversity and identifyingdifference as strength is in direct conflict with the Frenchgoal of assimilation into the cultural mold. Although thereare large numbers of assimilationists in the United States too,the society is not monolithic in outlook. France is far fromthis kind of multicultural reality. Cultural minorities inFrance are acknowledged and respected only to the extentthat they fit into the French social and cultural mold and donot disturb the social order. The magic word for success as animmigrant is assimilation. That’s all French society requiresfrom immigrants, and if they abide by French rules, they willreceive all of the legal benefits and advantages any legal alienor naturalized citizen can enjoy on French soil.

The two main vehicles of assimilation into French cultureare the French language and the educational system. Al-though these are very powerful elements of integration, theirlimitations have become obvious with North African popu-lations who migrated to France after World War II. This isespecially true for the French-born children of these immi-

132

grants, known as Beurs, as was mentioned earlier. With littleor no connection to their parents’ homeland, they are tornbetween a Muslim family culture and French social pressureto assimilate.

The Islamic headscarf conflict in the late 1980s and early1990s revealed France’s malaise in dealing with nonassimi-lated cultural practices. It occurred at the core of the Frenchpsyche, in the public schools. Muslim girls came to schoolwearing their traditional headscarves, thus bringing a mani-festation of their religious—therefore private—lives into aplace that was public and most emphatically secular. In somecases, they were asked to study in the library. In others, theywere simply dismissed from school until further notice. Therewas no set national policy to resolve the problem, and, atfirst, the decision was left up to each principal. In September1994, though, students in public schools were officially for-bidden to wear the Islamic headscarf. Muslim girls either hadto conform to public school rules or attend a religious school.This conflict is revealing of the difficulty with which Frenchsociety accepts people who do not fit the image of the goodcitoyen(ne) (citizen).

The degree to which immigrants manage to becomeFrench—to look, speak, act, and react as the French do, atleast in public—determines the degree to which the Frenchwill accept them. Arabs and black African immigrants mayassimilate culturally, but they and their children will alwaysstand out as “not quite” French.

Universalism, Egalitarianism, and the Principle of Differentia-tion. Universalism is a republican value that informs theDeclaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, the socialprotection system (as the French call it), labor laws, andmany other vital areas of social life. Based on this fundamen-tal principle, the government enacts laws that give eachindividual access to the same privileges. It does not in prin-ciple differentiate either positively or negatively based onthe origin or specific situation of the person.

With Society 133

Affirmative action laws such as those that have been onthe books in the United States—though they are beginningto disappear—would be hard to implement in France. Theyexemplify the principle of differentiation, granting differentrights and privileges for cultural or historical reasons on thebasis of past oppression or discrimination. From a Frenchpoint of view, this kind of differentiation would inevitablylead to the creation of separate societies, a precept that goesagainst the very principles that constitute the French Repub-lic and its social fabric.

The French constitution forbids making any distinctionamong citizens based on race, origin, or religion. In thiscontext, even moderate U.S.-style multiculturalism can beseen as a potential threat to the integrity of the nation. Anyattempt at enumerating minorities in France recalls theheadcounts of the Vichy and colonial regimes. The net effectis to create almost a taboo around issues of ethnicity.(Lacorne)

Similarly, the gender gap does not receive much attention inFrance compared with the United States, since French peopletend to identify themselves as members of the same societyand nation before asserting their gender differences. Despiteoutstanding intellectual leadership from such people asSimone de Beauvoir (Le deuxième sexe 1949), feminist move-ments have received limited attention in France. Women areusually more concerned with who they are and with theirfemininity—what makes them womanly—than with demand-ing particular consideration because they are women.

In a discussion of the differences in gender relations be-tween France and the United States, Elisabeth Badinter(1995) noted that universalism in France is based on a refusalto define a citizen by his or her particularity. Issues that inthe U.S. have been addressed primarily by women with afeminist agenda have been folded into more general efforts atsocial progress in France. This being said, French law and the

134

social system do in fact tend to support women in their rolesas women, wives, mothers, and workers with a variety ofeconomic and social programs.

One Frenchwoman observes that during the 1970s, thewomen’s liberation movements in France and the UnitedStates were about the same size and importance. There was,however, a small but crucial philosophical difference:

Frenchwomen emphasized the need to recognize differencesbetween men and women. Equal, yes, but different. MostFrenchwomen expected to be validated precisely for theirdifference—and they still do. American women, on the otherhand, wanted above all to become equal to men, with thesame rights and responsibilities.… [I]n France, there was astruggle in the nineteenth century to free women from work-ing down in the mines or at night. In the U.S., there is astruggle now to allow women to do all kinds of work, day ornight. (Hermary-Vieille and Sarde 1997, 294)

But issues of gender difference and equality go deeper thanmatters of work, property rights, and maternity leave.

Behind the different behaviors, there are two different mod-els. Frenchwomen are universalists. Beyond the feminine dif-ferences they lay claim to, they consider themselves above allmembers of the human race. American women, on the otherhand, see universalism as an illusion in the absence of equalrights. That’s why they have no problem placing themselvesin the category of minority along with Blacks, Indians, orhomosexuals. The term “minority” implies that they don’thave the same rights as the majority. And the majority iswhite men. (293)

However, the French do differentiate in terms of social ori-gin, which seems paradoxical in light of their cherished egali-tarian principles. Despite the official abolition of class dis-tinctions by the Revolution, social background, as we men-tioned earlier, still plays an important role in determining an

With Society 135

individual’s options for education, career choice, and ad-vancement. Authority and structure are essential in France.Because of the resilience of hierarchy in French society andtraditional organizations (and, to a lesser extent, families),power and responsibilities are distributed according to clearlines of authority. In social settings as well as in the work-place, relationships between superior and subordinates areclearly established and respected.

As noted earlier, friends tend to be made at similar sociallevels, and descendants of aristocrats rarely mix socially withdescendants of the wagon drivers who escorted them to theguillotine. Where such mixing occurs—the company’s Christ-mas celebration for all employees and their families, for ex-ample—interactions between high-level managers and otheremployees are usually formal.

Americans in France are usually cheerfully oblivious ofclass distinctions, and this may create some uncomfortablesituations for their French colleagues. An American depart-ment director who had recently arrived in France organizeda Christmas buffet dinner at his home for his whole staff,including spouses and children. For him, this was a goodopportunity to get to know his people better. Some sixtyguests attended, ranging from the janitor to the director ofglobal research.

The party went on until two in the morning, and from thehost’s perspective it was a complete success. He was pleasedthat the guests represented “a good mixture of people.” TheFrench guests also noted the mixture but were less positiveabout it. Employees at the same hierarchical level prettymuch stayed in their own groups, and, though most had apleasant evening, they later recalled the uneasiness they feltat not knowing exactly where they stood and what was ex-pected of them. While the American host was unaware of hisguests’ confusion, they were struck by the unusual attempt toblend public (work) and private (social) spheres across hier-archical levels.

136

Americans wishing to invite French colleagues from vari-ous levels to social functions, such as a backyard barbecue,should be aware of the reticence they are likely to encounter.This kind of gathering is not, strictly speaking, a taboo, andbeing a foreigner, you may be able to carry it off. It is impor-tant to keep in mind, however, that the rules are being bent,so bend them gently. Offering to share a “typical Americancultural experience” will alert guests that the evening may bedifferent from what they are expecting.

Justice. The legal systems of the United States and Francehave different historical and philosophical roots. Americanlaw is based on English common law, while French law is basedon Roman law. English common law was codified by MagnaCarta in 1215. Like so many other American institutions, itwas brought by early settlers to the new colonies. Common lawhas been referred to as the common sense of the community,crystallized and formulated by our ancestors. It depends upontradition and precedent for legal decisions, which are normallymade by a jury of lay people. Judgment is inferred, determinedby analogy with similar cases from the past.

French law as it stands today was essentially established bythe Napoleonic Code, adopted in 1804. The code combinedlarge portions of Roman law with the ideals of the FrenchRevolution, including individual liberty, equality before thelaw, and separation of church and state. Legal judgment isrendered by trained judges rather than a jury composed oflaypeople, and cases are determined according to written andcodified law.

Three French researchers suggest that the differences be-tween the American and French legal systems are nothingless than a different social method of approaching reality.They point out four important areas of variation between theU.S. and French systems:1. participation by community members versus an official

judge representing the State, though juries do exist inFrench criminal law;

With Society 137

2. an oral tradition versus a scholarly, formal, and writtenlaw;

3. reasoning based on similarity of cases versus reasoningbased on the relevance of a text to the structure of asituation analyzed in abstract terms; and

4. inductive, holistic reasoning versus deduction andanalysis. (Amado, Faucheux, and Laurent 1989, 34)

Many Americans mistakenly believe that under French law,a person is guilty until proven innocent. This is simply notso. French defendants are also presumed innocent, but it maybe easier to prove guilt in a French court than in an Ameri-can court. French criminal justice does not require proofbeyond a reasonable doubt for conviction, as is the case inthe United States. All that is required is what U.S. law refersto as a “preponderance of the evidence.” In other words, thedefendant is more likely to be guilty than innocent. In addi-tion, the decision of a judicial panel in France need not beunanimous for conviction—dissent is admitted even here.

A Cockeyed Optimist. Americans tend to think that peopleare basically good and that eventually bad people can turntheir lives around and start again. The French traditionallybelieve that humanity is either evil or a mixture of good andevil and are convinced that people rarely change their basicorientation. These attitudes are pervasive in France and re-inforce the belief of Americans—who in principle are in-clined to trust people until they are proven untrustworthy—that the French are basically mistrustful or cynical.

It is often noted that Americans tend to be irredeemablyoptimistic, while the French are so deeply pessimistic thatsome talk about taking vacations in the United States for a“breath of American optimism.” The French tendency tolook at the half-empty glass is reflected in French languageand philosophy. “C’est la vie!” (That’s life) expresses resigna-tion about what cannot be changed.

138

The French language provides some interesting insightsinto this stern philosophy. A verb like cope has no directequivalent in French, a “still life” picture is a “dead nature”(nature morte), and a “stillborn” child is “dead-born” (mort-né) in French. The French terms may strike Americans as abit harsh in their frankness, while the American words seemto the French like sugarcoating to avoid naming unpleasantrealities.

Not surprisingly, fate plays a more important role in Francethan in the United States. People are born into certain con-ditions that are difficult if not impossible to change. A Frenchperson climbing to the top in the American self-made way isvery much the exception rather than the rule. Since educa-tion is one of the most important factors in determining aperson’s social and economic level, almost everything hasbeen decided by the time a person completes his or hereducation and enters the categories established by society.Although the word entrepreneur is French (a person whoundertakes), entrepreneurship is not encouraged or nurturedby the French bureaucratic system or by the upbringing ofFrench children. French parents do not suggest that theirchildren “go set up a lemonade stand,” as American parentsmight do. There is little possibility in France—comparedwith the United States—for becoming a wealthy, nationallyrecognized person through one’s own efforts.

To Be or Not to Be…Perfect?

To Reach the Unreachable Star. Perhaps one of the fundamen-tal differences in French and American worldviews lies in theconception of the ideal compared to the real, or what canactually be achieved. The American icons—the Platonicforms of the ideal man, ideal woman, ideal child, ideal family,ideal community—are reflected in the work of NormanRockwell, a painter whose enormous popularity resulted fromhis ability to distill the American ideals of his time and

With Society 139

transpose them into concrete images. His images of perfec-tion à l’américaine made the artist himself an American icon.These images served as a sort of collective family album, butnot of our actual flawed and imperfect families. Rather, wesee in Rockwell’s paintings a perfection that resonates withwhat people then—and even today among the nostalgic—would have liked our families to look like, what it was feltthey should look like.

While there have been great changes in the Americanpsyche in the last fifty years, it is still peculiarly American tosee these kinds of idealized images as actually achievable.This notion results partially from the American belief thatanyone can achieve anything with enough hard work anddetermination. American mantras such as “Practice makesperfect” and “If you believe and you can conceive, you willachieve” have no equivalent in the French language or cul-ture.

American thinking tends toward the dualistic and theabsolutist—perfection itself is an absolute. Most Americanssee things as either black or white, good or bad, right orwrong, a success or a failure. What this means is that ifanything goes wrong in the quest to achieve the ideal, theentire enterprise becomes a failure. Any deviation from theideal is a major problem and is treated as such, for it has thepotential to become catastrophic. A nasty recurrent argu-ment is enough to convince a couple that their marriage is inserious trouble—and to compel them to seek professionalcounseling. A child who does not reach certain developmen-tal milestones properly and on time causes concern and visitswith the pediatrician and the child’s teacher.

Somehow, despite mountains of statistical evidence to thecontrary, despite their own experiences and those of theirfriends and family, Americans continue to believe that theycan achieve the ideal, and that if they do not, it is becausethey are personally deficient in some way. Everything mustbe optimized, all the time and forever. An American, then,

140

experiences profound disappointment and distress if the realdoes not correspond precisely to the ideal.

C’est Comme Ça; La Perfection N’est Pas de ce Monde (That’sthe Way It Is; Perfection Exists Only in Heaven). The Frenchideal is seen as a goal to be aimed for but which cannot by itsnature be achieved. The real cannot correspond precisely tothe ideal. It is not expected to, and the mismatch is simplyacknowledged and accepted, with neither great distress norgreat disappointment. People are expected to do their best andto achieve as much as they are capable of, but this capacitydoes not include perfection. The perfect grade of twenty pointsout of a possible twenty exists, at least en théorie, but en réalité,no one ever seriously expects to reach it.

From the French perspective, minor problems or devia-tions from the ideal are quite normal and acceptable and donot necessarily mean total failure—or indeed failure at all.Fate plays a part. Other people are involved, other forcesbeyond human control. One does what one can, but thesethings happen. The French meet them with a classic Gallicshrug, a bemused expression of resignation, and a resilient“C’est comme ça, hein?” (“That’s just the way it is, isn’t it?”).

By way of illustration, let’s look at expectations and prepa-rations for weddings in the two countries. How people ap-proach this important personal, family, and often religiousevent says a great deal about their cultural values.

American weddings, unless in a strongly traditional ethniccommunity, are usually expected to shine with perfection.The profession of wedding coordinator must be uniquelyAmerican. These planners advise couples that everythingmust be perfect on this most perfect of days. There should beno surprises on The Day; every element must be planned,double-checked, and rehearsed so that nothing unexpectedoccurs. The planners offer lists and even pocket remindercards for everyone involved, detailing exactly what each mustdo, exactly when, and exactly how. There is an element of aperformance, something apart from, and better than, real life.

With Society 141

French couples and families also bicker endlessly and en-ergetically about wedding details. But there is no expectationthat everything will be or must be perfect. The idea of havinga rehearsal is seen as absurd. Who would want to have amechanical Barbie doll wedding? Most important is a feelingof authenticity, of spontaneity. A French couple attendingthe wedding of a distant cousin in the United States wasastonished by the “show” or “parade” aspect of the event.From their perspective, those in the wedding party were littlemore than dressed-up marionettes.

An American, then, lives by striving for perfection, refus-ing to admit the possibility, let alone the virtual certainty, offailure. A French person lives by accepting—perhaps even byenjoying—imperfection. As noted above, what seems to in-terest the French is deviation from the ideal rather thancorrespondence with it. The emphasis is on difference—andvive la différence! From this emerges the French love of con-frontational arguments, of making and valuing friends withwhom one does not necessarily agree on important issues.

Sex Rears Its Ugly Head

Most Americans in France notice that French attitudes to-ward sex and nudity are much more liberal than those in theUnited States are. Whether this is a sign of a refreshing lackof inhibition or an indication of decadence is open to debate.The fact is that even prime-time commercials for soap ortowels in France might earn PG-13 or higher ratings in theU.S.

Golf in the United States tends to be a bit staid, but inFrance even golf can be sexy. A course in Burgundy is asymphony of titillating images, from a phallic sixth hole witha scrotum-shaped green to a bunker on the eleventh holefairway shaped like female genitalia. According to the touristbrochure, the course was “designed for maximum surprise,pleasure, and excitement” (Pilley 1996, 55).

142

As noted earlier, Americans’ preoccupation with the sexualactivities of politicians and celebrities fuels “sensational news”revelations and endless talk-show chatter. Sex appeal sells inFrance as well as anywhere else, but Americans’ insatiableappetite for peek-a-boo titillation does not translate well ina country where topless beaches are common.

Part of this difference may be explained by American pu-ritanism and prudery. This is, in fact, how many Frenchunderstand it, and they find American attitudes childish andutterly hilarious. In a wider sense, however, what shocksAmericans is the opposition of the ideal and the real—or atleast in its becoming common knowledge. The ideal Ameri-can marriage involves two people who are faithful to eachother forever: “Cheating on one’s wife or husband is unfor-givable” (Vitiello-Yewell and Nacher 1991, 37). It happens,but it is unforgivable, and once it becomes common knowl-edge, divorce is the most likely result.

Badinter (1995) notes that the puritan ideal of purityimplies control of the body and utter clarity of the soul, bothof which are violated in an affair. She goes on to say, how-ever, that the French do not demand utter truth and clarity,but rather negotiate between truth and lies. Ultimately, liesmay be better than a harsh truth and its consequences; peacemay be more important than truth.

Although Americans talk about “little white lies” and of-ten recognize their necessity, their conception of truth isgenerally an either-or proposition. Either something is trueor it isn’t, and that’s all there is to it. Strongly associated withthis is the idea that “Honesty is the best policy.” In France,a person may have péchés mignons, literally “cute sins,” suchas a weakness for temptations like rich pastries. And whilelying is a sin in the Catholic religion, French proverbialwisdom teaches that Toute vérité n’est pas bonne à dire (Alltruths need not be spoken). American culture encouragespeople to “open up” about their problems. Discussing one’sproblems with others is the best way to find a solution or to

With Society 143

cope with them. The opposite is usually true in a group inFrance, where silence is often the preferred way to address aproblem. The expression mettre sous silence (to place undersilence) is revealing here. Something is wrong and everyonein the family, for example, knows about it. Since they alreadyknow, they do not need to talk about it but simply live withthe situation. It is a fact of life, not a problem that must besolved before life can go on.

Money Makes the World Go ’Round

One French manager, after working in the United States forsome time, compared sensitive subjects in the two countries:“In the U.S., a businessman shows his company’s financialstatements but hides his mistress. In France, a businessmanshows his mistress but hides the financial statements” (BullWorldwide Information Systems 1992). He may have beenexaggerating for effect, but money in France is surrounded byalmost the same secrecy and vague sense of guilt as sex is inthe U.S.

Although the gap between the highest and lowest wages isless pronounced in France—and for that matter, in most ofEurope—than in the United States, making a lot of money issomething that one does not talk about, and certainly doesnot brag about. Revelations by the satirical newspaper LeCanard Enchaîné of the generous annual salary—about$600,000—received by former Peugeot CEO Jacques Calvetin the late 1980s were greeted with hoots of derision directedat him and accusations of scandal. True, he had turned thecompany around from the brink of bankruptcy, but manyFrench people saw it as personal enrichment on the backs ofexploited workers. Similarly, when Philippe Jaffré, formerCEO of Elf, left the company following its 1999 acquisitionby TotalFina, he received a “thank you” bonus of 60 millionfrancs. Such a generous French severance package provokedangry reaction, even from the right wing.

144

In contrast, when American employees of a Philadelphia-based company learned that their CEO was ranked only num-ber nineteen on the list of the region’s highest salaries, theywere disappointed that he hadn’t placed higher. This reflectsthe pride American workers take in being employed by thecompany with the most “successful” (i.e., highest paid) CEO.

The French attitude toward money was shaped by manyfactors. Catholic ideology calls for disregard of earthly richesin hopes of heavenly reward, and despite the Church’s muchreduced contemporary role, there remains a general feelingthat rapidly acquired wealth is suspect. A spectacular finan-cial ascent is assumed to be based on shady dealings or out-right exploitation.

In addition, the nouveau riche (“new rich” in literal trans-lation, “crude rich” in cultural translation) is a traditionalbutt of jokes and satire. Conversely, classic and popularFrench literature contains many stories about poor but braveand honest figures like Jacquou le Croquant and Cyrano deBergerac who set out, like d’Artagnan, sans un sou vaillant(penniless), and are held in high regard.

Although younger French generations are perhaps moreeager to obtain lucrative jobs than their parents, there is stilla sharp contrast between the way French and Americansrelate to money and material possessions.

145

14

Dialogue between Two Worlds

Interculturalists use the “sunglasses” or “colored lens” anal-ogy to explain how our worldview is filtered through theperspective of our deep culture—the hidden part of our cul-tural iceberg—embedded within us. Imagine for a momentthat all Americans are provided with yellow sunglasses. Noone notices them as anything special because everyone hasthem. What makes the sunglasses yellow is the unique set ofvalues, attitudes, beliefs, and assumptions that Americanshave in common. The yellow lens thus represents “Ameri-canness.” In France, everyone is also provided with sun-glasses, but the sunglasses are blue.

More and more people are aware of these kinds of dissimi-larities in perception and mindset between people from dif-ferent cultures. But often, when Americans are traveling toFrance, for instance, they believe all they have to do isacquire some blue sunglasses in order to learn about Frenchculture, to see and understand the “real” France. They arethen convinced when they come back that they do knowFrench culture—and it’s green!

The moral of this fable is this:

Before we are open and free to learn about another culture(and put on their sunglasses) we have to remove our own, so

146

that our interpretation of the new culture will not be “col-ored” or filtered by our own values, attitudes, and beliefs. Weare not here to judge another culture, but to learn about it.We need to develop “double vision” or the ability to see morethan one side of an idea. (Mercil 1984)

We will need both pairs of sunglasses handy as we examinepoints of similarity and difference in the worldviews of Frenchand American people. Things which make sense in one con-text do not always make sense in another. Understanding andmaking sense of a new environment, seeing the positive andthe inherent logic in it, require time and patience. As welook for the “why” behind the behavior we observe, we findwe cannot simply make snap judgments from our own set ofvalues and beliefs.

Who Do You Think You Are?

I Think How I Think, Therefore I Am What I Am. Intellectualmastery of an issue is very important in France; results arewhat matter in the United States. The French must have theproper démarche, the right intellectual approach to a prob-lem. Démarche refers to the way people reason and thinkbefore acting. It involves a lot of back-and-forth questioningof the nature and scope of the problem itself and requiresconsideration of all aspects and ramifications of potentialsolutions. Not surprisingly, the word démarche is hard totranslate into English. It means, loosely, “approach” but in-cludes notions around the approach itself: how and why some-thing is done, not just the steps involved in doing it.

This intellectual questioning in practice works like this: ifa normally closed door is left open in the United States, aperson will simply walk in. In France, a person will firstwonder who opened the door or left it open, and why, beforegoing through. Why is always a very important question, andpeople love to argue and debate just for the sake of theenjoyment they get out of arguing.

Dialogue between Two Worlds 147

At least as crucial as the why in the French thinkingprocess is the how: how do I think about what I think about?Rational thought is the highest expression of French intelli-gence, and thinking about something rationally can be anend in itself. This brings us to René Descartes, as most discus-sions of French thinking inevitably do.

Descartes (1596-1650) was a philosopher and mathemati-cian whose Discours de la Méthode (A Discourse on Method)became the ultimate “art de,” or “how to,” guide for reason-ing. His approach is summed up in the famous quotation“Cogito ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am”), and his influ-ence on French thinking can be felt to this day. “Descartesaffirms the rational character of natural law. Everything innature can be explained in terms of cause and effect, and ifcertain mysteries remain, it is only because of our ignorance.They have no reality in and of themselves” (Ferry 1995, 59).

The method requires a person to think in a rational way.It does not require the thinker to actually experience theobject of thought, nor does it require practicality, whichoften means that “…the little cogwheel that should connectgrand conceptual thinking to reality is missing” (Dale 1998,11).

Virtually all of Descartes’ scientific conclusions, reachedwithout leaving the comfort of his study, were wrong, but heis not revered as a scientist.

It does not matter that his findings were inaccurate, as longas the method was convincing. Descartes is the intellectualfather of French preoccupation with form. A general whodevises a perfect battle plan with incomplete informationabout enemy capacity, and goes on to elegant defeat, is Car-tesian. An engineer for the ministry of Ponts et Chausséeswho designs a bridge for a town on the Drôme which he hasnever visited, on the basis of topographical maps, is Carte-sian. When he is told that the bridge has been washed awayby floods, he merely says, “That is impossible!” (de Gramont1969, 304)

148

In typically French fashion, the French debate Cartesianismitself: Are we still Cartesian? Were we ever truly Cartesian?What is the legacy of Cartesianism in the twenty-first cen-tury? One writer suggests that the reason for Descartes’ quasi-deification in French culture is that his ideas correspond withthree profoundly French characteristics: “the inability to learnfrom experience, the inability to tolerate contradiction, andthe refusal to change one’s opinion in the face of a validobjection” (Revel 1995, 63).

The Cartesian method also requires that all elements of aproblem and its solution be thoroughly mapped out beforeany action is taken. Intellectual mastery of the situation iswhat matters. Americans faced with such a purely intellec-tual approach—and a corresponding disregard for practicalityand results—can rapidly be driven to distraction. In theUnited States people prefer to take action as quickly as pos-sible and make adjustments as needed. They need to under-stand in general where they are going but prefer to deal withdetails as they crop up. One American company used theterm “directionally correct” to describe its corporate philoso-phy. As long as things were moving toward the desired goal,the details could be worked out as things went along.

Americans pride themselves on their pragmatic approachto thinking about and solving problems. They want to getdown to business as soon as possible, get the problem solved,the work accomplished, the goal achieved. Devising eleganttheoretical frameworks is a waste of time, since it doesn’tresolve the problem. French scientists about to test a newdrug may speculate on and discuss the likely results of clinicaltests, while the more practical American will do the tests firstand discuss the results later.

American rationalism is more likely to be technical innature—something objective that we can synthesize into aflowchart, with bullet-points, or restate as a logic tree orsome other means that will eliminate unreliable elementssuch as intuition, personal preferences, and bias. This type of


thinking allows for clear and rapid decision making based onobjective facts. A step-by-step decision matrix can be drawnup to determine the choice of new accounting software, forexample. By matching the company’s needs to the featuresoffered by various packages, this kind of tool helps peopleconcentrate on the essential points rather than spendingtime on abstract and theoretical issues. Can the softwareconsolidate budgets across departments? If Package A cannotbut Package B can, then B is the better choice. The processcontinues with other constraints such as price, compatibility,and so on.

In the holistic, rational French mind, there is little roomfor dualistic thinking that seeks to reduce every question toyes or no, black or white, true or false. The two extremes ofa continuum do not represent the entire spectrum of opinionsor results. Here again, the French normally see things inshades of grey. Pointing out a hitherto unremarked aspect ofthe situation or presenting an original line of reasoning alsogives the French a chance to shine intellectually—somethingthey always appreciate.

Despite their Cartesian passion for classification and defi-nition, the French do not conceive of the world as beingrestricted to a few boxes, whatever their content or format,and resent being pigeonholed. It is all very well for otherpeople and things to be put into specific categories, butcertainly not the French. How, they wonder, can such apeople be confined in such a way? Remember that the Frenchdefy classification, even their own.

Elementary, My Dear Watson. Another important differ-ence between French and American thinking patterns per-tains to the logical progression of the thought process. In theFrench higher education system, students learn to thinkthrough a problem using the “thesis-antithesis-synthesis”method. When addressing a question—for example, Shouldimmigrants who are not citizens be allowed to vote inFrance?—one begins by presenting arguments in favor of the

150

position, then by providing counterarguments. Finally, oneintegrates both arguments to determine which has the stron-ger claims.

The French tend to proceed deductively in the thesis andantithesis process. Like the French CEO who described themedieval battle that took place on the site of his company’splanned high-tech manufacturing facility, they need to con-sider the background of the current issues. Next, in order toplanter le décor (set the scene), they begin by building thecontextual framework of the problem, establishing whichelements are relevant to the question and which are not.From this process of definition and clarification, they thenwork their way down to specific examples and illustrations tomake their point and reach a conclusion. To continue theexample on page 149, a French group trying to choose a newaccounting software package will probably prepare qualita-tive arguments for and against Package A and Package B. Achoice will be made by comparing these arguments to deter-mine their relative strength.

In describing American and European thinking styles,Edward Stewart and Milton Bennett observe, “[Europeans]have faith and trust in the powers of thought; Americansplace faith and trust in methods of empirical observation andmeasurement (1991, 41–42).” Americans do not feel theneed to work from theory. They value systematic observationand experimentation. They are inclined to look at specifics,at what is actually going on: the facts, statistics, researchstudies, and the evidence from their own eyes and ears.Working inductively, they use these concrete examples todevelop a theory or abstraction that accounts for the find-ings. If further examples contradict their working theories,they easily adapt those theories to reflect what they see asobjective reality. Had Descartes been American, he wouldhave risen from his desk, left his office, and gone out to lookcarefully at things before concluding anything about the


nature of the world.In geometry, the shortest route between two points is a

straight line. In American thinking patterns, the shortestroute to action must be the most efficient and the most prac-tical, and therefore the best. Americans make decisions andimplement them rapidly, making adjustments as they go.Sometimes, they have to scrap a plan completely and startagain from scratch, but this is not considered a problem. Byfollowing this linear and segmented pattern, another plancan get off the ground quickly.

The French, on the other hand, take to heart the message“Look before you leap.” They are in no hurry to implement aplan and prefer to map things out completely before takingaction. The shortest route may not be the most scenic one,and though it will get you to your destination quickly, youmight miss something important along the way. French think-ing may meander from one solution to another, to a modifi-cation of the first, and to all points in between. Only whenthey have an intellectual control of all aspects of a plan dothey feel confident enough to implement it.

American Way to Approach Problems

“Directionally Correct” approach: Let’s get started!

152

French Way to Approach Problems

When French and Americans come together, these funda-mental yet often hidden differences are likely to lead tomisunderstanding and frustration on both sides. Americansmay conclude that the French are indecisive or that theysimply love to hear themselves talk. From an American per-spective, time, energy, and money are being wasted. Theycannot see that the problem is in fact being addressed andwill eventually be solved. They look for results to come muchfaster and get frustrated with what they term the Frenchnational “analysis paralysis” syndrome.

From the French perspective, Americans’ tendency to takeaction—any action—as soon as possible and make coursecorrections as needed is risky and amateurish, reflecting alack of preparation and seriousness. The French see it as awaste of time, energy, and money when Americans start overagain if results are unsatisfactory. They may conclude thatAmericans don’t really know what they want or that theydon’t know what they are doing.

Objections to Objectivity. The French do not believe thatonly objective ways of appraising situations and people are

“Mapping Out” approach: Thinking things through to the end


valid. They allow more room for human observation and inter-pretation, thereby giving more weight to subjective measures.In France, objective measurements are generally perceived astoo mechanistic and lacking in the human element. Qualita-tive evaluation through personal assessment is also important.Such tendencies are perceived as at least suspicious, if notdangerous, in the United States. Americans argue that humanbeings are fallible and make mistakes. Advertisements boast-ing that a product is “untouched by human hands” imply it ispure and perfect. Accordingly, Americans feel the best andfairest evaluation is an impartial test, an objective measure-ment, a result that can be quantified.

An excellent example of the personal touch in France isthe preference for handwritten rather than typed letters. Mostletters of application—to schools or for jobs—must be writ-ten by hand in France, preferably with a fountain pen. Frenchstudents appreciate computers when it comes to schoolworksuch as term papers, but even the younger generation findsthe idea of sending an e-mail love note simply laughable.“Handwriting gives more formality and more personality,”observes a teacher at one of the grandes écoles. Her studentsagreed that “…the pen is ‘cultural’ and the computer ‘imper-sonal’” (Lavin 1996, A4).

An American HR manager, on receiving a handwrittenletter from a French candidate, had a typical American reac-tion: “Go out and get a P.C., buddy!” The personal touch ofhandwriting is not appreciated in the United States becauseit is seen as unprofessional and a bit sloppy and suggests thatthe writer is not altogether serious. Americans want the factsin black and white, and they want them legible.

Behind the French preference for handwritten letters ofapplication is the use of graphology (the study of personalitytraits through handwriting) in hiring decisions. “Many largeFrench companies use handwriting analysis to help makehiring decisions. One French headhunter estimates his an-nual graphology budget at $30,000” (A4).

154

Not all application letters are subjected to handwritinganalysis. Generally, once a short list of candidates has beenestablished, a graphologic analysis is carried out to spot anypotential problems that might affect job performance. Re-sults are seldom given to applicants but remain part of theemployee’s personnel file.

All of the differences we have discussed so far form thebasis for the cultural distance between France and the UnitedStates, two Western countries that do not share many per-ceptual or conceptual similarities and look at the world withdifferent-colored sunglasses. These differing realities are ac-centuated by the respective roles the two economic and po-litical powers perceive themselves as having in the world.

Worlds Apart

Those who travel outside their own culture wear their coun-try on their sleeve. They become, in effect, representatives oftheir nation—like it or not—and are often lumped togetherwith their nation’s political leaders, social institutions, mili-tary actions, sports figures, and movie stars. Americans vaca-tioning in France are sometimes startled when called upon todefend or justify the actions or words of Bill Clinton orMichael Eisner, while more than one French visitor to theUnited States has been called on the carpet personally forFrench nuclear testing in the Pacific or the fate of the Rain-bow Warrior (a Greenpeace ship sunk in the waters offAuckland by the French secret services). The individual’sposition is not taken into account, and it can be very un-pleasant to find oneself backed into an ideological corner,forced to explain and defend policies or people one person-ally despises.

France on the International Stage. On entering the courtyardof Versailles, you can see the following words engraved at thetop of the building to your right: A Toutes les Gloires de laFrance (To All the Glories of France). These glories may


have faded since the seventeenth century, but France and herpeople still love to remind visitors and citizens alike of thenation’s greatness and magnificent beauty.

If France were a person, she might be a wise old womandeserving of respect for the gifts she has given humanitythrough the ages. Many French people maintain that withoutFrance, the world (read “the entire world,” including theUnited States) wouldn’t be what it is today. France broughtcivilization, culture, arts, and knowledge to the planet wellbefore the United States was even created, much less united.French writers have often pointed this out.

The glory of France is one of the world’s noblest ornaments.—Montaigne

O a thousand times happy land and fertile!O pearl of Europe! O this world’s paradise!France, I salute you, mother of warriors!

—Guillaume de Bartas

French: the first people in the universe.—Gustave Flaubert

France, France, the world would be alone without you.—Victor Hugo

France has always sought to stamp its cultural mark on theworld through the work of its most prestigious artists andintellectuals and also through the role of its politicians andstate representatives. These are the people who spreadFrance’s grandeur throughout the world, and many institu-tions and monuments attest to their accomplishments.

The duties of politicians and state representatives haveevolved over the centuries, but through their actions andwords, they provide a good indication of France’s attitudetoward the rest of the world. Since the end of the SecondWorld War, France has worked toward affirming its identity

156

and independence while at the same time striving to build astrong European community. The 1966 NATO crisis in whichFrance withdrew from the organization’s military commandand France’s search for nuclear power illustrate its need tobecome a strong and independent nation relying on its ownmilitary forces to defend its territories. France and Germany,the sacred tandem, have devoted enormous energy and time tobuilding the European Union into a powerful economic andpolitical bloc that rivals those of North America and Asia.French politicians have acted upon the vision of General deGaulle, who saw France’s best hopes and her future in thisambitious project.

Despite a new world order and globalization trends, officialFrench attitudes did not change much in the 1990s. Contro-versies related to nuclear testing in the Pacific, the MiddleEast peace process, and conflicts in Africa, Lebanon, and theformer Yugoslavia, among others, demonstrate France’s needto impose its views and set itself apart from the crowd. Duringa 1995 session of GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs andTrade) negotiations, the French demanded and were accordeda special exception culturelle (cultural exception) establishingfilms as cultural artifacts rather than commercial products.French negotiators and public officials enjoyed a champagnetoast to this success. Such actions typify French individual-ism as described earlier and often negate or undermine alter-nate opinions or approaches.

French political leaders are indeed a good model of Frenchindividualism, sometimes going against basic principles ofcooperation and consensus in favor of drastic and spectacularintervention. Considering the influence of politicians inFrench social life, it is no surprise that individualistic ten-dencies are broadly reflected in the French mentality. TheFrench workplace is no exception to the rule; the attitudes ofFrench statesmen on the international scene are mirrored incorporate meeting rooms. Whatever the circumstances, theFrench absolutely must throw in their two centimes worth.


A Question of Leadership. As the only remaining super-power, the United States sees itself as the de facto leader ofthe world. This viewpoint annoys many national leaders andtheir people. When the U.S. assumes its leadership role in aunilateral fashion, other countries often see this as evidenceof neoimperialism. And while the U.S. has managed to rallyinternational support for several of its positions, it would beunwise to assume that other nations—and particularlyFrance—will simply fall into line behind America’s lead.

Many French people feel that their nation’s often stubbornstance against American international policies acts as anessential counterweight to American hegemony, whetherintentional or not.

Among other similar works, a book published in early 2000entitled Non merci, Oncle Sam (No Thanks, Uncle Sam) es-sentially sums up the views of many French and otherEuropeans. Its author, Noël Mamère, a member of the Assem-blée Nationale, associates the development of la mondialisation(globalization) with the imposition of uniform Americancultural values that are a menace to the identity of France.The American model, from the French point of view, is notnecessarily one they are eager to adopt.

France may eventually express support for an Americanposition—but only after it has forced a consideration anddiscussion of alternative or opposing options. The Frenchcannot bear to see American positions adopted simply be-cause the country is so powerful. They must open the debatebefore agreeing or disagreeing. A good example is the selec-tion of Kofi Annan as Secretary General of the United Na-tions in 1997. Initially, France supported the incumbent,Boutros Boutros-Ghali, for reelection and for some time stoodas the only nation opposed to Annan, the American choice.In this position, France was able to force a debate on themerits of the two candidates, preventing a shoo-in for Annan.Finally, having aired their views, the French threw theirsupport behind Annan.

158

Similarly, when the French oil giant Total broke a U.S.-imposed ban on foreign investments in Iran in 1997, mostFrench people, including politicians, were delighted to thumbtheir noses—albeit vicariously—at the Americans. The rul-ing ayatollahs are no more admired in Paris, France, than inParis, Texas, but the essential issue was not so much anexpression of support for Iran as a bit of a raspberry for theUnited States—and a lucrative deal for Total and its Russianand Malaysian associates.

These conflicting leadership roles have been analyzed byRichard Kuisel, who offers an American interpretation ofFrance and Frenchness:

The basis of anti-Americanism is cultural and pivots on thenotion of protecting and disseminating civilisation. Thoughdifferences over international relations, trade, and economicswill continue to stir criticism of the hegemonic Westernpower, the core of resistance derives from a sense of Frenchdifference, superiority, and universal mission—all bound upin the term civilisation. I see little evidence that this sensibil-ity has dulled since the last war. It has spurred everygeneration…to attack America. The criticism may have qui-eted by the 1990s, but the rivalry is latent and potent.

The implied universality of civilisation inevitably breedscompetition with the United States because America has itsown sense of universal mission. Americans like to think theystand for elevating humankind by advancing freedom andprosperity. The French feel culturally superior and destinedto enlighten the globe.

The history of Americanization confirms the resilienceand absorptive capacity of French civilisation. The Frenchseem to have won the struggle of how to change and yetremain the same. The contest and the debate continue. But,as of present, Americanization has transformed France—hasmade it more like America—without a proportionate loss ofidentity. France remains France, and the French remainFrench. (1993, 236)


France in the Twenty-First Century

A French proverb notes that the more things change, themore they remain the same. As we have seen, certain aspectsof French culture are relatively stable through time, althoughthe way in which they are demonstrated at a given point maydepend on contemporary circumstances. At the same time,profound changes are taking place within and beyond Frenchborders that will certainly reshape French culture andthought.

This being said, it is important to note that many culturalchanges occur initially above the waterline—in the visiblepart of culture. While some French companies are adoptingAmerican management techniques or practices (for example,casual Friday), it would be premature to conclude that deeplyembedded assumptions and values are also changing. Despitetheir evolution, deeply rooted cultural elements such as child-rearing practices, communication patterns, and relationshipbuilding are not as easily changed as substituting a suit for apair of jeans.

Would-be clairvoyants risk making fools of themselves inoffering predictions about the future of France. Instead ofsearching for a crystal ball, we will consider some essentialquestions that France and her people are facing in the twenty-first century.

French Identity. One of the crucial geopolitical and socialissues of the twenty-first century will be the definition ofnationality and thus of national culture in the European andglobal contexts. Given the unique history of the United States,it is extremely difficult to say who is a “typical” American atthe dawn of the twenty-first century. Even in Europe, however,where national identity has traditionally been a matter ofblood and ancestry, it is becoming clear that monolithic na-tional cultures cannot be established—and certainly not im-posed. Arbitrarily drawn boundaries, historical accidents, andwaves of immigration have made it impossible to draw the

160

portrait of a typical or even representative French citizen—ifsuch a person ever truly existed.

If Pierre Dupont is no longer the national caricature of theberet and baguette, what is he like? And what of PierretteDupont? How is “Frenchness” to be defined when, on the onehand, the regions are being given powers that were onceunimaginable in the centralized French universe, and, on theother hand, the European Union continues to expand both innumber of nations and in power over its member states?

These two poles—regional or provincial identification andpan-European identification—can be imagined as the twoends of an hourglass. The middle of the glass representsFrench national identity, the transition point between onepole and the other.

Regional identity has traditionally been affirmed throughspecifics of language, custom, and cuisine. Increased regionalpower has led to demands for recognition on the nationallevel of these particularities—for example, use of Basque,Gascon, Breton, Alsatian, and other regional languages inpublic schools. This demand for cultural recognition has notusually involved corresponding calls for increased politicalautonomy.

The case of Corsica is an exception to this rule. During thesummer of 2000 the French government responded to in-creasing vehemence and violence on the part of Corsicannationalists by proposing a plan granting semiautonomousstatus to the island. Beginning in 2004, legislative power is tobe gradually passed from the Assemblée Nationale to theAssemblée Corse. Though the proposal has yet to be ac-cepted and the details of its implementation are far fromclear, this may represent the first step in an unprecedenteddecentralization of French power. Both right- and left-wingparties are fighting the proposal. These opponents claim thatthis could be the thin end of the wedge, and that the Frenchnation might be dismantled completely if other regions fol-low Corsica’s example. What, then, would become of thesingle, indivisible republic?


At the same time as decentralization moves certain powersto a subnational level, the European Union represents a su-pernational body whose member states accept that Europeanlaw, in some areas, supersedes national authority. In bothcases the power of the French state is reduced. A lawyer inthe Basque country sees the future in this way: “The central-izing French state will not hold up against the constructionof Europe” (de Chikoff 2000, 5).

Some French people fear a loss of national identity andsecurity in this dual movement away from the traditionalFrench state. Some other Europeans share these fears, whilestill others eagerly embrace the changes. The challenge willbe in finding some kind of balance between regional andEuropean identities.

Globalization and the Role of France in the World. In a recentspeech to American teachers of French, Prime Minister LionelJospin summed up a possible role for the French language inthe twenty-first century: “Le français n’est plus une langue depouvoir mais il pourrait être une langue de contre-pouvoir”(“French is no longer a language of power, but it could be alanguage of counterbalance”) (National Public Radio, AllThings Considered 21 July 2000).

This statement might equally apply to the role of France onthe world stage. No longer a major power, France nonethelesshas the potential to act as a counterweight to the power of theUnited States and to be an active player among smaller, re-gional superpowers. By refusing to toe the U.S. line, Francecan call American decisions and philosophy into question.This can force a debate of the issues and prevent virtuallyunilateral action on the part of the U.S. Most French peopleand politicians see this as a useful, even essential, role.

An interesting illustration of this countermovement is thepopularity of José Bové, the leader of a farmers’ union whohas emerged on the front lines of the antiglobalization battleafter he and some pals ransacked a McDonald’s in Millau, asmall town in central France. He has received enormous

162

European support as a David-like symbol against the Ameri-can Goliath. His participation in the 1999 protests duringthe World Trade Organization summit in Seattle suggeststhat such resistance to globalization is not merely a localFrench phenomenon. Once again, France provided a crucialcounterbalance to U.S. global hegemony.

Cultural Diversity. The 1998 World Cup victory of themultiracial and multicultural French national soccer team,while uniting French people in a celebratory euphoria, hasnot resulted in significant changes in the recognition andinclusion of immigrant minorities in the country’s political,social, and cultural landscape. Blacks, Arabs, and Beurs havenot tried to claim the same type of recognition as Basquesand Bretons, for example. Much remains to be done beforethese groups (and others) will be accepted and integratedinto mainstream French society.

At the same time France is showing encouraging signs ofopenness toward the wider world and other cultures. At thememorial service following the tragic crash of the Concorde,observers of French culture noted the presence of a Protes-tant minister, a Jewish rabbi, and an Islamic imam in addi-tion to a Catholic priest. This was a tacit recognition thatFrench and European societies in general are becoming morediverse, and an acknowledgment that—at least in some cir-cumstances—the universalist principle may no longer beappropriate.

The twenty-first century opens with new challenges andopportunities for France and her people. There is consider-able evidence that the French are capable of adapting to thefuture without abandoning their past, although this is notnecessarily an easy process. Over the centuries, they havedeveloped and fine-tuned a capacity to dance on the border-lines without being knocked seriously off balance. As thepace of change increases and borders become more perme-able, this talent should serve them well—and provide quite ashow for observers.

Part IIIComing Together:

For What–and How?

165

15

Rhône-Poulenc Rorer: Case Study of aSuccessful French-American Merger

Horror stories of French-American projects gone wrongabound. Rather than concentrating on these amusing tales ofineptitude and poor decision making, we have chosen toanalyze a case where things went right, specifically the mergerof Rorer, an American pharmaceutical laboratory, with thehealth division of Rhône-Poulenc (RP) in 1990 to formRhône-Poulenc Rorer (RPR).* We conducted a series of in-depth interviews in France and the United States with morethan thirty French and American managers and employees ofthe firm, the majority of whom were current or former expa-triates in each other’s country. These interviews providedillustrations of many cultural differences and ways they wereaddressed. Other information for this section was gatheredfrom internal and external sources.

* Toward the end of 1999 Rhône-Poulenc Rorer merged withHoechst-Marion-Roussel to form Aventis Pharmaceuticals.

166

Corporate Culture and National Culture

Paul Orleman, an American training and development man-ager and former expat in France, was a key member of theteam that orchestrated the cultural integration of the twoentities. He noted that RPR had to address several specificinternational and intercultural issues that do not normallycome up in a domestic merger. One important element wasthat Rhône-Poulenc in France was a state-owned company.“The mission of a nationalized company is not the same as apublicly held one. Many of the employees of RP viewedthemselves as state employees. There was no focus on share-holders or earnings per share. The concept of being entrepre-neurial was not part of the RP culture…” (1992, 5).

At Rorer, “[T]he portrait of a successful manager was anindividual who was entrepreneurial, quick at making deci-sions, fast, not restricted by bureaucracy, and whose worthwas appraised by the results produced” (5). Rorer’s philoso-phy was to be “directionally correct”: moving ahead in essen-tially the right direction, but without worrying too muchabout details. Direction was adjusted on the fly.

From the American side, the concept of a state-run organi-zation had a very negative cast. It implied entrenched bu-reaucracies, a “civil servant” mentality, and a general lack ofspirit. The French, for their part, were wary of being takenover by “cowboy capitalism” in which everything was second-ary to the sacrosanct bottom line.

Added to these differences between corporate cultures wasthe entire range of national cultural differences. In effect,both RP and Rorer employees had a dual cultural adjustmentto make. This was felt most strongly by French managers sentto work in the United States and by American managersassigned to work in France. These people became “doubleexpatriates.”

Early on in the merger, Dr. Thierry Soursac, then RPR’scorporate vice president for strategic marketing, emphasized

Rhône-Poulenc Rorer 167

that it was not only a question of French and Americancultures. The combined company operated in a large numberof countries, cultures, and languages; cultural differences hadto be considered both in relation to the company’s internalfunctioning and to the markets it served. Thus its focus hadto be global, not binational.

For Rorer, the U.S. was the power—the major source of sales.For Rhône-Poulenc [Health Division], it was the French labs[the sales and marketing divisions located in France] whichproduced by far the largest percentage of overall sales. Whatthey wanted, they got.

Today, North America is only 25 percent of global sales,and France is only 30 percent. Neither country is the power-house it once was. Now, Rhône-Poulenc Rorer has to look ata global marketing strategy. We need to tap into the bestideas from every country, and achieve cross-fertilization.

Globalization will not be achieved in six months; it is along-term, ongoing process. It is also a way of thinking. (57)

According to a document produced in July, 1995, RPR’scultural change mission was “to create a common businessculture out of two different business and national cultures; toidentify potential company and national culture differences,and help all employees to understand and leverage them”(Orleman and Cohen 1995, 11).

Appraising the Success of the Merger

What happened at RPR is unusual for three reasons. First, thecompany was willing to risk resources for its stated values,committing itself to supporting the cultural change process inconcrete ways. Second, the attention to cultural issues per-meated all levels of the company and all aspects of its opera-tions; thus, it addressed the whole system and its subsystems.Third, as reflected in the last statement of the quotation

168

above, it was seen as a long-term commitment rather than asa one-shot training program.

Besides looking at the RPR diverse population of expatri-ates, managers, and employees, one way to appraise the suc-cess of the venture is to consider the entities responsible forthe ten top-selling RPR pharmaceutical products in the worldin 1997. This will give us an idea of the degree of integrationand synergy resulting from the merger.† Since the time tobring a product to market in this industry is about ten tofifteen years, all but one of the products were developed andlaunched by premerger entities.

Of the ten best-selling products, six were launched byRhône-Poulenc, two by Rorer, one by Fisons, and one byRPR. This represents a robust mix, since the health divisionof Rhône-Poulenc was about twice the size of Rorer in 1990.It indicates that mechanisms and structures in both compa-nies have been integrated to form a unique entity.

However, in 1998 a top-level RPR manager added a noteof caution. While he felt the integration of the two entitieshad gone relatively well, it was still too early to evaluate themerger’s success. In his opinion, complete integration wouldtake at least ten years. At least a decade is needed before thecompany can be considered to have established itself enoughto be widely known by medical personnel and the public.

Managers we interviewed in both countries suggested nu-merous reasons for the venture’s success.

• This was not an arranged marriage that happenedagainst all odds. Each company’s products were in factcomplementary, so that a real synergy emerged fromthe merger.

• There were no winners or losers: the health division ofRP gave its assets to Rorer in return for RPR shares (RP

† Note that a major acquisition by RPR of a British pharmaceuti-cal company, Fisons, was completed in 1995.


had a 68 percent stake in RPR). Employees in eachcompany were convinced that their own company hadacquired the other. It seemed a fair compromise be-tween the two entities.

• The company set up two worldwide headquarters, onein Collegeville, Pennsylvania, and one near Paris. Al-though Rhône-Poulenc, the parent company, was basedin Paris, the RPR C.E.O. was working in Collegeville,and the company was incorporated in the UnitedStates. This, as well as sharing equal or similar respon-sibilities between the two countries, demonstrated thecompany’s commitment to make the venture a success.In addition, for the first two years, the position ofpresident of RPR was shared equally by American andFrench executives, both former employees of Rorerand Rhône-Poulenc respectively.

• The personality and international experience of RobCawthorn, RPR’s first C.E.O., helped during the tran-sition years when adequate structures had to be set upbetween the two countries and in the rest of the world.Being British, he was seen as culturally neutral.Cawthorn also shared a common vision for RPR withthe president of Rhône-Poulenc, Jean-René Fourtou.Cawthorn’s successor, Michel de Rosen, was French,but had enough global experience and sensitivity tomanage successfully the second step of the integration.

• There was a good mix of supporters of French ideas inthe United States and of American ideas in France. Alot of atypically rational Americans were brought to-gether with a lot of unusually empiricist French, whichled to a nice cultural blend, enabling people to moverapidly into action. This wasn’t merely luck or coinci-dence. RPR deliberately searched internally or re-cruited people who showed an open mind and a will-ingness to cross cultural boundaries and live abroad.

170

All of these people demonstrated what a French expatcalled “teamwork skills.” The potential of both entitieswas harnessed while creating a hybrid structure. This isone of RPR’s major strengths and reasons for success,especially compared with similar operations and merg-ers in the pharmaceutical industry.

• Implementation of global functions proceeded rapidly,with truly global people. The C.E.O. and his teamaddressed the challenges of the merger as soon as pos-sible and dismantled monocultural teams in order toform culturally diverse ones. In a few years the com-pany became genuinely global—by choosing the bestpeople around the world. A great deal of autonomy wasgiven to all divisions and departments, and top man-agement didn’t favor one side or the other.

• Cultural and language training was offered to people atall levels, which increased their communication skillsand cultural awareness. For example, French lessons atthe Collegeville facility were offered at no charge andduring business hours to any interested employees,demonstrating the company’s commitment to the suc-cess of the merger.

• Conference rooms at the Collegeville facility weregiven the names of countries in which the companyoperated. The general manager of each national officewas given an art-buying budget to acquire pieces re-flecting that country’s culture(s). The chosen art wasdisplayed in the corresponding conference room. Thiscreated an atmosphere that affirmed RPR’s global com-mitment and helped draw together the national andcorporate cultures in the company.

• In addition to expatriate assignments, the companyinvested time and money in bringing together employ-ees from different corporate and national cultures. In arelational culture such as France, this kind of face-to-


face interaction provides an essential foundation for agood working relationship. The importance of personalcontact is difficult to overstate. By sending employeesat all levels—including secretarial staff—for short-termoverseas assignments, RPR built these foundations.Even for Americans, who are less relationship-oriented,being able to “put a face to a name or a voice on thetelephone” was invaluable.

• A global training and development team was created.Its mission was clear from the beginning: forging RPR.It helped RPR become a single company through orga-nizational and professional development, training, andteaching. It also developed common ways of workingtogether across different populations and countries andin building a new corporate culture.

• Special training programs were offered in France andthe U.S.: leadership for managers, directors, and vicepresidents; “Knowing RPR” for any employee; strategicleadership in the pharmaceutical industry for market-ing personnel; and team building and manager assimi-lation for employees at various levels.

A French expatriate offered a nice metaphor for the suc-cess of the venture: “La mayonnaise a bien pris” (literally, “themayonnaise took well”). Making mayonnaise by hand is adelicate operation. It requires the right ingredients at theright time (how much oil and how many egg yolks and howand when to blend them); the right conditions, that is, roomtemperature; and the right chef, or the person who makes itall happen.

Of course, difficulties and conflicts arose during the merger.Some people left the company because of these conflicts. Inspite of this, both internal and external evaluations of themerger were positive.

Studying the success of the cultural blend in the RPRmerger can give us some guidelines for how to do it right.

172

However, we believe it would be a mistake to use this suc-cess—or any success, for that matter—as a blueprint for anyother joint venture. The human, creative side of the project,in our opinion, played a major role in RPR’s success.

Blending Management Practices andDecision-Making Power

As a hybrid French-American structure, RPR retained mostof the management techniques commonly used in the UnitedStates for meetings, public speaking, presentations, team-work, performance appraisal, goal setting, coaching, and soon. In this case, these techniques were quite successful acrosscultures and were widely accepted. Compensation practicesalso incorporated American elements such as stock optionsalong with plans adapted to each culture’s standard practices.

RPR retained its French orientation in terms of corporatepolitics, high-level decision making, networks of influence,and flow of information, which bear little resemblance toofficial channels on the organizational chart. American topmanagement adapted quite well and even became expert atoperating in the French information system. Top-level Frenchmanagers on assignment in the United States served as “au-diovisual aids” on how the game is played, allowing Ameri-cans to experience firsthand the role and importance of per-sonal relationships in information gathering.

Interestingly, RPR acquired the “hard” and tangible ele-ments of American quantitative culture that allowed for ob-jective measurement while incorporating the “soft” elementsof French culture based on subjective appraisal and an intan-gible network of information and influence. It appears thatthe company has integrated what works best in each culture,what could be considered each country’s cultural strengths,creating a subtle combination of hard and soft practices.


Conclusions

The RPR experience provides valuable guidelines for success-fully managing international mergers and other substantialcross-cultural business operations. Our four principal conclu-sions are as follows:1. Continuing intercultural training and guidance must

be incorporated at every hierarchical level, in everydepartment, and in every functional and operationalaspect of the organization as an integral element, notjust as a short-term action or add-on.

2. Commitment to creating a truly intercultural organiza-tion must come from top-level management, since thisis where policy decisions are made, corporate visionand mission are crafted, priorities established, and re-sources allocated.

3. This commitment must be consistent in tone and con-tent.

4. The creation of a truly intercultural organization re-quires a sustained effort over a long time. In fact, thereis no end point where everyone can relax and say, “Wedid it!”

In short, RPR was willing to “put its money where its mouthis,” not just pay lip service to internationalization. It backedup its commitment in concrete actions. It envisaged intercul-tural synergy as a mindset and a long-term effort, and itfostered intercultural interactions throughout all levels andareas of the company.

Based on our interviews with RPR personnel, the twochapters that follow describe and analyze in detail criticalpoints of interaction in the context of a French-Americanwork environment. By examining the cultural dimension ofmanagerial situations encountered at RPR, we can compre-hend how the cultural elements discussed in Parts I and IIemerge in the workplace and influence employees’ behavior.

175

16

Working across Cultures

Analyzing Intercultural Interactions

On both sides of the Atlantic, it’s important to understandthe culture-driven values and assumptions that govern whata manager expects from a subordinate, from a team, and fromhis or her supervisors. There are profound differences be-tween the two countries regarding these expectations, andsuccessful intercultural management requires a clear under-standing of what they are, what effect they have, and howthey differ from France to the United States. On the otherhand, it is also important to recognize that many behaviorsdepend on personality, life or work environment, and, per-haps, profession. In this case, behaviors do not necessarilytrace back to a shared cultural value system but are in factwhat makes each person and situation to some degree unique.

Therefore, when problems arise, start by identifying thecause. Are cultural differences behind the problem or misun-derstanding? Or is it the environment, the corporate culture,or simply the person you are dealing with? Is it a combinationof all these factors? You may be dealing with cultural differ-ences or simply with someone who is difficult. If the problem

176

is of a cultural nature, then you need to have a basic andreciprocal understanding of the frames of reference underwhich everyone—you and the others—operates.

Here are some questions to help you analyze interculturalinteractions. Not all of these questions will apply in everycase, but they provide a good starting point:

• What is going on?

• What are the obvious and not-so-obvious messagesbeing sent and received?

• What assumptions is each person making?

• What information is being taken for granted on thepart of each person?

• What information does each lack?

• What are the underlying cultural values behind theirbehavior or comments? Based on these elements, howdo they reach their conclusions?

• Would you do anything differently in such a situation,based on your knowledge of the cultures involved?Why or why not?

• What reaction(s) might you get if you acted differ-ently?

The incident discussed in the following conversation be-tween two American HR specialists, Cathy and Lisa, couldreflect a cultural, professional, or personal misunderstanding.Try to use some or all of the questions above to analyze whathappened one morning at a software company in Californiabetween Cathy and Claude, a newly arrived French expatri-ate.Cathy: What a morning! I’m really starting to wonder if this joint

venture with France is such a hot idea after all.

Lisa: What happened?

Cathy: I had to do the new-employee orientation for Claude, thenew product development manager.

Working across Cultures 177

Lisa: Oh, yeah, I ran into him yesterday. Seemed like a nice guy.

Cathy: Maybe, but I don’t know what the deal is. He was in my facethe whole time. When we sat down to go over the healthplan, he moved his chair right up next to me. Then all thetime I was talking, he practically had his nose glued tomine.

Lisa: What do you think that was all about? Maybe he thinksyou’re cute.

Cathy: The guy is no fantasy Latin lover, believe me! I got thefeeling he was just plain arrogant and pushy. Let’s justhope they’re not all like that!

Here are some suggestions about using the analysis questions.This is not intended to be a hard-and-fast step-by-step proce-dure, but rather an indication of how you might reflect on thesituation.

• What is going on?

Cathy is irritated because the Frenchman she helpedthrough new-employee orientation came across to heras aggressive—possibly in a sexual sense.

• What are the obvious and not-so-obvious messages beingsent and received?

Cathy felt that Claude wanted to sit or stand close toher. All we can say about Claude at this point is thathe felt the need or desire to get closer to Cathy as theytalked.

• What assumptions is each person making?

Cathy and Lisa attribute this to personal interest orpushiness.

• What information is being taken for granted on the part ofeach person?

We can be fairly confident that Lisa and Cathy knowunconsciously what the “correct” physical distance insuch a situation is—at least, in their own culture.

178

• What information does each lack?

Neither woman has any idea about appropriate conver-sation distances or physical spacing in the other cul-ture.

• What are the underlying cultural values behind their behav-ior or comments? Based on these elements, how do theyreach their conclusions?

Cathy and Lisa, based on their American cultural val-ues of privacy and freedom, are accustomed to main-taining a large personal “spatial bubble” around them-selves. They conclude that Claude’s behavior consti-tutes an invasion of Cathy’s space. Such an invasion intheir culture reflects either aggressiveness or flirta-tiousness. Claude’s culture places much less emphasison maintaining physical distance, so it is hard to say ifhe intended to send such a message to Cathy.

• Would those involved have acted differently in such a situ-ation if they had had knowledge of the cultures involved?Why or why not?

If Cathy had known more about French personal space,she might have been less upset by Claude’s physicalcloseness. If Claude had known about the importanceof maintaining physical distance in American culture,he might have made a conscious effort to leave Cathyenough space to make her comfortable.

• What reaction(s) might Cathy have gotten if she had acteddifferently?

Cultural adaptation involves finding a solution that isacceptable to all parties based on their cultural frames ofreference. This will almost never be a fifty-fifty compromise,an ideal midpoint between the two cultures. The solution ismore likely to be flexible and will evolve according to theissues at stake and the people involved.

For example, an RPR American manager, fully fluent in


French, found that a good mixture of management styles forhis department in France was 60 percent U.S., 40 percentFrench. Clearly, these proportions will not work for every-one. Your strategy needs to be contextual, taking all ele-ments—people, team, environment, department, and com-pany culture—into consideration. Successfully adapting toanother culture means you will need to find an effectivehybrid and synergistic style of management.

When we work with people from our own culture, ourshared “internal landscape” allows us to take a great deal forgranted. We already know what constitutes promptness, effi-ciency, and productivity, for example, so we certainly don’tneed to discuss such things before we can begin a planningmeeting.

Once we become involved in a bicultural or multiculturalenvironment, though, we need to call into question every-thing we take for granted. “Abandon all assumptions, ye whoenter here” is a good motto. We need to consider and reachagreement about a number of issues we may never havethought about until now.

Five years into the merger, RPR’s global training teamassembled three lists of questions that needed to be discussedat various points: (1) when we get together, (2) when we runthe business, and (3) when we manage our people. These listsappear here in slightly modified form. While they are notcomprehensive, they provide a solid framework for preparingpeople to work in a multicultural environment.

Note that these are not checklists but questions with whichto begin your own reflections. In the discussion that followseach list, we address issues we typically see in French-U.S.contexts, some of which do not necessarily appear in the RPRlists. Questions not directly addressed in the following sec-tions are covered in other chapters or left open for the readerto answer in his or her own context. Please keep in mind thatthe illustrations we use from RPR and other organizations areapplicable to most interactions between the French and

180

Americans in the workplace, whether it be corporations ornonprofit agencies.

Getting Together

Questions Needing Answers• How will we manage relationships—diving right into

business or taking time to establish trust?

• What is trust and how is it earned? To what extent dowe value commitments or promises?

• How will we address people? How formal or informalwill we be?

• How will we express opinions and emotions?

• How will we communicate?

• What language(s) will we use?

• What does “on time” mean?

• What is the priority of time?

• What is the importance and priority of deadlines?

• What do we do about missed commitments?

• What is an effective presentation?

• What is the purpose, process, and timing of meetings?

• How, where, and when do we make decisions? Whomakes them?

• How will information be passed? to whom? when? for-mally or informally?

• Will we socialize together? when?Building a Business Relationship. Building strong relation-

ships between American and French colleagues is one of themost challenging tasks in working effectively together. Gen-erally speaking, in the United States the business drives therelationship, while in France the relationship usually drivesthe business. If a French person doesn’t like you, he or she


isn’t going to do business with you. An American dealingwith an abrasive potential client may reason, “Well, the guy’sa real pain, but it’s a terrific deal.” A French person is morelikely to think, I may lose a good deal, but at least I won’thave to work with that boor.

As noted earlier, Americans start out assuming a person istrustworthy until proven otherwise. Things do not alwayswork that way in France. You may encounter an initial bar-rier of distrust until you prove yourself. The French tend notto involve themselves very rapidly in any endeavor, personalor professional. Before trust develops, there is always a periodof observation that, for Americans, may seem to last forever.An American top manager puts it this way:

A French businessman mistrusts the very things in which anAmerican businessman has the most confidence. Examples?The Frenchman is innately suspicious of the figures on abalance sheet, of the telephone, of his subordinates, of thelaw, of journalists, and of what he reads in the press, ofinvestment banks, and, above all else, of what an Americantells him in confidence. The American, au contraire, has trustin all these things. (Hill 1992, 60)

Then again, in French culture, trust cannot be isolated foranalysis. It is part of a bigger and more comprehensive pro-cess, the process of knowing someone. In this context, build-ing trust with someone in the United States would be theequivalent of getting to know one another in France. Ameri-cans might be more inclined to call it “establishing rapport,”which they will admit is a slower process than functioning ona basis of assumed trust.

To make matters more challenging, the task, or achieve-ment, orientation of Americans makes it difficult for them tospend the time needed in building rapport with their Frenchcolleagues, especially when the business could be taken careof in minutes in the United States. Yet in French culture,where people place a high value on affiliation and interper-

182

sonal bonds (referred to as atomes crochus, “atoms hookedtogether, good vibes”), it is important to go through theselong observation and discovery stages.

While dealing with your French colleagues, it is importantto be pleasant, efficient, and well prepared—as Americansusually are, but these attributes alone might not obtain theresults they would in the United States. Veteran Americanexpatriates agree: the time you devote initially to buildingpersonal relationships is well spent.

This achievement-affiliation contrast between Americanand French cultures affects other aspects of business andprofessional relationships as well. Achievement cultures stressthe importance of commitments: commitments to things ortasks, to getting something done, or to achieving some de-sired outcome. Affiliation cultures stress the importance ofrelationships with and promises to a person. A promise, con-sequently, carries a much heavier weight in France than acommitment does. In fact the term commitment is difficult totranslate into French, as the equivalent word (engagement)has other meanings than the American notion of commit-ment. When popular, an orchestra director has many engage-ments a year. A politician is engagé once he or she expressespublicly a set of opinions. Someone s’engage (commits him-self) in the army when he signs a contract for a few years. Allthese meanings make the idea of commitment difficult to pindown in French culture, in addition to the fact that commit-ting oneself to something—especially a deadline—might notseem very exciting for French people. Rather, they would gothe extra mile to keep a promise to someone they know welland respect, someone they find sympathique (friendly, nice)and attachant (appealing).

These differences and distinctions are especially importantfor the American manager to understand when involved inan organizational development scenario where selling changesand new ways of doing things to French colleagues is key tothe success of his or her assignment.


Reserve and Formality. Another characteristic of the Frenchis their initial reserve and private character. Recall the peachand coconut metaphor we discussed earlier. Family mattersare normally part of a French person’s private space and keptquite distinct from the public sphere at work. Personal detailsconcerning spouses, children, and other family members—including boyfriends or girlfriends—tend not to be discussedopenly in the workplace.

In contrast, Americans often decorate their offices withfamily photos, diplomas, certificates of achievement, vaca-tion souvenirs, children’s artwork, or other personal items inorder to feel “at home.” These personal touches also serve asclues about the employee: family status, university affiliation,hobbies, sports, and so on. They are good “conversation start-ers” for getting to know colleagues: “Your son is a Boy Scout?Oh, he’s going to Scout camp this summer? Brandon wouldlove that—maybe you can give me some info.” This is acommon American way of making connections through shar-ing personal information.

On the other hand, you often hear French people askingabout each other’s family origins and regional roots, espe-cially in Paris, where people—or their parents or grandpar-ents—moved “up” to the capital from some other part ofFrance. “I was born in Paris, but my family is from Auvergne”is a way for a French person to give information about his orher background without entering the personal sphere. Theconversation may involve regional accents, food and wines,vacation spots, and other details.

In addition to the hierarchical distance created by statusand power, French reluctance toward sharing private mattersin the workplace makes them appear cold, distant, or aloof toAmerican eyes. But don’t forget that what seems “obvious”from an American perspective isn’t necessarily the same froma French point of view—or a Japanese or British one, for thatmatter. Perhaps only a Japanese person could characterize hisor her British colleagues as extroverted and boisterous.

184

As you develop your relationship with your French col-leagues, you will have access to more information about theirprivate domain. Consider this change a mark of goodwill andgood relationship and be ready to reciprocate with similarinformation. If in doubt about when to provide this kind ofpersonal information, simply let your host take the initiative,either by asking you questions or by sharing information, thusopening the door to a closer relationship.

You’ll know you’ve been admitted to a French person’sinner circle when you are invited to share a family dinner atyour colleague’s home. This may happen fairly quickly amongyounger people of similar status; it may happen after a year ortwo; or it may simply never happen even though you thinkyou’ve reached a high level of trust in your relationship. Ifyou don’t succeed in receiving such an invitation to a closerrelationship, don’t take it personally. The French might neverdevelop a friendship with some of their colleagues, even afterfive or ten years.

Formality is a constant in social and professional life inFrance. The French distinguish among their family, friends,and close work colleagues, whom they address with the casualtu, and strangers, acquaintances, and those with whom theyhave hierarchical and formal relations and therefore call forthe more distant vous. This distinction is important, becauseyou will most likely be included in the second category for along time, regardless of the language you are using.

This formal distance may seem a bit chilly after all thecommentary on the importance of relationships in France,but it’s the result of hundreds of years of social stratification.Formality also appears in the respect and deference withwhich the French greet each other. Greet people with a light(one pump) handshake and a “Bonjour Monsieur/Madame,”plus your name and “Enchanté(e)” (Nice to meet you). Rela-tionships might become more casual as time goes on and asimple “Bonjour” might be enough. But even fairly goodfriends may still use the formal vous. However, use of first


names may evolve quite rapidly among persons of similar ageand social status.

French posture and body attitudes may appear stiff andrestrained to Americans, while Americans’ casual postureand stance appear sloppy and uncultured to the French.French mothers remind their children to stand up straightand stop dragging their feet. People who swing their armswhen walking, speak to someone with their hands in theirpockets or while chewing gum, tip back their chair, or puttheir feet on desks or chairs are considered to be lacking inrespectfulness and good manners in France.

Formal politeness of this sort—in contrast to the extremelyinformal politeness of Americans—is an everyday rule thatopens (or closes) a lot of doors. Galanterie (gallantry) towardwomen is the rule for men and is considered proper. Mengenerally hold doors open for women and let them throughfirst: “Après vous, je vous en prie” (“After you, please”). Gal-lantry is still very much appreciated and is a proof of goodupbringing, education, and savoir-vivre.

French people usually shake hands the first time they seesomeone each day but not always when they see the personagain the same day. Kisses on the cheeks (la bise, se faire labise) are common in social settings between women, betweenmen and women, and between adults and children, but neverbetween men (except for close relatives). This custom ofkissing is also practiced in the French workplace, for ex-ample, the first time colleagues see each other in the NewYear, but don’t be disappointed if you don’t experience ityourself on your first trip to France.

Expressing Opinions and Emotions. Compared with Ameri-cans, the French tend to display their emotions more openlyin the workplace, particularly if these emotions are negative.Emotional outbursts in most French workplaces, while notencouraged, are normally accepted as part of everyday life.They allow people to blow off steam in a harmless way andrarely escalate to physical violence. An American employee,

186

on the other hand, who breaks down in tears or pounds onthe table and yells in anger is seen as “over the edge” and maybe encouraged (or told) to leave the room for a few minutesto “get a grip.” To lose control of one’s emotions at work maybe seen as a sign of weakness. A person who cannot keep hisor her impulses in check may not be completely reliable in acrisis.

One Friday afternoon an RPR expat manager in Francetold his secretary she would have to work late that evening tomeet a deadline. He was not prepared for her reaction, whichwas to burst into tears; but once she’d had a good cry, she wasable to go back and finish the job. In another instance atRPR, the French male subordinate of a female Americanmanager expressed his frustration and anger at a difficultsituation by flinging a binder at a wall. The manager recallsbeing appalled and frightened because a similar action by anAmerican employee would be wholly unacceptable and pos-sibly signal danger.

At work, as in friendship and love, the French are usuallynot afraid of confrontation and are ready to voice their opin-ion, sometimes bluntly. To them, confrontation can be apositive way to bridge differences between people and doesnot necessarily alter their relationship. Sometimes, it is evenclarifying and may foster a renewed peace of mind. In anycase, try not to lose your composure; confrontation is inher-ent in the “hot-blooded” French character. Even after re-peated confrontations, the French tend not to bear grudges orstart a feud (at least outside the family circle). They use theexpression soupe au lait (milk soup) to mean a flash of angerthat erupts suddenly but then dissipates just as quickly.

In a society where people rarely hesitate to assert theirrights—in the streets if necessary—methods of resolving con-flict depend on the situation, stakes, and parties involved.Minor conflicts are usually best resolved by sitting downprivately with the persons involved, provided that they aremore or less on the same hierarchical level. Often, people


will do this on their own, but they may need a little push inthe right direction from a manager or another employee.However, all conflicts in French culture do not necessarilyrequire resolution. It may well be common knowledge thatM. Ducros and Mme. Legrand can’t even look at pictures ofone another, or just can’t stand each other and if at allpossible should not be assigned to projects together. In othercases, people can work together without really getting along.

More serious conflicts, or those between people at veryunequal levels, may require the intervention of a mediator orgo-between. In this case the mediator may speak privatelywith each individual and bring them together later. In anycase the French tend to resist conflict solutions imposed byauthority alone—particularly the authority of a foreigner.Here again, they need to participate and express themselves.

Communication Patterns. French people use words and sen-tences in a very precise manner and in a specific place. TheFrench language is less precise than English and containsfewer words. The meaning of a specific word in French istherefore more content-based than in English. Unless theyare fluent in English, the French will not be able to expressnuances or shades of meaning, which will most likely createfrustration and discomfort. This lack is a real handicap forFrench people. Imagine trying to “push a wheelbarrow withone arm” (Bull Worldwide Information Systems 1992).

Americans, on the other hand, tend not to be as pickyabout vocabulary and the elegant turn of a phrase. TheAmerican communication style is basically to convey a mes-sage in as concise and straightforward a manner as possible.Obliqueness is not considered an asset; the goal is simply toget the point across. When French people are on the receiv-ing end of such uncomplicated communication, they tend toassume there is something more there than meets the eye orear—and are likely to overanalyze, trying to read between thelines and figure out the “hidden message.”

188

In large international meetings, French employees, in con-trast to their usual energetic participation in smaller groups,have a tendency to be reserved and are hesitant to expresstheir ideas and opinions. From an American perspective,they limit the effectiveness of the meeting by withholdinginput that might be vital to coming to grips with the issues.This reluctance to speak up in large meetings may come fromfeeling intimidated by the hierarchy, a lack of public speak-ing skills (not taught in French schools), and low self-confi-dence in speaking a foreign language in public. Consequently,when French people are involved, a meeting is not over whenit actually breaks up—much important feedback may comeinformally afterward, when the French participants have hadan opportunity to have a discussion with their colleagues orwith the presenter or team leader in private.

Communicating in a foreign language can be very chal-lenging. One American former RPR expatriate often usedwhat he defined as the “native language safety valve.” In caseof frustration or fatigue, switch briefly to your own language,whether your colleagues understand it or not. It’s so refresh-ing that after just a few minutes, you can switch back to theforeign language with renewed energy.

Nonverbal communication can also complicate relations.Gestures, facial expression, body movements, and other non-verbal elements that are meaningful in one culture may noteven be noticed by outsiders. In France the nonverbal aspectof communication is vital and goes hand in hand with a moreindirect style—another reason why French people find dis-tance communication somewhat difficult, even in their na-tive language.

The French tend to scan each situation intensely, lookingfor any clue that might help them to understand everythingthat is going on. A look that passes between two people at ameeting can indicate to other participants that they havealready dealt with a particular issue behind the scenes andthat nothing more need be said about it. In a similar manner


a slight pass of the fingernails over the cheek can communi-cate to a colleague, I’m about to pass out from boredom here!

A French-American couple was invited to a business dinnerin France that eventually became tedious. The French husbandmade a discreet gesture under the table to indicate to his Ameri-can wife beside him that he wanted to leave, and fast. Notunderstanding, she repeated the gesture above the table andasked him, “What the hell is this? What do you want?”

Even the meaning of a closed office door differs amongcultures. In the United States, a closed door indicates thatthose inside should not be disturbed because something seri-ous, important, and possibly secret is going on inside. Peoplein a “closed-door meeting”—a revealing American expres-sion—should not be interrupted unless it is absolutely essen-tial. The correct way to do this is to knock on the door, waitfor an answer, then enter. In the French workplace a closeddoor may signify nothing more than a need for privacy andtranquillity. Interruptions are almost always welcome andone need only knock on the door before going right in.

In addition to the different ways people use language,communication problems are increased by high- and low-context communication patterns. Earlier, we described theFrench web of relationships as a family. Explicit communica-tion in a family may be minimal, since all family membersknow the background information that allows them to inter-pret the meaning of what they hear in order to fill in theblanks. Two or three words, undecipherable to the outsider,are enough to make insiders nod with understanding or roarwith laughter. This type of communication is referred to ashigh context; the rich context of shared experience and knowl-edge allows participants to understand the message with mini-mal overt communication. French culture tends to be highcontext: much of the communication is implicit, so peopleneed to have certain shared knowledge and assumptions tounderstand what is not specified—which explains the impor-tance of strong, time-tested relationships.

190

Low-context communication means that all necessary in-formation is provided in the linguistic message—everythingis spelled out in detail. In this style, we do not assume or takefor granted that people have the details they need to fill inthe blanks, so we don’t leave any blanks. American culturetends to be quite low context. Edward T. and Mildred ReedHall describe the differences.

A high-context (HC) communication or message is one inwhich most of the information is already in the person, whilevery little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of themessage. A low-context (LC) communication is just the op-posite; i.e., the mass of the information is vested in theexplicit code. Twins who have grown up together can and docommunicate more economically (HC) than two lawyers in acourtroom during a trial (LC), a mathematician programminga computer, two politicians drafting legislation, two adminis-trators writing a regulation. (1990, 6)

What happens when the high-context French and low-con-text Americans work together? When Americans provideclear and detailed explanations or instructions, the Frenchmay feel they are being treated like children. In a high-context culture, most low-context interactions take placewith children, who need to have things spelled out preciselybecause they do not have all the background. For an adult tobe treated in this way is an insult.

A French employee who receives “too much” informationfrom colleagues and superiors may feel that he or she isconsidered incompetent or untrustworthy. This type of de-tailed information strikes the French as spoon-feeding. Asign posted over the sink in the coffee area at an AmericanRPR training facility reads: “Please do not put anything otherthan liquids into the sink. This means no coffee grounds,plastic stirrers and cups, sugar packets, etc.” Specifying indetail exactly what is and is not a liquid is a very low-contextmessage indeed.


One Frenchman who adores trying out traditional Ameri-can recipes quickly lost patience with American low-contextcookbooks: “It said, ‘Cover dough with clean cloth to rise.’Do they think I just crawled out of a cave? Do they think Iam stupid? Do they think I might decide to use a greasy ragfrom my garage if they don’t tell me the cloth should beclean?”

In the other direction, low-context Americans might feelthat they are being kept in the dark and that their Frenchcolleagues are hiding something from them, or that theysimply do not know what they want.

An American who had just been hired to work for a Frenchcorporate attorney met with his new French boss to go overhis job responsibilities: “He handed me a letter from Com-pany X announcing their change of address and said, ‘We’vehad litigation pending with this company for years, you cantake care of this.’ I noted the address change on my Rolodexand brought the letter back. It turned out that he meant Ishould take care of the whole case. I felt like a complete jerk.Why didn’t he tell me what he wanted me to do?” The Frenchresponse, of course, would be, “He did,” but he did so in ahigh-context way that was not at all clear to the American.

Distance Communication. Nothing can replace a face-to-face meeting for building relationships and making criticaldecisions. It is preferable for people to meet on a regularbasis, though obviously it is not always possible. One RPRAmerican manager who worked regularly with the Paris of-fice suggested that a minimum of two face-to-face meetings ayear was essential for maintaining a good working relation-ship with the French. Every company or organization willhave to make its own decisions on which employees arebrought together, for how long, and under what circum-stances, but those who will be interacting on a regular basiscan generally benefit from personal encounters. Recall thatat RPR, even clerical staff participated in short-term inter-cultural exchanges.

192

The situation becomes more challenging when communi-cation is not face-to-face. Phone, fax, e-mail, teleconferenc-ing, and videoconferencing are useful, but each technologyhas its limitations, especially in the loss of nonverbal cuesand messages. As the experts tell us, 80 percent of all commu-nication is nonverbal.

Electronic mail might be an efficient way to speed upcommunication and reduce costs. However, keep in mindthat such a communication tool will sometimes rub theFrench the wrong way because of its casualness and absenceof proper form. It should not take the place of a personal call;if possible, try to avoid e-mail until after a good relationshiphas been established. And even then, don’t let it overshadowpersonal relationships. Employees at the French office of alarge American electronics firm frequently checked in withone another via e-mail to decide where and when they wouldgo for lunch, even though their offices were just a shortdistance down the hall. The Italian CEO became concernedthat the quality of human relationships might suffer if peopleused e-mail to maintain personal connections instead of get-ting up and chatting with one another.

Finally, it’s always good to put things in writing. Frenchpeople love the written word, and memos are usually wellaccepted and less formal than a letter. When calling a Frenchcolleague to confirm a meeting date, an appointment, orsome other important matter, it’s generally a good idea tofollow up with a fax, memo, or e-mail. Especially while dis-cussing technical details on the phone, which often requiresknowledge of a specific jargon, give your colleagues a chanceto process the information by reading what you mean or wantas well as hearing it.

In situations where employees are not able to meet theircolleagues, it is a good idea to establish ground rules fordistance communication. Here are some recommendations:

• Find compromises which are acceptable to everyone insuch areas as communication patterns, amounts of in-


formation, formality, and so on. It may be necessary tomake these compromises explicit.

• Be clear about deadlines and notions of urgency. Whenrequesting information or assigning tasks, don’t justannounce deadlines. Explain why the document isneeded by that date, how it fits into the overall projectsequence, and what the consequences of missing thedeadline will be.

• Rephrase or reword key terms or sentences to ensureunderstanding, particularly when you are using techni-cal vocabulary.

• When in doubt, err on the side of low context (i.e.,include as much information as you reasonably can), atleast until you are sure that your message is gettingacross. It’s easier to start low and go high than theother way around.

• On the phone, speak slowly and avoid jargon and col-loquialisms. Give your colleagues enough time to pro-cess the information.

• As much as you can, involve your colleagues in what’shappening. Tell them and let them feel that they shareresponsibility for the project.

• Before discussing business or technical matters, estab-lish rapport by spending a moment on nonbusinesssubjects.

• Think of distance communication as something be-yond a simple request for information. Use it as ameans of building a relationship at the same time.Think long term.

Empathize and be patient with foreign colleagues or em-ployees who are not speaking their native language. Peopleoften lack sufficient appreciation of this issue. Speaking in aforeign language is mentally and physically exhausting, espe-cially when you consider the challenge of communicating via

194

telephone or e-mail without nonverbal cues—body language,gestures, and facial expressions.

Monochronic and Polychronic Time. “Just take it one thingat a time,” Americans often advise colleagues who are“swamped” with too many projects and assignments. And inAmerican culture, this is excellent advice. American andother Anglo-Saxon cultures tend to be monochronic: peoplefocus on one thing at a time and concentrate exclusively onthe task at hand. Ringing phones, visitors, mail, and so on aredistractions that prevent work from getting done. A busyexecutive going into an important meeting often tells his orher secretary, “Hold all my calls, please.”

Time is a commodity that must not be wasted. Instead, itshould be managed and used optimally. Monochronic peopleusually work in a linear fashion, making to-do lists and sched-ules to which they normally adhere. This is seen as the mostefficient and well-organized way to work. A monochronicperson’s schedule might look like this:

9:00-9:30 Budget meeting9:30-9:45 Call travel agent9:45-10:45 Prepare letter re: marketing plan for headquar-

ters

A French person observing an American working in thisway would be amazed by how mechanical and possibly inef-ficient it all is, plodding along regardless of what changescome up and rigidly ignoring everything else. The clichéimage of the overburdened secretary, typing, talking on thespeakerphone, and shutting a file cabinet with a deft foot allat the same time is a perfect illustration of a polychronicindividual. French people tend to be polychronic. They domany things at once, hop back and forth from task to task, areeasily distracted and interrupted without necessarily beingirritated, and look at a schedule as a flexible guideline con-cerning what might happen. The polychronic person may


start the day with the schedule shown above but without theexpectation that it will be adhered to.

In fact, what often startles Americans working with theFrench is their lack of concern when schedules are thrown offand tasks postponed. They jump around from one thing toanother and are so easily distracted, it looks cavalier anddisorganized.

The clash between monochronic and polychronic styleswas played out in one incident at RPR’s office in Paris, wherean American woman who had recently arrived in France wasmeeting with a colleague in his office. Another French col-league stuck his head in the door just to say hello, and thetwo started chatting. Annoyed and offended by such rude-ness, the expat eventually discreetly left the office and latercalled the colleague she had been meeting with to explainher behavior. A polychronic French person would have un-derstood and waited for the side conversation to be over, butfor a monochronic American, the meeting was over, sinceanother activity had begun.

The effect of a different sense of time is perhaps the mostcommon source of conflict in French-American workplaceinteractions, at least according to our RPR informants. PaulOrleman (1992) quotes an American expat in Paris: “TheFrench are not deadline-conscious like we are in the U.S. IfI say to someone ‘I need this within two hours,’ it’s likeasking them to crucify their mother” (25).

On the other hand, a French expat in the United Statesobserved that in France, “A deadline has no meaning in andof itself. If a report is due January 1, and I decide no oneneeds the report until January 31, the deadline is meaning-less. I can reprioritize. Americans don’t do this—the deadlineitself is important” (20).

In fact, a good way to find common ground on deadlineissues might be to examine why and how the time frame hasbeen established and what the consequences might be if adeadline is missed. In some cases, deadlines are set arbitrarily,

196

based on established routine. For example, do regional re-ports really need to arrive at the manager’s office exactly oneweek before the monthly summary is issued, or can moreflexibility be built in? The French usually need a logicalreason to do something, and “It’s due on October eighth”may not in itself be enough. The notion of urgency resonatesbetter with the French when it is associated with the urgentneed of a colleague rather than a vague urgency around aparticular date. If a French person understands that a misseddeadline will result in negative personal consequences for acolleague, he or she will be reluctant to put someone in sucha position.

The U.S. manager quoted above had another suggestion:“The French need to learn to understand [the Americansense of] ‘urgency,’ and we [Americans] need [to learn] to notmake everything an instant, unstructured need to be satis-fied” (25).

Meetings and Presentation Styles. One French manager inthe United States appreciated American presentation polite-ness, contrasting it with the “veritable knife fight” that goeson in France. “When you begin a presentation in the U.S.,”he noted, “you know that you will be able to go through yourmaterial point by point right to the end. In France youscarcely have time to begin before somebody interrupts you—you can’t even get to your third slide” (Bull Worldwide Infor-mation Systems).

The typical American presentation starts out with a storyor a joke. In France such icebreakers are not necessary andyou can get straight to the point more rapidly. People mightnot understand the point of a story, especially if its purposeis just to engage the participants and it doesn’t relate to whatfollows. In fact humor is an important element in all but themost formal meetings and presentations in the United States.A few well-placed jokes or comments can lighten things upand even make a difficult discussion go more smoothly. Hu-mor is certainly appreciated in France but is less appropriate


in a business setting, where a more serious tone is usuallyexpected. At one RPR meeting between French and Ameri-can managers, an American joked, “Oops! There goes our1991 bonus!” He meant that if a particular task was notaccomplished, the year-end bonus might not be paid. TheFrench top manager did not get the comic, throw-away na-ture of the remark, and replied, “We are not going to worryabout the bonus” (Orleman, 20).

The substance and conclusions (le fond) of a presentationare far more important to the French than the materials (laforme) you use. While clear and legible transparencies ordocuments are helpful, audiences will not necessarily be im-pressed with state-of-the-art technology. The French tend tosuspect that slick or razzle-dazzle presentations are trying tocover up a lack of substance.

To the purist’s horror, the French often speak of le meeting.But if the word is understood in both languages, the conceptis not, and many cultural differences are played out in thesetting of le meeting. What is a “productive” or even a “good”meeting? It all depends.

From the American perspective, “The French are hugefans of committees and meetings where nothing gets done.It’s rare to have a good agenda, purpose, and action plansresulting from a meeting” (18). All very true, the French willagree, but is there a problem with that? A French RPR man-ager explained, “The point of a meeting is not to get throughthe agenda! The point of a meeting is to find out who feelswhat. It is not the place to make decisions” (19).

Much of the emotional temperature taking that occurs inFrench meetings is high context. Look around—a lot of thingsare happening. Certain latecomers will be briefed on whatthey missed, while others will not. The tone of the briefingitself can indicate if the person is important or just beingteased. Certain people may always come in late, others mightalways sit next to each other, power blocs coalesce and dis-solve, and side conversations or comments might even take

198

place during a presentation. For the polychronic French, ofcourse, this is not considered an interruption of the meetingor rude at all. It can be very difficult for them to focus,American-style, on one speaker at a time. A French managerin the United States revealed, “I was feeling very French atthe meeting; I wanted to have a side conversation. It wasdriving me crazy” (19).

The French use meetings as an open forum for discussionsof all kinds. It is difficult for them to function without suchintense communication networks, and they feel almost boundand gagged if they are not given the time to express them-selves. Here again, building some time flexibility into meet-ing schedules can help accommodate this. At the same time,limits can be established to prevent a meeting from turninginto a cocktail party. It is often possible to combine elementsthat French and American participants feel are essential foran interculturally productive and successful meeting.

Decision Making. So, if the French don’t make decisionsduring meetings, where do they make them? And for thatmatter, who makes them? Here again, hierarchy is respected.Decisions tend to come from on high, and consensus buildingis rarely an important part of making a decision. Frenchmanagers take into account individual ideas and contribu-tions from meetings and other discussions but do not neces-sarily include them in the final decision. And, of course, thediscussion does not always end just because a decision hasbeen announced.

In France’s risk-averse culture, the decision-making pro-cess is generally much longer than in the United States, witha greater need for information exchange in some contraven-tion of their high-context inclinations. The French need toexplore every avenue intellectually and practically beforethey can fill in the gaps. They try to gather as much informa-tion as possible before making an important decision. Com-pared with American practices, the process is much morecomprehensive and not so sequential. When trying to solve


a problem, Americans tend to look immediately for solutions.The French, on the other hand, try first to understand thecauses of the problem. Only when they feel sure they under-stand why and how the problem occurred do they feel pre-pared to solve it.

As we discussed, time is much more fluid in France than itis in the United States, and this also influences the outcomeand timing of decisions. The French do not necessarily feelthey are wasting time when the process slows down or evenwhen they are not working toward a specific goal.

Power and Information. The number of U.S. companiespracticing “open-book” management—that is, giving all em-ployees access to company information—is small, but thevery idea is enough to send a French manager into shock. Inprinciple, at least, Americans believe that the sharing ofinformation is key to efficiency. People tend to share infor-mation freely through both official and informal channels.Long distribution lists and “FYI” memos are common.

What happens if an American receives a misdirected memoaddressed to a colleague but containing useful information?The chances are, he or she will simply go to the person whosent the memo and say, “That kind of info can really help meout in the advertising forecast—could you add me to thedistribution list?” A French person in a similar situationwould most likely begin reading between the lines, notingwho sent the memo, who is and who is not on the distributionlist, what being omitted from the list might imply, and, aboveall, how to get such information in the future without goingto the sender. Knowledge of who gets what information, andfrom whom, is vital to understanding what power blocs andcoalitions might be forming or falling apart, or even just howpeople are getting along.

An American RPR expat described the different concep-tions of information: “In France, information is used as asource of power and control much more than in the UnitedStates. Managers and team members may withhold informa-

200

tion to bestow on an individual rather than share openly withthe team” (Orleman, 37). Being “out of the loop” in the U.S.may be an oversight or an inconvenience, but in France itcan be quite deliberate and potentially fatal.

In egalitarian American culture, power is almost a dirtyword, and while people acknowledge the existence of officepolitics, they regard such maneuvering as slightly distasteful.Companies talk of the participative workplace, where em-ployees are empowered to control their own jobs and desti-nies. The idea of having power over someone or, worse yet,being under someone’s power, makes most Americans vaguelyuncomfortable if not quite suspicious. In France and otherLatin cultures, power is acknowledged and spoken of openly.High-level people use their power freely, usually to their ownadvantage, and are respectfully deferred to by those theycontrol.

Like personal information about family and friends, profes-sional information is also shared only with those in the ap-propriate cercle. If everybody gets it, it can’t be important—or the person giving it out so freely is not very clever ordiscerning. A French RPR expat explains, “Information whichis widely distributed is obviously useless information. If I geta memo with a huge distribution list attached, I don’t botherto read the memo because I know that it will be of no valuefor me” (37). Though Americans also appreciate getting “theinside track,” the sharing of information is nowhere near asheavily charged as it is in France.

Running the Business

Questions Needing Answers• What is the appropriate time horizon for the business?

• What does strategic mean? What is our strategy?

• What are appropriate controls?


• What does centralized or decentralized mean, and whatdo we want?

• What processes are involved (planning, controlling,etc.)? How will they be implemented?

• What does planning mean? Who plans? How is a plandocumented? How is it communicated and to whom?

• What do we mean when we talk of teamwork? What isa team? A collection of people working individually, aconsensual group working together, or something else?

• What should be delegated and to whom?

• What is the balance between the individual and thegroup?

• What is the value of being entrepreneurial?

• What is appropriate risk? How do you approach it?

• What does ethical mean?

• How do you negotiate?

• What is the definition of quality? Can it be achievedquickly?

• What is good customer service, and who is responsiblefor it?

• What is the value of acting versus thinking?Go, Team! Here again, similar words conceal very differ-

ent meanings. Both French and American businesses con-sider teams and teamwork important, but that’s about as faras the agreement goes. The American value of egalitarianismunderlies the expectation that a team functions as a unitwhere everyone works together. Achievement orientationrequires that individual personalities take a backseat to thetask or project at hand. Ideally, the team as a whole is moreimportant than any one person. When star players emerge,they increase effectiveness and team cohesiveness by pump-ing up morale and focusing attention on the successful team

202

while providing a positive role model. However, even thestars have to fit in, and big egos do not make for good teamplayers. While there may be a team leader, he or she isexpected to provide guidance and leadership rather than toissue orders.

Part of the worldwide amazement that the French won theWorld Cup in 1998 was because the French are traditionallyconsidered too undisciplined and egotistical to be good teamplayers and provide a united effort. It’s true that being a teamplayer American-style may require the French to abandon abit of their cherished individuality, and, for this reason,making a French team work together can be a bit like herdingcats. An English writer notes,

Getting a group of French people to work together virtuallydefies the law of dynamics: each of them runs his or her ownfiefdom and the operating principle (from the top down,which is the only way French business works) appears to be“management by information retention.” (Hill 1994, 70)

Contrary to popular belief, French teams can work to-gether. They just don’t look like anybody else’s team whenthey do. The team leader in France has an explicitly directiverole, which is mainly to match assignments to people and toensure that everything runs smoothly. After everyone hasenjoyed a thorough exchange of ideas and conversation—inother words, a French meeting—each team member is givena particular task, which he or she then goes off to complete.Eventually, the team leader assembles all the bits into thefinished product.

Interestingly, the finished product may look just about thesame as the one produced by an American team, or a Britishor German one for that matter. But the team’s process, howit works together, how roles and responsibilities are estab-lished and carried out are totally different. Which team ismore productive or more effective? It all depends on whomyou ask, where, and when.


An American member of a French team may say, “Well,the final result was okay, but what a pain in the neck it wasto get there.” Since team members are off working on theirindividual pieces, the American has a hard time seeing thatthey are working together at all. A team whose memberswork independently is just not a team. A French participanton an American team might say, “It’s a miracle we got sucha good result with all the nonsense that went on.” The fre-quent status meetings that ensure everyone is “on board” and“up to speed” appear to be a waste of time. Why doesn’t theleader just tell us what to do, so we can get on with it? Andexpecting us to design a team logo coffee mug…what a joke!

In order to get intercultural teams off the ground, everyonemust share the definition of team. While this seems obvious,in practice time is rarely taken to forge a mutual agreementon what team means. One French-American sporting goodsmanufacturer held biannual international product develop-ment meetings that included research and development andmarketing teams from both countries. At one such meeting,the teams were given the task of developing a new squashracquet. Each group went home with its list of “action items”and worked on the project for six months. During that time,they communicated regularly about their progress and theirplans. At the next international meeting, everyone made theunpleasant discovery that the two teams had essentially de-veloped two different products.

Assumptions and expectations about teams and teamworkneed to be articulated, examined, and discussed and workingagreements reached. There is no “one-size-fits-all” way tocreate a good intercultural team. Each group needs to deter-mine people issues, process issues, and task issues accordingto the project, the team members and their competencies,the logistics, the budget and schedule, and hundreds of othervariables. When unconscious assumptions are imposed on amulticultural team by default, someone is bound to feel thatthings just aren’t right. It is important to acknowledge that

204

our norms and assumptions are not carved in stone. Success-ful international teams will need to craft their own rules,taking into account what will be most suitable to everyone.

Competition and Risk. American and French culturespresent an interesting contrast when it comes to the competi-tive drive. As you have read, the French educational systemis highly competitive and treacherous. Your performance inschool primarily determines what you will be doing the restof your life. Career shifts are rare in France, especially as oneapproaches the midforties. Going back to school full-time atthis age would be difficult and uncomfortable, simply becausemainstream French society reserves higher learning institu-tions for younger people.

When it comes to the French business environment, thesituation is just the reverse, and the French competitive driveappears much weaker than it is among Americans, in whomit has been nurtured by an adventurous and entrepreneurialspirit and a powerful achievement motivation.

Most probably, one of the reasons for this French behavioris the absence of a strong drive to win. As expressed by BaronPierre de Coubertin, founder of the modern Olympic move-ment, it is more worthwhile in the eyes of the French publicto participate than to win. It is more important for the Frenchto lose with panache than to win without class and style.Quite a few second-place athletes have become extremelypopular in France, for instance, Raymond Poulidor, a cyclistwho always finished second.

The structure of French society, with its vestiges ofprerevolutionary social hierarchies, does not encourage peopleto move up the ladder. Compared with the United States, thegovernment offers little support for personal initiatives. Whilejobs in the private sector tend to pay more, French peopleattach more prestige to working in large state-owned compa-nies and in public administration. The public sector alsooffers more job security, an important consideration in a risk-averse country with a chronic unemployment problem. The


amount of paperwork, legal formalities, and time needed tostart a new business reflect the cultural preference for thestatus quo and control over unbridled capitalism and indi-vidual initiative.

Concomitant with this preference for the status quo is thestructural rigidity of traditional French companies. Multiplelayers of management along vertical lines of reporting do notfavor initiatives or the flow of useful information. People getused to their positions and responsibilities and rarely chal-lenge the established order and pace of doing things. Interna-tional companies may be more progressive, but most tradi-tional French companies tend to abide by a set of rigid orga-nizational rules.

American motivational techniques are often based on theconcept of “friendly” or “healthy” competition. Teams maycompete for a special award based on productivity improve-ment, or individual employees are singled out for public rec-ognition when they surpass their sales goal. Americans lovea good competition. They feel that competition brings outthe best in people, encouraging everyone to make their bestefforts. Corporate programs to recognize “The Number 1Team” or “The Employee of the Month” strike the French asexcessive, silly, and serving to reinforce the shallow side ofAmerican incentive or reward management. Such practicesare likely to backfire with French employees, who tend toprefer a more personal form of recognition, such as beinginvited to lunch by their manager or a low-key recognition inthe context of a smaller group rather than appearing in thelimelight.

Risk taking and its potential positive results are an impor-tant feature of American culture while, consistent with theirnoncompetitive attitude, the French tend to be risk-averse.Before taking a risk, French employees will carefully assessthe possible effect of failure on their reputation and career,and they often conclude that the risk is not worth it—whichleads to the perpetuation of an unchallenged status quo. In

206

the more flexible and mobile American society, negativeconsequences of failure are usually far less damaging. If some-one fails, he or she may be out of a job in the very worst ofcases, but chances are that another opportunity will rapidlyopen up. And in case of success, the person will reap thehonors and material rewards such a bold attitude deserves.

A typical American approach to risk was illustrated byGeorge Simons, an American consultant based in Europe.While discussing an upcoming program with a French col-league, George proposed using a training tool that was in thefinal testing phase. Despite the suggestion and George’s offerto assist in the process, the French trainer decided to use anestablished tool that had already proved successful. Georgesummed up their cultural difference by saying,

I think that part of the culture thing may be that I am anAmerican who tries to set off little fires and expects people tocontribute fuel to them until we get a good bonfire going anddecide what we are going to cook with it. I realize that I havemade this mistake before with people who really want todecide on the menu before starting the fire. (Simons 1996)

Another contrast between French and American attitudestoward risk was illustrated at the French offices of RPR. AFrench supervisor needed his American superior’s approvalon a purchase order. The American’s French was only rudi-mentary, so he was unable to understand the contract andtold his subordinate to sign off on it instead. This was ex-tremely uncomfortable for the Frenchman, who was used tohis previous boss (a Frenchwoman) having sole signatureresponsibility on all paperwork. His principal reason for be-ing unwilling to sign the contract was fear of being blamed ifanything went wrong, so they worked out a compromise so-lution in which they both signed the document. TheAmerican’s management principle of empowering employeeswas respected, while the French subordinate’s need to spread


the risk was also satisfied. It was a nice blending of theirstyles.

Compensation policies in the two countries illustrate thisbias for or against risk taking. Often in the United States,one’s annual fixed salary is only a part of the overall financialpackage one receives, which includes bonuses, stock options,and other performance-related rewards. In France the fixedsalary is usually all one gets, with the performance of thecompany, the department, or the individual being a minorfactor in determining compensation—if it enters into thecalculation at all.

Système D and Ethics. French institutions tend to be com-posed of Byzantine bureaucracies and vast quantities of ad-ministrative red tape, which are at least partially responsiblefor another high-context French institution: Système D. Theletter D usually stands for débrouiller or se débrouiller, al-though a coarser version is se démerder (to remove oneselffrom ambient manure). As we noted in chapter 5, débrouillermeans to unfog, to disentangle, to sort out, or even to clearup. Se débrouiller refers to one’s individual actions and one’sability to manage for oneself.

Système D in France refers to the unofficial and possiblyunorthodox method for getting things done or turning thingsaround. It is a process of using relationships, connections,specific people, or knowledge to get information and to makethings happen. It usually implies bypassing a few rules orregulations, a technique that you as an outsider must learn ifyou want to survive the bureaucracy and function effectivelyin the French corporate world. Being able to use Système Dto get out of difficulties is seen as a high-level skill in France,and the adjective débrouillard(e) is often used as a compli-ment. All this means there is a cheerful disregard for pettyrules and regulations in France—though, of course, decisionsabout which ones are petty are left up to the individual.

Bureaucratic rules and regulations in France unnecessarilycompliquent l’existence (complicate one’s existence). Rather

208

than direct confrontation with an implacable wall, the Frenchoften prefer a flanking maneuver. Recall the American womanwhose French boyfriend assumed she had already agreed tomarry him. He knew that residency requirements for foreign-ers to marry in France were so complex and so time-consum-ing that if they went through the proper channels, theywould have at least five years to plan their wedding. Fortu-nately, the boyfriend’s cousin was the mayor of a small villagenear his hometown, and she was able to declare the Ameri-can as a resident of the village—which she most definitelywas not, since they lived in a large city some three hoursaway. The couple was married by the cousin about six monthslater.

An incident in an international school in Paris illustratesthis “end-run” approach to solving problems and overcomingobstacles. An American student describes a tug-of-war match:

It was the Americans against the French. Monsieur René gotus all started, eight on each side. We pulled and pulled. Butthey looped their rope around a tree. We were trying to pulla tree down. We were plus forts [stronger], but they were plusmalins [cleverer]. In school at home, the teacher would havesaid it wasn’t fair. But Monsieur René said, “C’était malin”[“That was clever”]. (Wylie and Brière 1995, 95)

An American expat in France analyzed the two approaches.A system that is too complex or too inconvenient in theUnited States must be simplified. The goal is to promoteprocess improvement and take the waste out of the system. Inany case, the rules are usually respected. In a similar situa-tion, the French reaction is to go around the problem usingSystème D. When faced with an obstacle, the French persontypically looks for a way around it and seldom attacks theproblem head-on.

Because of their tendency to obey rules or change themwithin the system, Americans in France are generally as-tounded when they observe Système D in action, especially


when they don’t recognize what it is. One American expatmade brilliant use of Système D without even knowing itwhen he tried to get a visa at the last minute for his son’sschool trip abroad. After fruitlessly making the rounds ofvarious local government offices, he finally got to the rightplace, where the clerk informed him that, for a number ofreasons, it would be impossible to issue the visa right away.

Despite this initial rebuff, the American started to listento and empathize with the clerk as she went on to vent abouther work situation. As he was about to leave, she discreetlytold him that she might be able to help. She looked aroundtwice to make sure no one was watching, then pulled out anofficial piece of paper, stamped it twice, and signed it. Thatwas that. Rules had been broken, but the son was able toleave with his classmates the following day. The clerk’s will-ingness to work in Système D was a result of her feelingstoward a man who had listened sympathetically to hertroubles. There was the beginning of a relationship, so he wasno longer a total stranger, an object of indifference.

From the American perspective, the French may appear atleast cavalier if not actually unethical, but French ethics aresimply more flexible and situational. They are based on thenotion that the literal truth may be less important than someother vital need, such as family loyalty or maintaining arelationship. As discussed in chapter 13, the French are ex-perts at dancing on the line that separates truth from lies.Dualism—“Either it’s right or it’s wrong”—is not a character-istic pattern of French thought. Americans, who play thingsstrictly by the book, are seen by the French as unnecessarilyrigid, plodding, and unimaginative. Doing things exactlyaccording to the rules is dull and conformist. It also makeslife more difficult and tiresome than necessary.

As you might imagine, Système D is also a means of gettingpower in a French company. It is part of a whole process thatmakes you valuable to the organization and its members. It ispart of an intricate social organizational web, a network of

210

connections that allows a person to break through the resis-tance of the normal system and make things happen.

Business Negotiations. Negotiations can take place within acompany—between departments or subsidiaries—or betweentwo or more companies. Theoretically, when negotiating partieswork for the same organization, they should be able to reachagreement more easily, since they share corporate culture andoverarching corporate goals. In either case, cultural values,assumptions, and beliefs underlie the ways in which peopleprepare for, approach, conduct, and conclude negotiations.

Regardless of where the negotiation takes place, languageis also a vital component. If the working language is French,it is a good idea to have a highly competent and qualifiedinterpreter if your level of French is less than fluent. Inaddition to impeccable language skills, an interpreter needsto be culturally savvy enough to decode high-context andnonverbal communication. Proper presentation, manners, andknowledge of protocol are essential for the interpreter as wellas for the negotiators. If the negotiations are conducted inEnglish, the French are likely to need even more time thanusual for side conversations to ensure that they all under-stand the same thing, whether or not an interpreter is present.

The choice of negotiators in France takes into consider-ation elements beyond operational competence or knowledgeof the issues. The level of formality and concern for properbehavior reach their pinnacle in an important negotiation.French negotiators must show—discreetly—that they comefrom the right social and educational background and havethe authority to make the final decision. A negotiator whohas to “check back with the home office” loses credibility.

When not working with familiar people, the French arriveat the negotiating table with the slight mistrust they bring toany initial encounter. Here as elsewhere, trust is not a givenbut must be earned by virtue of personality and performance.

As in most French business operations, risk is minimizedwhen it cannot be eliminated. The French try to avoid being


caught short and having to improvise on the fly. A good wayto reduce risk is to be ready for any eventuality by beingthoroughly prepared. The French feel that, armed with com-plete, detailed information, they can handle any situationthat arises. And they will do this, like every other task, byusing logic, logic, and logic. They expect their negotiatingpartners to be equally well versed on all elements that makeup the context of the subject, including legal, financial, andenvironmental issues, and so on. The French lose respect forthose who neglect this preparation.

Confrontations in French negotiations can become quiteheated. Ideas, including those that seem unrelated to thetopic, are expressed and debated, even if there is little chanceof their being accepted. Recall that the French love a gooddiscussion for its own sake, so they do not necessarily feelpressured to conclude an agreement if there are more peoplewho want to express their opinions. Time is not of the es-sence. Also, by observing the reactions, proposals, back-ground, and style of the other party, French negotiators gathera lot of high-context information about the other party’sposition and what it is likely to do next.

An example of this occurred during negotiations betweenthe French and American partners of an established jointventure. The Americans had prepared a cooperative strategyin which all members of the negotiating team would defendthe agreed-upon platform, presenting a united front—whichthey expected the French to do as well. But the French, asusual, preferred to engage in arguing and discussing conflict-ing viewpoints among themselves. For the Americans, theapparent lack of cohesion and the resulting confusion indi-cated that the French had not prepared and had no organizedstrategy. The Americans felt that “being prepared” meanthaving one single position to put forward, while French prepa-ration was a question of getting all the information needed tocope with anything that might come up during the meeting.From the French perspective, the Americans were showing a

212

lack of creative spirit, falling into lockstep behind one posi-tion without entertaining options.

An American businesswoman describes the French as “ag-gressively intelligent.” They need to show you they are madeof stern intellectual stuff, and they usually do this in a com-bative, in-your-face way. Paradoxically, they can also becharming while they’re doing it.

The French usually begin a business negotiation by “set-ting the stage” with a series of general considerations andstatements before getting down to the details. For example,they want to discuss the general business climate, economictrends, market conditions, competing companies, and indus-try sales figures before discussing the financial details of theproposal. The inclusion of considerable background informa-tion is important to the French because they like to knowexactly where they stand at all times, and where they aregoing.

Americans, on the other hand, tend to get right to thebusiness at hand, concentrating on the “bottom-line” detailsof how to reduce costs and increase profits from the dealunder negotiation. Americans, who are used to adopting apragmatic, hard-sell approach, can find the intellectual ori-entation of the French unsettling. Profits and market shareare also important to the French, but the bottom-line ap-proach will never be as popular in France as it is in Americancorporate settings. To be so focused on money and profitswould be considered rude in a culture where panache, el-egance, intellectual wit, and cleverness are held in high re-gard.

Finally, the French do not understand the notion of a“level playing field.” Whoever has a dominant position orknows any critical information would be foolish not to takeadvantage of it. When it comes to business ethics, Frenchboundaries are not as clear-cut or black-and-white as theyusually are in the United States. Rather, French businessethics depends on the context and the people you are dealing


with. This is a very important point, as it might influence theoutcome of the negotiation.

As a final point, keep in mind that French diplomatstraditionally use their language as one of their most preciseand useful tools—though English is now more widely em-ployed in the international arena. French diplomacy has along and glorious history, and negotiation has traditionallybeen regarded as an art form. At the same time, the Frenchare also past masters in the art of realpolitik and rarely losesight of their main chance. Once again, they are able todance on the fine line that separates truth from lies, tonavigate that treacherous terrain between en principe and enréalité.

Good or Fast? Can a job be done both quickly and well?Americans tend to think so, but the French generally see thisas an either-or proposition. The best Bordeaux and Burgundywines are at least thirty years old. Like a fine wine, good worktakes time to develop and mature. A decent table wine can bedrunk shortly after it is produced, but it can’t possibly beexpected to match the quality of a 1955 Château Margaux.

This attitude is partly responsible for the French lack ofurgency that frustrates Americans. The French want to workwell and produce something of high quality. And for them,this simply takes a certain amount of time and no less. Speed-ing up the process can be done only by cutting corners, andquality will inevitably suffer.

A French secretary tried to explain this to her Americanboss, who had told her to have a report ready for the follow-ing day. “Tomorrow?! In France, nobody would ever ask youto have something ready tomorrow. Well, I can get it donethat fast, but I’ll have to sacrifice quality. My boss said,‘Why? You can be fast and do good work at the same time.’Okay, but this is not very French” (Bull 1992).

It can be helpful to establish what level of quality will be“good enough” for the task at hand. “Good enough” is not aFrench concept. From primary school on, students are ex-

214

pected to aim for perfection, even though achieving it isimpossible. This training stays with them in the workplace,and submitting a project in an “unfinished” state really goesagainst the grain. Americans’ greater need for action andspeed, on the other hand, can allow them to get up andrunning with only a rough draft. It may be less frustrating allaround if there is a mutual understanding, for example, thatif accuracy is most important, presentation need not be in fullcolor.

The Customer Is Not Always Right. Americans are taught tobe polite and friendly toward those they do not know: retailemployees with shoppers, people waiting in line at the postoffice or the dry cleaner, or a stranger asking directions in thestreet. Perhaps this stems from the experience that virtuallyall Americans share of being strangers in a strange land, sincetheir families came here from somewhere else. Or perhaps itis because, in a fluid society, you can never be sure whom youwill be working with or for, or living across the street fromtomorrow, so it’s best to get along in general. Friendlinesshelps overcome feelings of uncertainty about others by estab-lishing an immediate connection. In any case, Americansamaze and amuse the French with their politeness to strang-ers on the street, in shops, and in public places.

As many Americans have learned to their distress, beingpolite to strangers is not a virtue in France. Laurence Wylie(1981) notes that “France has the social arrangement of thecercle, in which you are responsible only to the people in yourown cercle and are indifferent to people outside the cercle”(23). People outside your cercle—those you don’t know, cus-tomers who are not regulars, for example, are treated with animpersonality that strikes Americans as glacially rude.

One American businesswoman with years of experience inFrance explained it this way: “Americans are shocked bywhat they see as poor customer service. But the issue is nothow you define service, rather how you define a customer.”To an American, a customer is anyone who walks in the door.


Even if she does not make a purchase, she will be treated likean honored guest, because if she feels comfortable, she islikely to come back and make a purchase at another time. Astore in California even announced its grand opening to localresidents with a postcard addressed to “Valued Customer.” Itis impossible for a store in France which has not yet openedits doors to have customers at all, valued or otherwise. To aFrench person, a customer is a regular, someone with whomhe has an established relationship—perhaps even someonewhose father or grandfather was a regular in the shop whenit belonged to his father or grandfather.

The difference is significant. One American woman wentgrocery shopping during a visit to the small town where herFrench husband had been raised, where they had lived earlyin their marriage, and where his family still lived.

Many of the shopkeepers remembered me, and greeted mewarmly, chatting about the latest local news. In some shopswhere I was not recognized, I was treated with the normalFrench shopkeeper’s indifference. A couple of days later Imade the rounds of shops again with my little niece, Agnès,then about two-and-a-half. Her proud introduction in eachshop of her Tatie Diana from America gave the previouslyindifferent shopkeepers a vital piece of information: this isAgnès and Alexandre’s aunt, who is therefore Pierre’s wifeand therefore Ebert and Pierrette’s daughter-in-law and there-fore Brigitte and Ninon’s sister-in-law. Suddenly, they knewwhere my rightful place in their cercle was, and I mattered.

French shops do not have “Satisfaction guaranteed or yourmoney back” policies. Try to return a purchase and you willfind yourself subjected to a third-degree interrogation beforebeing told the problem was your fault anyway. Before youknow it, you are dismissed like a naughty child, the packagestill in your hand.

The French shopkeeper or restaurant owner is a proudperson and demands respect from clients. As an example,

216

consider a possibly apocryphal tale about Jerry Lewis, theAmerican comedian, who is much admired in France. He hadinvited a large group of friends to one of the finest restaurantsin Paris. Having ordered a rare vintage wine, he produced abottle of Coca-Cola and mixed them in a glass as a gag.Outraged by what he considered an insult to French cultureand savoir-vivre, the restaurant owner promptly threw theentire party out on the sidewalk, preferring to lose a substan-tial amount of money for the sake of his honor and thereputation of his establishment. In the United States, theowner would probably have chosen to “grin and bear it,”letting the profit soothe his wounded pride.

An American expat in France offered some words of wis-dom concerning customer relations.

Forget what you’ve learned in the U.S. about “the customeris king.” Learn to play the French game where you have toplease the shop owner because he has what you need or want.He is the king you need to court. You’re certainly not on apedestal and you shouldn’t take anything for granted. Aboveall, be polite. If you play the game right and are a little moresubservient than in the U.S., you’ll be treated very nicely andyou’ll enjoy it. If necessary and possible, challenge people toperform. For example, tell the plumber, “I have a problemthat no one will ever be able to fix—no one!”

These different attitudes toward customer service and cus-tomer relations as well as different concepts of who controlsthe relationship have obvious implications in doing businessacross cultures. What is customer service, how is the role ofcustomer service representative defined? How are customersto be treated, complaints handled, disputes resolved? If suchmatters are not addressed properly, the repercussions on thecompany’s image and sales can be significant.


Managing People

Questions Needing Answers• What is good leadership?

• What is good management?

• What are the core competencies of managers and lead-ers?

• How are objectives set? used? measured?

• Will performance be appraised? by whom? how?

• How will we handle rewards, recognition, and motiva-tion in general?

• How will short-term performance deficiencies be dealtwith?

• Will feedback be given? how? to whom? when? publicor private? positive, constructive, or negative?

• What is “high potential” in our organization?

• Who can be a manager?

• How are managers developed?

• How are nonmanagerial staff developed?

• Should talent be expected to take overseas assignments?

• What is the importance and impact of credentials,education, and experience?

Leadership and Management. The French concept of leader-ship is at odds with that of the American. The English wordleader is used in French, though its real equivalent would bemeneur. A meneur is a person leading a rebellion, a prisonrevolt, or even a revolution on the barricades. In this sense,it would be more negative than leader.

The French tend to use the word leader more in connectionwith political than business leadership. Political leadershipmust be earned, and beyond the necessary educational quali-fications, it demands human qualities that inspire people tofollow.

218

French business leadership is not so much earned by one’sactions in a position as by the fact that one has advanced tothat position in the first place. Leadership is often related tosocial class and education and is perceived as a logical exten-sion of one’s personal attributes. In other words if an indi-vidual has the right pedigree, has been to the right school,and has made it to executive status, he or she logically hasfollowers because of the position he or she has attained.Leadership—at least in the sense of having followers—isessentially a result of the corporate hierarchy.

In the United States, leadership is more dynamic. As Ed-ward Hall notes,

Unlike many countries and cultures, where leadership is basedon class (and other criteria) and is functional in all situa-tions, leadership in the United States happens to be situ-ational. Leadership does not carry over from situation A to B.(1992, 231)

In other words, just about anyone can become a leader whenhis or her talents and personal qualities allow him or her torise to a challenge and meet it head-on. This egalitarianconcept means that someone from a modest background canbecome a leader—even a hero. Social and educational back-ground do not guarantee leadership ability and may be com-pletely insignificant.

Are good managers born or made? Is management an art ora science? In France, relationships, personal touch, and deci-sion-making ability matter more than anything else. Accord-ingly, management is not considered a science but rather anart or a state of mind. In the United States, management isa science that can be taught and whose results can be mea-sured objectively. Management tools and techniques can bemastered and, beyond that, learned on the job.

American managers do not necessarily have all the an-swers, and their subordinates do not expect them to. Coach-


ing and developing one’s team are important managementresponsibilities, and most managers would have no problemacknowledging that a subordinate is better informed in acertain area and might ask in a meeting, “I’m not sure aboutthat. Cynthia has been doing the research on it. Cynthia, canyou fill us in?” Similarly, a vice president of a U.S. telecom-munications company made a self-deprecating comment dur-ing a presentation about her career path: “When I got thisjob, I didn’t know 75 percent of what I had to do.” Such anadmission from a French top-level manager would be theequivalent of giving the order to drop the guillotine blade.Since education plays such a crucial role in French society,high-level managers are often hired because of their educa-tional brilliance, rather than their work or managerial trackrecord only. Their subordinates, therefore, expect them toknow everything and to have all the answers—like theirteachers in school did. Confessing one’s ignorance is usuallyperceived to be a sign of weakness.

French notions of hierarchy play a role here as well. Theboss is most emphatically not “one of the guys” and is notexpected to get down in the trenches with everyone else. Hisor her role is usually to make the decisions and then send inthe troops. A British journalist extends the metaphor:

Bosses in France tend to be Napoleonic. Graduates, as a ruleof one of the elite grandes écoles, are expected to be brillianttechnical planners, equally adept at industry, finance and gov-ernment. They can be vulnerable to surprise when troops be-low fail to respond to orders from on high. Stiff hierarchies inbig firms discourage informal relations and reinforce a senseof “them” and “us.” (Economist 1991, 64)

American companies often encourage empowerment oftheir employees, giving them greater control of and respon-sibility in their jobs. The idea behind this popular practice isthat employees who have real input regarding their jobs willbe more satisfied and more motivated. Work becomes a richer

220

experience for empowered employees, since they have greaterpossibility for growth on the job.

Many nonmanagerial French employees are not particu-larly interested in growing on the job, nor do they often getthe chance. They may prefer un petit boulot tranquille (a peace-ful little job) that allows them to earn enough money, is nottoo demanding, and leaves plenty of time for family andfriends. In addition, French business culture provides a rigid,formalized structure where everyone’s career path is prettymuch determined from day one, and the culture does notnurture employee development. One French junior execu-tive, a graduate of a second-tier business school, moved tothe United States to get away from an excess of job security:“At age twenty-five, I could sit in my office and know exactlywhere I would be sitting when I retired and exactly what myjob would be. It was a horrifying prospect.”

Power sharing in France can threaten the status quo, sincesubordinates might eventually gain enough leverage to re-place the manager. Some older middle managers are suspi-cious of talented and well-educated subordinates, seeing themas rivals. Protected in their little fiefdoms, French managerscan sometimes develop the mentality of feudal lords or petitschefs, fearful of the peasants getting ideas above their station.

Given the French tendency not to promote personal growthon the job, French employees at American companies mightreact positively to development opportunities. A womanworking as a janitor at Disneyland Paris, for example, wassurprised and delighted to be asked to participate in theorientation and training of new employees. It is extremelyunlikely that she would have been offered such a chance ina traditional French company.

Adapting to Different Management Practices. Young Frenchmid- and lower-level managers adapt to certain Americanmanagement practices quite well: more delegation of author-ity, more empowerment of subordinates, greater informationflow, wider involvement in decision making, and greater


respect for the individual. As a French RPR expat in theUnited States put it, “MBA versus MBC—management byauthority versus management by collaboration.”

A few American RPR expatriates have implemented thesepractices in France with a great deal of success at lowermanagement levels. An American woman was sent to Franceas coordinator of clinical studies. During her time there, shewas promoted to a management position, supervising herformer colleagues. After a few months, she wanted to knowhow she was doing and sent out a confidential questionnaireto her staff asking them to evaluate her. Initially, they werequite surprised, since they had never been asked to do sucha thing before, but they responded once they recognized thattheir input could be useful, particularly for an expat withoutthe usual landmarks to guide her.

A similar example is that of a typically American trainingtechnique, a manager assimilation exercise, that was intro-duced at RPR in France. It was designed to help a managerwho had been on the job only a few months to obtain criticalfeedback from her subordinates. Given the hierarchical na-ture of French organizations, this was no easy task and tookcareful mediation by a skilled facilitator.

Generally, information channels tend to be horizontal inFrance and vertical in the United States. The elitist Frencheducational system encourages “old-boy” information net-works. Since competition is intense, especially during thelast years of high school and the first years of higher educa-tion, there is no natural reward for sharing information withyour classmates. When French middle managers in the U.S.grasp the idea of sharing information and actually see itsvalue in action, they can also adapt well to new ways ofhandling information. One American company in Francesuccessfully “deprograms” grandes écoles graduates as soon asthey are hired. The new employees go through a two-weekmanagement training program designed to help them assimi-late American management techniques.

222

Gaps—Generation and Other. There are marked differencesbetween young French employees (20 to 35 or 40) and seniorstaff (40 to 45 and older). As one would expect, older staffmembers won’t be as receptive as younger ones are to newmanagement techniques and innovative ways of doing things.This is an important consideration when defining responsi-bilities across cultures and choosing people for expatriateassignments.

The generational divide is not as wide or as clear-cut inthe United States, since Americans place high value on new-ness and change. In addition, change may not be a matter ofchoice: in the American labor market, if you don’t performadequately, quickly adapting to new techniques and changes,you are usually rapidly pushed aside with few scruples. Frenchlabor practices tend to be more tolerant of mediocre perfor-mance and more protective of senior workers, some of whomhave become part of the furniture—il fait partie des meubles,as the French put it so well. “Encrusted” or obstreperousemployees are sometimes “promoted” to positions where theycan do minimal damage. The reassignment of Bishop Gaillotto the diocese of Partenia is a masterful example of thetechnique.

Other factors in a person’s willingness to accept changeand new ways of working include level of international expe-rience and degree of openness to the world at large, jobresponsibility, social background, and level of education.Openness is particularly significant. Those who have neverlived in another culture or never escaped the “expat bubble”have a mindset quite different from that of people whoseinternational living and working experience has broadenedtheir outlook. The effective intercultural manager needs tobe skilled in bridging these differences or gaps in subordi-nates’ backgrounds by meeting them where they are beforeleading them further on.

Merit, Mobility, and Appraisal Standards. Many Americanmanagers in France are frustrated by being unable to promote


employees on the basis of their performance alone. Whilethey can suggest promotions or pay raises for their subordi-nates, the decisions are ultimately made jointly with higher-level managers and even other departments, particularly hu-man resources. Such decisions are based on a number offactors other than performance, many of which are inappro-priate by American standards.

As said before, seniority and education, particularly gradu-ating from the “right” school, are important factors in award-ing promotions in France. A brilliant thirty-year-old em-ployee who has made enormous contributions to the com-pany in just a couple of years cannot move up to managementor cadre (executive) status with people who are much olderand have put in many more years with the company. He orshe must spend a certain amount of time at a given levelbefore being allowed to advance. In one case, an AmericanRPR manager was unable to promote an excellent employeebecause of her poor academic record. When he discussed thepromotion with the human resources department, he was toldthat her outstanding job performance carried less weight thanthe fact that she had dropped out of college, which disquali-fied her from moving beyond a certain level.

As noted earlier, French teachers comment freely, publicly,and sometimes sarcastically on their students’ work, particu-larly if it is not up to standard. Employee appraisal follows thesame pattern: comments are usually negative to begin with,focused on what was done wrong or needs to be improved.Managers do not concern themselves with employees’ feelingsof self-esteem, nor do they stress positive comments as a meansof motivation. American-style praise such as “Terrific job!”or “Awesome report!” strikes the French as overkill. A FrenchHR manager commented drily on the number of “excellent”evaluations in U.S. personnel files. “They all look so bril-liant!” Conversely, “Ce n’est pas trop mal” (“It’s not too bad”)sounds none too encouraging to American ears, but in Franceit is fairly standard as positive feedback.

224

An Anglo-Canadian RPR expat noted that though em-ployees on both sides of the Atlantic were evaluated on thesame 1–5 scale (1 being excellent, 5 being poor), there wereconsiderable discrepancies in the meaning of the variousmarks across cultures. A 3 in France is good and fairly com-mon. In the United States and Canada, it is not unusual tosee 1s on appraisal forms. A 2 is considered average, and a 3is actually considered a poor rating.

Employee appraisal can be a potential bombshell. Employ-ees who are evaluated according to the other culture’s stan-dards are likely to be confused and upset. A French managerin the United States who appraises his or her employeesaccording to French standards will probably be seen as a slavedriver and impossible to please. Similarly, an American man-ager giving American-style positive appraisals in France maybe seen as hypocritical or undemanding.

Because of the hierarchical nature of the French work-place, 360-degree feedback (where employees are evaluatedby peers and subordinates as well as supervisors) is unlikely towork well there. In a traditional French company, it is incon-ceivable that a subordinate would be asked to provide feed-back about his or her supervisor. Most French employeeswould also be concerned that their evaluation might be usedagainst them or have other negative consequences. Similarly,French university students in the United States are astoundedto see that students’ evaluations of their professors are some-times printed in helpful booklets sold at the bookstore.American managers in France who wish to implement suchupward evaluation techniques need to proceed with greatcaution. Much preparation and coaching will be needed formanagers as well as employees. The French will want to knowwhat they have to gain by taking the risk of participating.The results will need to be evaluated with cultural differencestaken into account as well.

Pay differentials can also become a flash point in interna-tional mergers. In the case of the Daimler-Chrysler venture,


a Bavarian professor of finance gave a succinct summary ofEuropean opinion when speaking of the discrepancy betweenCEO compensation packages at Chrysler (about $16 million)and Daimler (about $2 million) in 1997: “The only ones whodeserve such sums are entrepreneurs. No executive deservesthat much money” (Steinmetz and White 1998, B1). The“pay for performance” justification is not acceptable in theEuropean view, because the concept of performance is notthe same. American executives are judged on shareholderreturn, so a CEO who improves an already healthy bottomline by laying off employees is rewarded. Such a thing isunconscionable in France, where la performance is morebroadly defined and includes elements of social responsibilityas well as financial well-being.

Labor market conditions also determine compensationpolicies in the United States, where employees are less likelyto remain loyal to one company for their entire career. Ifanother company offers two or three times as much money,one would be regarded as stupid not to accept it. Competitiondetermines salary levels, and American companies, at least intheory, have to pay higher salaries to attract and retain tal-ented people. Because the European labor market is verydifferent, French managers often do not understand this, andFrench people tend to give weight to elements other thanmoney in evaluating a job offer. A Frenchwoman in the U.S.was in fact offered twice her salary to move to another com-pany but turned down the offer because she really enjoyedher job and got along so well with her co-workers. Some ofher American colleagues were simply unable to understandher reasoning, saying they would jump at the chance todouble their salaries.

Gender Relations. The number of French firms headed bywomen is statistically small, but such companies generallyenjoy twice the average rates of profitability and growth. Notonly do women bosses work harder, according to the authorsof a recent study, but they are also more likely than their

226

male counterparts to base their authority on competence andconsensus rather than on position and power. They also tendto read the market better and anticipate its needs and evolu-tion.

Nonetheless, women at the highest levels of French busi-ness are still a rare sight. At any hierarchical level, though,a woman in business is generally treated as a woman aboveall. She will generally be seated first, doors will be opened forher, and male coworkers will notice and comment apprecia-tively on her appearance. Good-natured bantering betweenthe sexes is considered normal. Chauvin, after all, was aFrenchman!

Sexual harassment is illegal in France, but the French legaldefinition is very narrow and refers only to sexual blackmailof a subordinate by a superior, the forcing of an employee(almost always female) to perform an act against her will asa condition of continued employment or promotion. Ofcourse, this is also forbidden by American sexual harassmentlegislation, where it is known as quid pro quo, exchangingsomething for something.

The second type of sexual harassment defined by the EqualEmployment Opportunity Commission and the U.S. courts iscalled the “hostile working environment.” It is this aspect ofthe issue that often puzzles the French and can potentiallylead to serious legal and financial consequences. The ramifi-cations of differing cultural perceptions in this area are ex-tremely important and wide-ranging, whether the employeesinvolved are French people in the United States or Ameri-cans in France.

A hostile working environment refers to “sexual comments,physical touching, or displays of objects that ‘unreasonablyinterfere’ with work performance or that create an ‘intimidat-ing, hostile, or offensive’ work environment” (Business &Legal Reports 1996, 7). These may include

• displaying suggestive calendars, graffiti, sexual objects,and pictures and


• regular, persistent use of offensive language, jokes, sug-gestions of a sexual nature, gestures, or comments.

Examples of a hostile working environment cited in em-ployee training programs include the following:

• A male employee puts up a pinup calendar at the of-fice. The nude female pictures displayed on the wallmake Rachel uncomfortable whenever she looks atthem. The male employee ignores Rachel’s requests toremove the calendar.

• Mark is embarrassed and offended when his femalecoworkers continuously talk about their sexual encoun-ters, even though he has told them it offends him (7).

Both of these examples could describe everyday life in aFrench workplace. No efforts have been made, either legallyor in company policies, to regulate how people look at eachother, the words they use with each other, the artwork andposters they put in their offices, and other things that are thebasis of lawsuits in the United States. Witness the completeincomprehension with which the French followed the 1991Clarence Thomas versus Anita Hill sexual harassment case.One Frenchwoman, Elisabeth Badinter (1995), said she couldnot understand why a woman would feel upset if a malecolleague left an obscene drawing on her desk. “For me, theidea of leaving an obscene drawing on a female colleague’sdesk seems just silly. I think if it happened to me, I would justlaugh because it is so clumsy and childish—not effectiveséduction at all.”

Being an attractive woman, even a seductive one—in theFrench sense—is not seen as being incompatible with beingcompetent, strong, and powerful. The American female co-owner of a French company notes, “Although it is still a morechauvinistic world in France, I found that once Frenchwomenhave a position of authority, they don’t have a problem goingout and claiming their rights” (Quibell 1995, 8). AnotherAmerican woman manager agrees:

228

The Frenchman’s approach is more traditional than that ofthe American businessman. It is more chauvinistic, but in apositive way. When I’m [in France], I don’t feel inferior butI am aware that I am a woman. (8)

In France, as one RPR female expatriate reported, an older,paternalistic male manager might well use affectionate termssuch as ma petite fille or ma petite fleur (my little girl or mylittle flower) with a younger female subordinate. Such com-ments in the United States would be considered demeaningand derogatory. An American woman in this situation wouldmost likely complain to the HR department, and a lawsuitwould not be out of the question.

To avoid giving offense in this way, many American orga-nizations aim to neutralize or prevent conflict by simplyforbidding any reference to sex or gender in the workplace.An American woman who posted a photo from Life magazineshowing the back view of some naked French rugby playerswas rapidly asked to take it down by the HR manager. Frenchexpatriates—both male and female—perceive such a neutralenvironment as antiseptic and mechanized. For them, theaffective side of relationships, the element that humanizesand binds people together, has been removed.

Because sexual harassment is such an explosive issue in theUnited States, it is important that French and Americanemployees understand how gender relations operate in bothcultures. An employee without such an understanding ineither country is a loose cannon.

229

17

Professional Guidelines

Guidelines for American Managers in France

• Learn the language, learn the language, learn the lan-guage. Just learn it! The importance of speaking Frenchcannot be overstated. It will open doors for you, buildcredibility, and get you through initial rounds of obser-vation much more rapidly. Since you might need tobreak through an initial barrier of mistrust—assumingyou know few, if any, of the people you are going to beworking with—making an effort to learn and speak thelanguage will help you get started on the right foot.

• Some expatriates come to France with an exaggeratedsense of their own importance or hide their insecuritiesbehind an “I know everything; everything should begiven to me” attitude. Neither will be endearing to theFrench. A little humility and a healthy respect for thehost culture will go a long way in neutralizing thisproblem. For example, even if you don’t speak much orany French, don’t start right off in English. Begin witha brief disclaimer in French, such as Pardon, je ne parlepas bien le français (Sorry, I don’t speak French well), or

230

with a polite Parlez-vous anglais? (Do you speak En-glish?). Avoiding the appearance of arrogance will fore-stall the French from striking back by speaking ex-tremely rapid and slangy French just to make your lifemiserable. And, yes, there are French people who en-joy doing just that.

• If you must speak English with your French colleagues,adapt your language to their level of understanding.Speak simply but not simplemindedly. Keep in mindthat most French people learn British English in schooland may be more used to British accents and expres-sions. Use standard American English, and, if possible,play down any strong regional accent you might haveif it seems to be causing comprehension problems.Speak more slowly and speak “French English” withyour colleagues, which means occasionally using Frenchexpressions in English (e.g., French people don’t“make” a decision or an appointment; they “take”them). Avoid colloquial American expressions, slang,and jargon unless you are in a situation where it isappropriate or where you can teach them to your col-leagues.

• Using a foreign language—even English—may play animportant role in your colleagues’ communication pat-terns, and they may not understand as well as youthink they do. The French will rarely openly admitthat they don’t understand; it would cause them a lossof face. This can result in serious misunderstandingsthat you discover only later. Pay attention to yourcolleagues’ facial expressions, as French people tend touse strong nonverbal cues when confused, lost, or ex-periencing difficulty. Some typical gestures and ex-pressions include the infamous Gallic shrug, grimaces,and various kinds of smiles.

• Don’t be afraid to rephrase your sentences and get

Professional Guidelines 231

feedback about your listeners’ understanding of thediscussion by asking open-ended questions. Build insome extra time in your meeting plans so you can usethis communication technique as often as needed.

• Learn to appreciate the French joie de vivre. Show youcan mix work efficiency with an enjoyment of life,allowing for more quality time in the workplace. Enjoythe French tradition of long vacations and appreciateFrench food, social life, and the many other little plea-sures that make a difference. Ask yourself these ques-tions: Are you in France only to work? Is work thesingle most important thing in your life? What otherinterests does France offer you a special opportunity topursue? The French find the workaholic American dif-ficult to understand and often difficult to work with.

• Upon arrival, spend a lot of time building rapport withyour French colleagues. Put your personal convictionson hold and learn how things work and how peopleinteract in the French environment. Give yourself theluxury of not setting quantifiable objectives or goals toachieve during this period.

According to one French RPR manager, this obser-vation and adaptation period should last about threemonths, an idea inconceivable for a new manager ar-riving from the United States. Don’t panic—the Frenchuniverse has enough staying power to avoid collapse ina few short months. Bureaucracy can be your friend inthis case, since it will sustain the course of the businesswhile you observe and adjust. Train your senses to usesubjective criteria—the emotional well-being of yourdepartment, the quality of conversation you have withpeople—to measure your progress.

• Become skilled at observing people and the way theyinteract. Postpone judgment until you understand thesituation, the people, and their motives. Work rela-

232

tionships in France have a higher degree of affect orfeeling than in the United States. Don’t let the emo-tional content of French interactions disturb you.Harmony is not critical to achieving your goals.

• Watch for Système D in action. At first, you mightthink it’s not very different from the way you do thingsback home—just calling good friends when you needhelp. Once you have collided with French bureau-cracy, however, try to avoid making a negative judg-ment. You may in time learn to see Système D differ-ently and perhaps not as unethical as it seemed at first.But remember that favors are usually person-relatedand depend on the quality of the relationship. SystèmeD can be used only with people in your cercle.

• Ties between business and government are very closein France. Relations between the two are collegialrather than adversarial, as is often the case in theUnited States. It is not unusual to find a major private-sector company managed by graduates of the samegrande école with considerable public-sector experi-ence. Their background in l’Administration (of thecountry) allows them to build particularly effectiveold-boy networks of power and influence, which can beused to advantage in their new roles.

• Competence and performance are not the only consid-erations for being a successful manager in France. Yourpersonal background, seniority, education, and otherintangible elements, such as your personal network ofinformation sources, might play at least an equallyimportant role. This may seem terribly hierarchicaland class-oriented if you come from a society that inprinciple values egalitarianism, and you may havetrouble integrating these elements into your personalway of reasoning. However, they are definitely part ofFrench culture and should not be overlooked.


• The American cowboy management style—“Ready,aim, fire!” (or worse, “Ready, fire, aim!” as in Rorer’s“directionally correct” philosophy)—is virtually guar-anteed to irritate and alienate the French. It will causea lot of damage, and you will rapidly lose credibilityand support.

• Be patient in dealing with the French thinking processand appreciate its advantages; also note its limitations.Look for ways to combine the French desire for analysisand “thinking things through to the end” and the U.S.imperative for action. Blend the strengths of both cul-tures, leading French theory to practice and ensuringthat American actions are based on solid reasoning.Keep in mind that the French need to understandbefore they act: they debate, argue, and contradict ifnecessary. From debate comes clarification, rephras-ing, and understanding. The French usually argue withthe position and not the person, so try not to takethings personally. You may even begin to enjoy thebite and challenge of French-style discussions and findAmerican politeness a bit dull by comparison.

• Time-management patterns vary across cultures. TheFrench do not share the American sense of urgency toaccomplish tasks. Therefore, you need to establishdeadlines that everyone can realistically meet and feelcomfortable with. It will definitely take more time toget things done in France than in the United States, soit is essential to allow for this in project planning andmanagement.

• The word accountable does not translate directly intoFrench, which says a lot about the culture and thewillingness or unwillingness of French people to shoul-der responsibility. The only approximate translationis, in fact, responsable (responsible). A French managerwill rarely admit to making a mistake, and French

234

people do not accept blame well, especially when itcomes from a foreign manager in a public session. Lesgens n’aiment pas passer pour des cons (People do notlike to look like jackasses) is a very common popularexpression. Therefore, don’t embarrass employees bymaking them lose face in front of their colleagues. Ifthings are not going well with someone, see the personprivately and fix the problem between the two of you.In public, talk honestly, but generally, about thingsthat are not working well without naming the peopleinvolved or the person in charge. The high-contextFrench will have already figured out who the guiltyparties are.

• French appraisal standards are rigorous. Evaluatingpeople according to American standards will under-mine your credibility as a manager and create discrep-ancies with other teams or departments. Learn firstabout local practices, and seek advice from your Frenchor American peers if necessary.

Guidelines for French Managersin the United States

• Relationships develop differently in the United States,where friendship is more situational, depending onwhere you live and work and not so much on withwhom you went to school or with whom you grew up.Keeping this in mind will help ease some of your frus-tration when interacting with Americans on a socialbasis—when things seem, through French filters, to begoing too fast or to be going nowhere (you get invitedright away because you’re French and exotic, but thenyou may never see your hosts again).

• Understand that you need to observe certain explicitrules in a professional environment (i.e., where the


affective side of relationships plays a lesser role). Theseinclude the infamous “political correctness” and moresensitive ways of addressing women. Jokes and com-ments that raise no eyebrows in France—aboutwomen’s driving or men’s cooking, for example—wouldmost likely be considered derogatory, condescending,and definitely inappropriate. “When in doubt, don’t” isa rule of thumb that will keep you out of trouble.

• Work is a central and psychologically important aspectof an American’s identity; other areas, including thefamily, are often secondary to work. This is sometimeshard for a French person to believe, but discussion ofthe matter with American colleagues should convinceyou. In a fast-moving, action-oriented society, workshapes a person’s identity to a greater extent than in arelationship-oriented society like France.

Consequently, American employees identify withtheir company to a greater extent than French employ-ees do, even though the Americans change companiesmore easily. The concept of “corporate identity” reso-nates with American sensibilities. The social role ofthe corporation in the United States might includetuition reimbursement, health insurance, child care,personal counseling through employee assistance pro-grams, and so on. In many companies mission state-ments are posted or are added to employee handbooksand company documents. While mission statementsmight appear too directive to you, they are importantelements in the American workplace. Take them seri-ously.

• Learn to communicate the American way, and do notplay the information retention game. A good flow ofinformation, both vertically and horizontally, will ben-efit everyone, and you will receive much more usefulinformation in return.

236

• American teamwork and empowerment practices in-volve delegating significant decision-making power andresponsibility to subordinates. The typical Americanmanagement style might be described as “hands-off,”implying a limited amount of control from the man-ager. Saying that someone is a “micromanager” (keep-ing everyone on a tight leash and unwilling to del-egate) is not a compliment in the United States.

• Be a good team player. Take time to build a relation-ship with every member of the team, and explain whereyou are coming from in terms of your own reasoningand knowledge. People in one department of a com-pany, be it headquarters or a subsidiary, know verylittle about what is happening overseas. Help themunderstand French cultural and professional realities.This disclosure will likely include personal details aboutyour private life, which is quite common in the UnitedStates, and is an important part of building relation-ships.

• When intercultural misunderstandings occur, take careof the problems one by one and coach people individu-ally if necessary. Give them the keys they need tounderstand the situation, especially from the Frenchperspective, keeping in mind that Americans learn bydoing. Stick to practical applications rather than ab-stract theories.

• Be ready for additional questions when new proceduresare introduced. American employees don’t mindchange, but they are less accepting of authority thanthe French and readily question new practices that donot seem to be efficient.

• Try incorporating American management techniquesthat work well and with which you are comfortable inorder to find the best compromise between your man-agement practices and those of your host country.


• Americans like—and expect—informal feedback onhow they are doing. Offer your subordinates more feed-back than you normally would, and reinforce whatthey are doing well rather than continually pointingout problems. In the United States, positive feedbackis an important management technique that builds self-esteem and enables Americans to grow on the job.This concept is quite foreign in France, but in the U.S.it is a key to good performance and enjoyable work-place relationships. It is also important in retainingemployees, as people switch jobs and companies quiteeasily in the more open American labor market. Whenyou do have to give critical feedback, stress the posi-tive before the negative. Stressing the negative first, orexclusively, will have damaging repercussions and ulti-mately lead to a loss of respect. An attitude such as “Ionly want to hear about problems; don’t bother mewhen things are going well” is simply suicidal for aFrench manager in the United States.

• Familiarize yourself with American appraisal standards,and do not penalize your team by evaluating its mem-bers the traditional French way. American appraisalsrely on hard and measurable facts and criteria. Theappraisal is therefore less subjective than in France.The result may be substantially the same, but you reachyour conclusions differently. Maintain personnel filescontinuously and be ready to document and back upappraisals and personnel decisions—your subordinateswill likely do the same. These are especially importantif dismissal becomes necessary. Undocumented disci-plinary actions can lead to lawsuits. As they say in theUnited States: create a paper trail.

• Système D and power networks might not work as wellin the United States as they do in France. Even thoughpeople use their relationships to get things done, orga-

238

nizations tend to be less political. Knowing the rightperson in the right place might help you open doors,but only occasionally will it be instrumental in gettingthe contract, accomplishing the task, or solving theproblem. Most of the time, you will have to prove yourcase, and technical competence and sound argumentare your best allies. This is particularly true when deal-ing with the U.S. government and other official agen-cies, since ties between the corporate world and theadministration are far looser and less congenial thanthey are in France. In fact, the relationship might beadversarial.

239

18

How to Succeed in an ExpatriateAssignment: Insights and Guidelines

Key ingredients for successful expatriation and expatriatemanagement are hard to quantify: openness, humility, a goodsense of humor, the ability to look at all sides of differentpeoples and cultures and choose the best in them, flexibilityand willingness to compromise, the desire for learning andadventure, a fascination with new ways and different cul-tures, the ability to cope with ambiguity, an understandingthat “my way” is not always “the best way,” the willingness togrow and change, and the self-awareness that “I’m not thesame any more, even though I will never become 100 percentFrench or 100 percent American.”

Candidates for successful expatriation, therefore, need anadditional set of skills and competencies, which may eventake precedence over professional competence. Research hasshown that operational and functional mastery at home oftenplays only a minor role in determining the success of anoverseas assignment. The personal qualities listed above canmake or break an expatriation experience. In fact, the personwho is most operationally competent in the home countrymay be the worst person to send abroad, since he or she maybe unable to adapt to new ways of doing things. Candidates

240

for expatriation and their families should have a desire to liveabroad and be generally excited and positive about their newadventure.

Because experienced expatriates are a gold mine of infor-mation and resources, most of the material in this final chap-ter comes from our interviews with French and Americanpersonnel at RPR. Members of any culture should find muchuseful information here.

Cultural Insights

For many reasons, French international assignees seem toadapt more easily to the United States than do Americanassignees to France. Important elements mentioned by RPRexpatriates include the following.

Everyday life in the United States is generally seen as moreconvenient and pleasant than in France. Longer shoppinghours, easy friendliness with neighbors, the “customer is al-ways right” attitude, and specialized customer service (homedelivery, for example) contrast agreeably with the daily hasslesof French life. French expatriates generally enjoy better hous-ing conditions and a lower cost of living, especially if youcompare Paris to rural Collegeville, Pennsylvania. However,single American people enjoy Paris’ exciting cultural life tothe extent that some have even made the decision to livethere permanently after their first five-year assignment.

Virtually all French people learn some English in school,and it is a necessity once they cross French borders. There-fore, they usually know at least some English when theyarrive in the United States and may be quite fluent. TheFrench language is much more of a barrier for Americanexpatriates. Foreign languages are not an important part ofAmerican education. In addition, Americans feel they canalways get by in English and often don’t see the need to makean effort to learn French.

How to Succeed in an Expatriate Assignment 241

The French worldview makes it easier for French expats toadapt to a different reality. They travel internationally earlyon, learn about other cultures, and have a good idea of whereFrance fits in the global political and geographical arena.France is also a much smaller country—a little smaller thanTexas—while the size of the United States makes it morecomparable to Europe as a whole than to a single Europeancountry. French expatriates know things will be different inthe U.S., so they are usually aware they can’t manage in theworkplace as they do at home. They are expecting a signifi-cant amount of change and know they will have to adjust topeople who might not be familiar with French managementpractices.

Coming from the “American empire,” in an Anglo-Cana-dian expatriate’s words, Americans are less prepared for thisadjustment than the French are. Their education is narrowerand more specialized, and through the filters of the mediaand sports, they constantly receive images of a world “Madein the U.S.A.” The World Series actually includes only base-ball teams from the United States and Canada, and the St.Louis Rams were considered the 2000 “world” champions offootball in a contest involving only American teams. TheAmerican media also reflect and reinforce the limited impor-tance of world affairs for most Americans: a broadcast en-titled World News Tonight frequently includes mostly domes-tic news. Therefore, Americans often expect things to bemore or less the same wherever they go and think their fool-proof management practices will work everywhere, sincethey’ve proven successful at home. They are taken abackwhen faced with a different reality.

American management practices give more room for per-sonal development and initiative than those of the French. Itis therefore easier for French people to adapt to more em-ployee-oriented management practices than it is for Ameri-cans to adjust to more confining and restrictive French con-ventions. French employees in the United States are often

242

pleased to find less hoarding of information than in France,less emphasis on hierarchy, less rigidity and formality, moreempowerment, and more “trying to make employees intominimanagers,” in an American expatriate manager’s words.Americans are usually faced with the reverse in France, de-pending on the kind of people they work with, manage, orreport to.

French communication patterns and context are confusingfor Americans, who are used to more direct ways of express-ing themselves and of receiving information. If they do notspeak French, they can hardly make sense of the Frenchcontext and miss many nuances and subtleties that are part oftypical nonverbal communication patterns. A lot of informa-tion is carried out in nonverbal ways (non-dits, or “unspo-ken”), and the power networks and politics in French corpo-rate settings make it even harder for Americans to adjust.Often, they do not have the keys or frames of referencenecessary to decipher all of this coded information, whichplaces them at a disadvantage. Also, they do not realize theimportance of building strong relationships based on sharedexperiences and do not value investing the time needed forsuch an activity. All of this usually accounts for longer peri-ods of adaptation for American expatriates in France.

Learning the language is vital for American expatriates tosucceed in France. Above all, it is a mark of respect towardthe people and the culture. According to virtually all Ameri-can RPR expatriates, it is the only way to become fullyintegrated and accepted. It is worth making the investmentright at the beginning, even though you might struggle for afew months or years. This point cannot be overemphasized.

Cultural Guidelines

• The expatriate experience might not be as easy as youthink. You need to be a strong individual with a solidsense of who you are and an understanding of your


capabilities and limitations. If not, do not accept theassignment.

• Expatriation is a three-pronged challenge. You mustperform your job functions. You must learn not just anew language but also new ways of thinking—and getthe work done at the same time. In addition, yourfamily will need more attention and support than athome.

• The first few months will be very tiring. You will befacing many new situations as well as learning to thinkand work in a foreign language. This is very demandingintellectually and is very fatiguing.

• Pack an “arrival-shock adjustment bag” and keep it withyou. In addition to essential paperwork, medication,and other indispensables, have each family memberinclude at least one little thing that can make a hotelroom or new apartment feel more like home. An Ameri-can sitcom character named Mary Richards always hada large wooden M hanging in her kitchen. When shemoved, she triumphantly hung her M in her newkitchen. Figure out what your M is and take it withyou.

• It is okay to make some sacrifices. Some of your favor-ite foods or other products may simply be unavailable.On the other hand, you are certainly not trying toachieve martyrdom. If there are certain things thatmean “home” to you, and if they can be fairly easilypacked or acquired, then by all means continue to usethem in your new life.

• Do not try to impose your own culture on the hostcountry. If this is your objective, you would do well tostay home. You are the one who must adapt to the localpeople and practices. If you cannot be flexible, you willlose in the end and miss many of the benefits of your

244

overseas experience. This doesn’t mean you shouldforget who you are or try to become someone else. Itmeans you have to look at yourself, your job, and yoursituation in a different light.

• Although terminology such as host country and host-country nationals is common, try to avoid developing ahost/guest mentality about your assignment. Your ex-perience will be more successful and enriching if youparticipate on an equal footing, as much as possible, ineverything that happens around you. You can do thismore easily if you avoid casting your colleagues andyourself in canned “host” and “guest” roles.

• Learn the language, immerse yourself in the other cul-ture, respect people for what and who they are, andhonor their traditions and customs. Where appropri-ate, play down social or professional distance and bepart of the team regardless of your hierarchical posi-tion.

• Don’t get stuck in your own ways, your own limita-tions. Be open-minded, fair in your judgment, accept-ing of people, and remember there is usually no rightand wrong way of doing things. There are only differ-ent ways that need to be understood through commu-nication and dialogue. What is right in one culturemight prove wrong or silly in another.

• Do not reduce host-country nationals to stereotypes.Generalizations about people can be useful as a startingpoint for learning about a culture but should never bethe stopping point. Give your colleagues the right tomake a mistake, and avoid rushing to judgment. Stepback, reflect, and try to understand them in their owncultural framework. Your cultural filters and habitsmight be influencing your reaction.

• Try to see the positive in each of the cultures andblend them synergistically into a hybrid form of man-


agement that is neither French nor American but acocreation of both. In the process, realize that youmight need to do some bridging or mediating, openingup both parties to other ways of thinking or behaving.As often as possible, try to find an approach that com-bines the strengths of both cultures, leading to a moreinclusive and contextual solution that all members ofyour team can own and internalize.

• Share stories and traditions from your culture. Sharingyour own culture and traditions helps, no matter whereyou are. It broadens people’s minds and gives them achance to get to know you in a safe and nonintrusiveway. For example, French secretaries were pleased whenSecretaries’ Day was introduced in one French officeby an American expatriate. Thanksgiving is anothertradition to share. Similarly, French expatriates in theUnited States could introduce the galette des rois (kingcake: a cake with a bean or tiny figure hidden inside)by offering a galette and a social drink to celebrateEpiphany and the beginning of the year. Check yourcompany’s alcohol policy first, though; most Americancompanies forbid alcohol consumption on the premisesor even off-site during working hours. Be careful thatyour cultural traditions do not conflict with those ofyour host country. Check them out with your localcolleagues ahead of time. Before the French knew muchabout Halloween, an American woman living thereorganized a Halloween party on October 31st for herFrench and American colleagues. The French guestswere shocked and upset with the humorous Americanpaper skeletons and ghost decorations. The next day,November 1st, is All Saints’ Day in France and ismarked by solemn prayer and remembrance of the dead.Families traditionally spend part of the day at the localcemetery, cleaning the tombs and graves of their rela-tives and bringing chrysanthemums. The back-to-back

246

occurrence of the disparate events related to death didnot sit well with the French.

• Don’t overreact to your new surroundings by becominga cartoon caricature of your nationality. Conversely,do not try to go “native.” It won’t work, and the localpeople will not appreciate it.

• Expect differences and take it as a happy surprise whenyou find similarities. If you expect similarities, encoun-tering differences can be very painful. To prepare your-self, try repeating the mantra of one successful Ameri-can expatriate: “It’s not right, it’s not wrong: it’s justdifferent.”

A final word: it may sound simplistic, but the initial stageof the intercultural experience—culture shock, if you will—is much more manageable if you view it as a game, a chal-lenge, or an adventure rather than a difficult personal orprofessional experience. And once you start to figure thingsout, it becomes enjoyable. Remember also that there aremany roads leading to success. When you find the right one,it may not always look like what you expected.

247

Appendix AThe French School System

The French Curriculum

Age France U.S.A.

Ecole Maternelle3-4 Petite Section Preschool4-5 Moyenne Section Preschool5-6 Grande Section Kindergarten

Ecole Primaire6-7 11ème = Cours Préparatoire (CP) 1st Grade7-8 10ème = Cours Elémentaire 1 (CE1) 2nd Grade8-9 9ème = Cours Elémentaire 2 (CE2) 3rd Grade9-10 8ème = Cours Moyen 1 (CM1) 4th Grade10-11 7ème = Cours Moyen 2 (CM2) 5th Grade

Collège11-12 6ème = Cycle d’Observation 6th Grade12-13 5ème = Cycle d’Observation 7th Grade13-14 4ème = Cycle d’Orientation 8th Grade14-15 3ème = Cycle d’Orientation 9th Grade

248

Lycée15-16 2nde (Seconde) 10th Grade16-17 1ère (Première) 11th Grade17-18 T (Terminale) 12th Grade

(Fabre, Whitbeck, and White-Lesieur 1995, 166)

L’Ecole Maternelle

In light of the French child-rearing practices described inchapter 6, “With the Family,” a study of the philosophy ofFrench nursery schools may prove enlightening.

The Ecole Maternelle is divided into three sections. Its aimis the intellectual development of the child through encour-agement of different kinds of activities adjusted to the child’sindividual needs. The child learns to discover the worldaround him or her, to make things, to understand and use hisor her body, to use language and numbers, and to developlogical thinking, imagination, and creativity. The child learnshow to live in society and how to become autonomous. Gamesplay an important pedagogical role, but this does not precludethe importance of rigor and effort. In the last year of“Maternelle,” activities are geared toward preparing the chil-dren for elementary school. The child becomes familiar withthe written word. The desire to read and write is developedand the rudiments of both are taught. (8)

L’Ecole Primaire (Primary School):Cours Préparatoire to Cours Moyen 2

Primary school begins at age six, with the Cours Préparatoire(CP), followed by Cours Elementaire (CE) 1 and 2, and CoursMoyen (CM) 1 and 2. These correspond, respectively, toAmerican first through fifth grades.

Appendix A 249

An elementary school education is to ensure the acquisitionof the basic tools of knowledge: oral and written expression,reading, and arithmetic. It stimulates the development of theintelligence, artistic sensibility, manual and physical skills,and sporting abilities. It provides a grounding in the plasticand musical arts, and, in conjunction with the family, under-takes the child’s moral and civil education (9).

Le Collège (Middle School): Sixième to Troisième

French parents look carefully at their child’s options formiddle school, since graduation from a good collège can helpa student get into a good lycée, improving his or her chancesfor entry into one of the grandes écoles. Of course, not allchildren are academically inclined, nor do all parents dreamof a grande école for their children. But if one is to reach thetop levels in French society, preparation starts early.

Children are assigned to middle schools based primarily onwhere they live, then on which elementary school they at-tended. Beyond this, a child may be authorized to attend adifferent—read better—school if a brother or sister alreadyattended that school, or if the child wants to study a foreignlanguage not offered by the school originally assigned.

Middle school required subjects are French, mathematics,foreign language, history, geography, economics, civics (6èmeonly), physics (4ème and 3ème only), biology and geology,technology or manual and technical education, art, and physi-cal education. In 4ème and 3ème at least one additionalsubject is added: second or third foreign language, Latin,Greek, or industrial technology. The choice of electives playsan important role in the student’s chances for admission intoa good lycée.

In both the 5ème and 3ème, choices are made about eachstudent’s future studies. Recommendations are made by acouncil composed of the principal, all teachers of a givenclass, student and parent delegates, an educational adviser,

250

and a guidance counselor. Generally, one of the followingthree options is recommended:1. that the student continue his or her studies in either

the “cycle long” (regular studies), leading to the firstyear of lycée, or in the “cycle court” (shortened stud-ies), leading to vocational studies at a L.E.P. (Lycéed’Enseignement Professionel, or professional school) atthe end of “5ème”;

2. that after the age of 16, when school is no longercompulsory, the student enter the working world; or

3. that the student redouble (repeat) the year (23).The student and his or her family, teachers, and administratorsall have input on decisions regarding the child’s future. Parentscan appeal decisions with which they do not agree. Anothercut occurs at the end of 4ème, when qualified students cancontinue to 3ème, where they will follow either an academicor technological track. Those who do not fulfill the require-ments to continue in this way are assigned to vocational train-ing; first to a classe de 3ème d’insertion, followed by preparationfor a C.A.P., Certificat d’Aptitude Professionelle (two years), orthe B.E.P., Brevet d’Etudes Professionelles (three years).

Trade guilds dating back to the Middle Ages supervise andadminister apprenticeships and other training programs incertain crafts. Membership in these organizations, particu-larly at the higher levels, is very prestigious, and a familywhose ranks include a Master Guildsman is justly proud.Attainment of this rank usually involves years of workingunder master craftsmen in various regions of the country.This was the original Tour de France.

Le Lycée:Seconde to Terminale and “le Bac”

In their first year of lycée, all students study the same corecurriculum of mathematics, French, history and geography,

Appendix A 251

first foreign language, physics and chemistry, biology andgeology, and physical education. Mandatory and optionalelectives are added, depending on the student’s abilities andinterests. The total student hours in seconde are 29 to 32 perweek, not including a substantial amount of homework.

Preparation for the rigorous baccalauréat exam begins inearnest in première. At the end of 2nde, students choosewhich type of bac exam to work toward, which in essencedetermines their curriculum for the last two years of highschool and most likely their choice of undergraduate study.The most important academic options are the general sec-tions: littéraire (Bac L), scientifique (Bac S), and économique etsocial (Bac ES). Each of these broad categories is divided intoprofiles that further focus the student’s studies.

Terminale, the final year of secondary school, is notori-ously demanding as students prepare for the bac. Familiesmake every effort to support a child aiming for the bac. Theymay provide extra help at home or pay for additional tutoringor whatever else might give their child an edge. It is a com-prehensive, all-or-nothing exam. Students who do not passon the first try may retake the exam, but you cannot passsome parts and fail others, although individual subject gradesare weighted according to their importance in the student’sbac selection.

Regardless of the section and profile chosen, all studentsworking towards the Bac L, S, or ES study philosophy in theirfinal year of high school. This reflects the importance Frenchculture places on abstract reasoning, logic, and ideas for theirown sake. Students in their final year of secondary school areexpected to provide cogent, well-reasoned essays (spellingand grammar definitely count) in response to such questionsas “Can we consider nonviolence another form of violence?”“Do ethical problems have perfect solutions?” and “How canwe determine the gravity of a mistake?”

Contrast this with exam questions from an American uni-versity Philosophy 101 exam: “What was Nietzsche’s

252

worldview?” “What was Sartre’s view on morality?” and “Whatis Kant’s ‘imperative category?’ ” For the French, the study ofphilosophy is vital to a person’s intellectual and moral devel-opment. The author of a study guide for the bac philosophypaper notes, “Philosophy leads you to continuously questionyour own ready-made ideas, not in order to systematicallydestroy them but to make you understand why you think thatway” (Marcus 1994, 18).

Major reforms of the structure and philosophy of the bacwere instituted in 1992. A huge range of options now exists,and the changes are so numerous and so far-reaching thatregular meetings among parents, teachers, and administratorsare more important than ever. The child’s progress is re-viewed on a regular basis, and corrections and adjustmentsmade as necessary. Parents can also request meetings withtheir child’s teachers, the censeur (vice principal), or theproviseur (principal).

While French students specialize much earlier than theirAmerican counterparts do, the quality of the general educa-tion they receive is extremely high. A French literary scholar,for example, has a solid grasp of a wide range of scientificdisciplines, while a French engineer can carry on an intelli-gent conversation about philosophy. Since students who passthe bac already have a thorough grounding in a wide range ofsubjects, they do not need to acquire “general ed” at theuniversity level; they move directly into courses in theirmajor field of study.

Higher Education

The first twelve years of compulsory education focus on in-stilling general culture in the child and on “formatting” thebrain. The following four to six years are reserved for special-ization. In fact, French students make important decisionsabout their future much earlier than Americans do, andchanging majors during the equivalent of American under-

Appendix A 253

graduate study is uncommon in France, except in the case offailure. Parents are well aware of the risks involved and taketheir children’s progress during their last high school yearvery seriously. Competition starts early in French schools,and education is the major way, if not the only way, to reachthe higher ranks in society.

The French language reflects the difference between regu-lar or standard education and the more specialized highereducation. Standard education is still called éducation, re-gardless of the level, but higher-level learning takes on thename of formation (training). When someone is asked in a jobinterview or during a professional presentation, “Qu’est-ceque vous avez fait?” (What have you done?), it refers to theperson’s higher education, not to his or her employment. Inreply, just the name of the school says it all: “J’ai fait Dau-phine” means the person studied at one of the best businessschools in Paris, which is part of a public university. “J’ai faitSciences-Po et X” is a more impressive response. It means thatthe person studied political science at a highly respectedParisian institution and, even better, comes from the schoolof the brightest, Polytechnique, which has trained and nur-tured engineers and top managers for more than one hundredand ninety years.

While the standard curriculum from primary school untilthe terminale is a symbol of French uniformity and universal-ity, the higher education curriculum is a real maze where thedirection you end up taking depends on various elements:your intelligence (i.e., your grades during the three years ofhigh school and your results on le bac), the amount of moneyyou can afford for your studies, the advice and support youreceived from your parents, and, above all, your personalvocation.

French higher education takes place in two major types ofinstitutions: public universities and private schools.

254

Universities and Public Education

The greatest strength of French universities, many of whichwere founded in the Middle Ages, is that they provide edu-cation at a very low cost: annual tuition is less than U.S.$500.They are therefore extremely crowded, and poor study condi-tions have been the major complaint of students over thepast decade. Students, professors, and researchers often taketheir complaints to the streets during various strikes andother protest actions. Although not as prestigious as theprivate school system, admission to a university is still verycompetitive. You’ll see hundreds of students queuing up forhours in front of university buildings once they get the resultsof their bac. Seating is limited, so it is important for them toregister early in hopes of being admitted to the university oftheir choice.

The university curriculum itself depends on the student’smajor. In most subjects, students can earn a two-year degree(D.E.U.G.—Diplôme d’Etudes Universitaires Générales) andsometimes a three-year degree (Licence), which is less and lesspopular with students and seems to be phasing out slowly.Students may also opt for a four-year (Maîtrise, or the Frenchmaster’s degree). A fifth year of study (D.E.S.S.—Diplômed’Etudes Supérieures Spécialisées) is also open to students whowant to specialize even further following their master’s degreeor if they come from a private school. Students with the bacmay also work directly toward a five-year degree, or Magistère.

Fewer students in France go for a doctorate than in theUnited States. This degree does not carry the status it does inthe U.S., and people hoping to teach in a top lycée or at auniversity are more likely to prepare for the agrégation. Thisis a very prestigious competitive exam that opens many doors,including those of tenured professorship. But the agrég is,above all, proof of a high level of knowledge that very fewpeople can attain. However, a doctorate remains a degree forprofessors, researchers, and engineers of high caliber.

Appendix A 255

Les Grandes Ecoles

In sharp contrast with the public university system stands thegrandes écoles system, the elitist path reserved for the bright-est and the best. With the bac in hand, a French student cango on to any French university. Students who have doneespecially well on a Bac S, particularly with a strong math-ematics focus, may spend an additional two or three years ina classe préparatoire (or prépa) studying for the concours, thecompetitive entrance exams for admission to the grandesécoles. Simply passing this exam does not guarantee admis-sion: only the top-ranking students get in, based on thenumber of openings available.

Prépa classes are located in lycées, although students actu-ally do university-level work. Prépa is based on survival ofthe fittest. Students considering classes préparatoires are fore-warned, even by the schools, that the workload is heavy andintense, that regular attendance is required, and that onemust have courage et bonne santé (grit and good health).

If a student is not admitted to a grande école, he or she cantake an equivalency exam and get credit toward a degree froma French university. Those who are admitted are virtuallyassured of a career in the highest ranks of business or publicadministration. They can also relax just a little: although thecurriculum at the grandes écoles is demanding and rigorous,it is generally agreed that prépa is worse.

A diploma from one of the grandes écoles is the key to thehighest levels of power and wealth in France. From the ranksof its graduates come the presidents, vice presidents, andboards of directors of virtually every major private and publiccompany in France, and quite a few smaller ones as well.Political leaders are also expected to have achieved this levelof education. Some French politicians have graduated frommore than one grande école.

Grandes écoles exist in many fields, but the most famousare associated with engineering, public administration, po-

256

litical science, and business. The Ecole Nationaled’Administration (ENA) is one of the most prestigious ways toreach the top, in either the public or private sector. It isvirtually a prerequisite for French presidents, prime minis-ters, and other high-level public officials.

The crème de la crème of the system is Polytechnique,known familiarly as “X” from the crossed cannons on theschool’s coat of arms. Think of X as a combination of Harvardin terms of tradition, prestige, and influence; MIT in terms ofrigorous mathematics and engineering curriculum; and WestPoint in terms of its military element. Students at X areactually in the French army and are paid while they study.They are also required to appear in uniform for special eventssuch as the parade down the Champs-Elysées on Bastille Day.

Many important names in the French top managementstrata are graduates of Les Mines, Arts et Métiers, and Ponts etChaussées, which are Parisian engineering schools. More at-tuned to business training and finance are schools such asHautes Etudes Commerciales (HEC), Ecole Supérieure des Sci-ences Economiques et Commerciales (ESSEC), and EcoleSupérieure de Commerce de Paris (ESCP), all located in oraround Paris. Other similar private schools of excellent repu-tation exist throughout the country, but Paris will alwaysremain the center of French influence and, therefore, theplace where the most brilliant French brains should be study-ing. This has been the pattern for centuries and will certainlyremain so.

More than the degree itself, employers hiring graduates ofthe grandes écoles are looking for well-rounded individualswith analytical skills and intellectual rigor. It is interesting tonote that these traditionally all-male institutions have ac-cepted women since the 1970s. The first woman admitted toX graduated number one in her class. As more women gradu-ate from these prestigious schools, they will enter the highestranks of politics, business, and public administration.

257

Appendix BNuts and Bolts of

Social Etiquette in France

Business Entertaining and Dining Etiquette. For a business lunchor dinner in a restaurant, the person who does the invitingpays the bill as discreetly as possible—you might excuse your-self for a moment to slip your credit card to the waiter andsign the receipt so that nothing suggesting payment is everbrought to the table. Note that 15 percent tip (service compris)and VAT or TVA (20.6 percent) are included in the bill.

A French meal is very structured and sequentially orga-nized. Follow the pace and try to eat at least a little ofeverything, even if you don’t like it. When going out for asocial meal with friends, don’t ever work out each person’sshare on a paper napkin or with a calculator on the table.One person or couple may pay the entire check with theunderstanding that someone else will pick up the tab thenext time. Even if it’s clear someone else is paying, it is politeto object by saying something like, “No, no, I’ll get it!” untilyou are definitively overruled. Alternatively, the bill may bedivided evenly by the number of diners. If one member of thegroup is being treated—a birthday or farewell dinner, forexample—the others in the party will share the cost among

258

themselves. And never ask for a doggy bag—your friends orcolleagues may worry that you are penniless or starving.

Don’t put your hands under the table or your elbows on thetable, and keep your left hand on the table while you eat.French people cut and eat their meat with the fork in the lefthand and the knife in the right without switching cutleryfrom hand to hand. French table manners are sometimesdifficult for Americans, but don’t worry too much about usingutensils “continental style.” Neatness and elegance are moreimportant than which hand holds the knife.

Coffee is never drunk with a meal but comes afterward. Ifyou’re not drinking wine, a bottle of water is always available:eau minérale ou gazeuse, mineral or sparkling water. Alwaysuse the bigger glass for water.

Cheese is considered a real course, but it is not alwaysserved in restaurants. If you like it, take two or three kinds,mild ones preferably. Be careful to cut your portion off so thatthe shape of the large piece of cheese is maintained. A round,flat cheese such as a camembert is cut into slices like a pie. Infact, what Americans recognize as a pie chart is a camembertchart in France.

Host and Guest Expectations. If you are a guest in someone’shome, it’s a good idea to bring something for the hostess; sheis the queen of the house (la maîtresse de maison). Flowers orplants are always appreciated. The number, color, and type offlowers have very specific meanings. One dozen pink roses area safe choice to thank your hostess. Never give chrysanthe-mums under any circumstances; they are for funerals andgrave sites only. Bring gifts for the children if you knowthem: American candies like Jelly Bellies, T-shirts with thename of your town or state (but not company—except enter-tainment companies like Disney), or the latest children’s andteenagers’ gadgets from the United States.

It’s a good idea to make some effort at the language and toask questions about it. Despite their reputation of being in-tolerant with non-Francophone tourists, in social settings

Appendix B 259

French people who know you are usually delighted to encour-age you—and especially to correct you!

Do not “make yourself at home” or “help yourself.” Frenchhosts do not normally show guests around the house. Do notwander around if you need something—ask for it and don’tfollow the person who goes into another room to get it foryou. Closed doors in a private home mean no admittance,except for the toilet, which may be in a separate room fromthe bathroom, so be precise when you ask for directions. Donot use the English word bathroom, because it is confusing forthe French. A bathroom (salle de bains) is a room where youwash yourself or take a bath. To be on the safe side, use theword toilettes. It is also a good idea to knock on the door ofthe toilet before you open it.

“Go ahead and sit where you like” is not very French. Yourhostess will have spent time and effort organizing the seatingplan so that interesting juxtapositions are made. As guestsare called to the table, stand back a bit and wait to be placed.Take advantage of your hostess’ thoughtfulness by getting toknow the dining companions she has chosen for you.

A French hostess does not expect her guests to lend a handin the kitchen or setting or clearing the table. The kitchen isher private area, so don’t just wander in there. If you areasked to help out, consider it a sign of admittance into thefamily. Tell your host or hostess ahead of time if you have aproblem with a specific food—a violent allergy is acceptable.People will understand your problem, and it is always betterthan not at least sampling the food.

Accept wine in your glass but be aware that a good hostkeeps his or her guest’s glass full, so adjust your sips accord-ingly. If you object to alcohol or prefer not to drink, allude toliver problems and be prepared for solicitous offers of variousliver-friendly mineral waters.

Topics of Conversation. Avoid money and religion at allcosts. They are very private topics. Talk about politics onlyif you are an expert or need an explanation about a specific

260

event—you can always ask questions and expect a livelyexchange of ideas.

Beware of violating or invading the privacy of your Frenchhost when talking about family and other personal matters.Safe conversation topics are life in the United States com-pared with France, any kind of information related to thebusiness setting, personal experiences traveling abroad, sports,food, and historical and cultural topics. Other good topics aretypically American art forms (e.g., jazz, patchwork quilts),important American creative and performing artists, orAmerican historical and literary sites. Know your own coun-try and its culture—the French will generally have lots ofquestions.

Your conversational skills will mark you as a cultivated oruncultivated person, so keep informed on current events,literary and art news, and so on. Be prepared to discuss thesethings intelligently, or at least be able to ask intelligentquestions.

Knowing a little French history helps, since it is so impor-tant to the French. If you need a detailed explanation of anymonument, battle, invasion, or French victory or defeat,people will usually come to your rescue. Acknowledge theirhelp gratefully and ask follow-up questions.

There is a big difference between asking for information orexchanging ideas about a certain topic and bluntly passingjudgment on it. Important differences exist, for example,between diversity à la française and à l’américaine, as re-flected in French labor laws and American affirmative actionpractices. Telling French people categorically that theyshould manage their diversity issues in the American wayreflects a lack of knowledge of and respect for your hosts’culture. An open discussion, comparing and contrastingAmerican and French situations and practices, is a muchbetter way to go about a conversation. Similarly, if yourFrench friends start talking enthusiastically about the thirty-five-hour workweek, listen to what they have to say. You are

Appendix B 261

certainly entitled to disagree with them and to express yourviews, but a comment like “Europeans already get too muchtime off ” is not a good way to get a dialogue going.

Business Dress. How you dress mostly depends on the pur-pose of your meeting or presentation. It may be more formalthe first day of your visit and casual the other days, goingfrom a business suit to a more creative ensemble. Err on theside of formality to begin with. You can always dress morecasually later.

A skirt and top or dress is fine for a woman. Frenchwomendo not generally wear stockings or pantyhose in the summer.A dark blue suit might be more appropriate for a board meetingor a meeting with important people. Pants are also accepted ifthey fit with the rest of the attire. Men should wear a businesssuit initially, and, depending on circumstances, take a morecasual outfit for later; for example, a blazer and trousers.

There is generally no “dress-down” practice in France, butmen may take off their ties, depending on the setting. Thingsare changing, though, and depending on the industry andgeographic location, you may be surprised to see your Frenchcolleagues in jeans or similarly casual outfits on a routinebasis. In some trendy professions like advertising and publicrelations, or in certain departments like programming, dresscan be quite original.

French people do not always consider it important to wearsomething different every day of the week. Clothing is rela-tively expensive, and they prefer a small number of qualityitems to many cheaper ones. Don’t be surprised to see some-one wear the same outfit two days in a row.

Final Advice. Although the French have a smaller spatialbubble than Americans, they don’t like someone touchingthem unless they know that person well. Don’t put your handon someone’s arm or shoulder, and don’t do any friendlybackslapping or shoulder punching.

Rushing things and neglecting the human side of a deal orproject won’t get you far in France. Be patient and learn to

262

appreciate the small wonders that French life has to offer.Quality of time as a whole, and not only quality of work time,is of great importance. Doing something you enjoy is a Frenchway of living.

Don’t be overenthusiastic and use superlatives like great,wonderful, terrific. They are not popular in France and soundinsincere. An overly positive or rosy image might strike theFrench as arrogant or hypocritical. Un chat est un chat (“A catis a cat”), the French say, meaning “Call a spade a spade” inEnglish, and the French do not sugarcoat or mince words.

Avoid the aggressive, hard-sell approach. The French willnot be impressed when you tell them that your Americanknow-how is just what they need to get them out of the messthey are in. They might not agree that they are in a mess atall. The typical American self-confident, “sell yourself” ap-proach strikes the French as arrogant and abrasive.

The French generally like people with personality, thosewho do not simply follow the herd and are able to “bringsome water to the mill.” The French sometimes regard con-sistency as boring, and being boring is the worst sin.

Finally, acknowledge the cultural importance of food andwine, and understand the primary purpose of a French meal:to get to know each other and enjoy a good conversation. Athree-hour business lunch is the French equivalent of a two-day ropes adventure team-building program, even if you donot discuss business.

263

Appendix CSojourning: Start with

an Empty Suitcase

Traveling or living abroad can be a life-changing enlighten-ment or a confirmation of your very worst fears and preju-dices.

When you arrive in a new country, you bring along not justa ratty backpack or designer luggage but also something called“cultural baggage”—your own set of assumptions, values, andcertainties. Although they take up no space in your suitcase,they can be a heavy burden, slowing you down as you explorenew territories. But don’t worry. If you can’t lighten them upbefore arrival, they will probably become less cumbersomeduring your trip through the process of increasing culturalself-awareness.

However you choose to journey, whatever your sojourn’slength, you stand to gain the most by trying to empty thecultural baggage from your mental suitcase. See not onlywhat you expected to see, but also be open to anything andeverything that comes your way. All experiences can be en-riching; often the experience is its own reward. On the otherhand, when everything around you is going to hell in ahandbasket, remind yourself that—assuming you live through

264

it—this will make a heck of a story to tell the folks backhome.

The best advice usually comes from those who have gonebefore you and have returned changed in some fundamentalways. We have gathered here some of the best quotationsfrom all kinds of sojourners—famous, infamous, and unknown.

Au revoir et bon voyage!

The tourist takes his culture with him, the traveler leaves hisbehind.

—Anonymous

A broad, wholesome, charitable view of men and things can-not be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the worldall one’s lifetime.

—Mark Twain

Everywhere I’ve been I’ve found wisdom.In every country I’ve visited I’ve found caring and friend-ship.In the people of every culture I’ve known I’ve found humor.And every experience was unique.

—Anonymous

Why do the wrong people travel, travel, travelWhile the right people stay at home?What compulsion compels themAnd who the hell tells themTo drag their cans to ZanzibarInstead of staying quietly in Omaha?

—Noël Coward

Charlie? Well, he’s been all over fifteen countries. He’sbrought back half of them in paintings, sculptures and thelike. You know something, young fella? I don’t think hetalked to a single human being in any of those countries. Hejust looked at things.

—Jed Leland on Charles Foster Kane, Citizen Kane

Appendix C 265

To travel is to discover that everyone is wrong about othercountries.

—Aldous Huxley

To feel at home, stay at home. A foreign country is notdesigned to make you comfortable. It’s designed to make itsown people comfortable.

—Clifton Fadiman

There are some things one can only achieve by a deliberateleap in the opposite direction. One has to go abroad in orderto find the home one has lost.

—Franz Kafka

I imagine that if we should meet we would stand clear in thegaze of each other.

—Anonymous

Greetings! I am pleasedTo see that we are different.May we together become greaterThan the sum of both of us.

—Vulcan Greeting, Star Trek

In America, everything goes and nothing matters. While inEurope, nothing goes and everything matters.

—Philip Roth

Europe has what we do not have yet, a sense of the mysteriousand inexorable limits of life, a sense, in a word, of tragedy.And we [Americans] have what they sorely need: a sense oflife’s possibilities.

—James Baldwin

266

I grew up in Iowa and I knew what to do with butter: you putit on roastin’ ears, pancakes, and popcorn. Then I went toFrance and saw a Frenchman put butter on radishes. I waitedfor the Cosmic Revenge—for the Eiffel Tower to topple, theSeine to sizzle, or the grape to wither on the vine. But thatFrenchman put butter on his radishes, and the Gallic uni-verse continued unperturbed. I realized then something Ihadn’t learned in five years of language study: not only wasspeaking in French different from speaking in English, butbuttering in French was different from buttering in English.And that was the beginning of real cross-cultural understand-ing.

—Genelle Morain

J’ai deux amours: mon pays et Paris! I have two loves: mycountry and Paris!

—Josephine Baker

Lunch kills half of Paris, supper the other half.—Montesquieu

Good Americans, when they die, go to Paris.—Thomas Gold Appleton

Everything ends this way in France—everything. Weddings,christenings, duels, burials, swindlings, diplomatic affairs—everything is a pretext for a good dinner.

—Jean Anouilh

In the United States there is more space where nobody isthan where anybody is. That’s what makes America what it is.

—Gertrude Stein

Whoever wants to know the hearts and minds of America hadbetter learn baseball.

—Jacques Barzun

Appendix C 267

“Take it easy, darling,” he would say. “We’ve got to be ab-sorbed into these customs. We’re still too tough to be in-gested quickly, but we’ve got to try and soften ourselves.We’ve got to yield.”

—Anthony Burgess

I really don’t know what happens next—one so seldom does.—E. M. Forster

Homesickness is…absolutely nothing. Fifty percent of thepeople in the world are homesick all the time.… You don’treally long for another country. You long for something inyourself that you don’t have, or haven’t been able to find.

—John Cheever

And yet, there is onlyOne great thing,The only thing:To live to see in huts and on journeysThe great day that dawns,And the light that fills the world!

—Inuit poem

So the journey is over and I am back again where I started,richer by much experience and poorer by many explodedconvictions, many perished certainties. For convictions andcertainties are too often the concomitants of ignorance. Thosewho like to feel they are always right and who attach a highimportance to their own opinions should stay at home. Whenone is traveling, convictions are mislaid as easily as spec-tacles; but unlike spectacles, they are not easily replaced.

—Aldous Huxley

269

References

Amado, Gilles, Claude Faucheux, and André Laurent. 1989.Changement Organisationnel et Réalités Culturelles—ContrastesFranco-Américains. Paris: Centre HEC-ISA.

Ardagh, John. 1970. The New France: A Society in Transition 1945–1977. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.

Asselin, Gilles. 1994. “Work: Its Meaning and Centrality amongFrench and American Workers.” Master’s thesis, University ofWisconsin-Oshkosh.

Axtell, Roger E. 1994. The Do’s and Taboos of International Trade:A Small Business Primer. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Badinter, Elisabeth. 1995. “The Women/Men Relationship inFrance and the U.S.” Lecture attended by the authors. New YorkUniversity.

Barzini, Luigi. 1983. The Europeans. London: Penguin Group.

Beauvoir, Simone de. 1949. Le deuxième sexe. Paris: EditionsGallimard.

Browning, E. S., and Michael J. McCarthy. 1991. “Coke ReassignsAggressive Head of French Unit.” Wall Street Journal, 13 Febru-ary.

Bull Worldwide Information Systems. 1992. Cultural Diversity: Atthe Heart of Bull. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Videocas-sette.

270

Business & Legal Reports. 1996. Pocket Guide to Preventing SexualHarassment. Booklet.

Carter, Charla. 1996. “On the Cutting Edge.” France Magazine,Fall, 34.

Carroll, Raymonde. 1988. Cultural Misunderstandings: The French-American Experience. Translated by Carol Volk. Chicago: Uni-versity of Chicago Press.

Chikoff, Irina de. 2000. “Les Basques réclament leur département.”France-Amérique 1471, 19 août-1er septembre.

Dale, Reginald. 1998. “In a French Airport, a Pointed Lesson.”International Herald Tribune, 9 January.

Dicks, Dianne, ed. 1995. Breaking Convention with InterculturalRomances. Freedom, CA: Crossing Press.

Economist. 1998. “How Racist Is France?” 18 July, 43.

———. 1995. “France’s Bathroom Blues.” 29 November, 56.

———. 1991. “A Question of Culture.” 7 December, 64.

Fabre, Kathryn, Tara Whitbeck, and Carolyn White-Lesieur, eds.1995. AAWE Guide to Education. 4th ed. Paris: AAWE.

Faulkner, William. 1994. In Novels 1942–1954: Requiem for a Nun,edited by Joseph Blotner and Noel Polk. New York: LibraryClassics of the United States.

Ferry, Luc. 1995. “Descartes, père fondateur de la science moderne?”Le Point, 3 June, 59.

France 2 Website (www.france2.fr). 1998. “Results for thebaccalauréat.” 14 July. No longer accessible.

———. 1998. “The World Cup Victory.” 13 July. No longer acces-sible.

———. 1998. “The French and Religion.” 4 April. No longeraccessible.

Giroud, Françoise, and Bernard-Henri Lévy. 1993. Les hommes etles femmes. Paris: Le Grand Livre du Mois.

Gramont, Sanche de. 1969. The French: Portrait of a People. NewYork: Bantam Books.

Grearson, Jessie C., and Laureen B. Smith, eds. 1995. Swaying:Essays on Intercultural Love. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.

Hall, Edward. T. 1992. An Anthropology of Everyday Life. NewYork: Anchor Doubleday.

Hall, Edward T., and Mildred Reed Hall. 1990. UnderstandingCultural Differences: Germans, French, and Americans. Yarmouth,ME: Intercultural Press.

Harris, Philip R., and Robert B. Moran. 1987. Managing CulturalDifferences. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.

Hermary-Vieille, Catherine, and Michelle Sarde. 1997. Le Salon deConversation. Paris: Editions Jean-Claude Lattès.

Hill, Richard. 1994. Euromanagers and Martians: The Business Cul-tures of Europe’s Trading Nations. Brussels: Europublications.

———. 1992. WeEuropeans. Brussels: Europublications.

Hohenadel, Kristin. 1998. “In an Old House in Paris.” Los AngelesTimes, 18 January.

Isambert. 1906. “Letters Patent Establishing the French Academyin 1635.” Recueil général des anciennes lois françaises. In Read-ings in European History, vol. 2, edited by J. H. Robinson, 180–83. Boston: Ginn.

Kohls, L. Robert. 1988. The Values Americans Live By. Duncanville,TX: Adult Learning Systems.

Kuisel, Richard. 1993. Seducing the French: The Dilemma of Ameri-canization. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Lacorne, Denis. 1998. “Multicultural Identities: France and theUnited States.” Paper presented at the Institute of French Stud-ies Colloquium. La Maison Française, New York University, 11November.

Lavin, Douglas. 1996. “European Consumers Decide High-Tech Isa Low Priority.” Wall Street Journal, 27 December.

Marcus, Elena. 1994. “Doing It the French Way.” Educational Vi-sion 2, no. 2, 18.

Marnham, Peter. 1994. Crime and the Académie Française: Dis-patches from Paris. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.

McGoldrick, M., John K. Pearce, and J. Giordano. 1982. Ethnicityand Family Therapy. New York: Guilford Press.

References 271

272

Mercil, Michael C. 1984. “How to Learn About a New Culture.” InPlanning and Conducting Re-Entry/Transition Workshops, editedby Youth for Understanding.

Orleman, Paul. 1992. “The Global Corporation: Managing acrossCultures.” Master’s thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadel-phia.

Orleman, Paul, and Jeff Cohen. 1995. “What Has RPR Learned andWhat Actions Has RPR Taken to Manage Cultural Differences.”Report, The Pennsylvania State University, Collegeville.

Peyrefitte, Alain. 1976. The Trouble with France. New York: NewYork University Press.

Pilley, Kevin. 1996. “The Art of Coarse Golf.” France: The Quar-terly Magazine for Francophiles, Summer, 55.

Quibell, Allyson. 1995. “Les Femmes: Doing Business in France.”France Today, October/November, 8.

Revel, Jean-François. 1995. “Descartes, c’est la France, hélas!” LePoint, 3 June, 63.

Romano, Dugan. 1997. Intercultural Marriage: Promises and Pitfalls.2d ed. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Rosenblatt, Roger. 1986. “American Best. Variety, Optimism,Bounty, Talent: An Accounting.” Time, Special issue, 16 June,24–25.

Rosenblum, Mort. 1988. Mission to Civilize: The French Way. NewYork: Anchor Press Doubleday.

Simons, George. 1996. Electronic conversation with GeorgeSimons, 16 November.

Steinmetz, Greg, and Gregory L. White. 1998. “Chrysler Pay DrawsFire Overseas.” Wall Street Journal, 26 May.

Stewart, Edward C., and Milton J. Bennett. 1991. American Cul-tural Patterns: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Rev. ed. Yarmouth,ME: Intercultural Press.

Valente, Judith. 1994. “The Land of Cuisine Besieged by ‘Le BigMac.’ ” Wall Street Journal, 25 May.

Vitiello-Yewell, Joëlle, and Claire Nacher. 1991. La Vie aux Etats-Unis. Paris: Editions Solar.

Wallace, Tim. 1999. Electronic conversation with Tim Wallace,27 September.

Wylie, Laurence. 1981. “The Civilization Course.” In Société etculture de la France contemporaine, edited by Georges Santoni.Albany: State University of New York Press.

Wylie, Laurence, and Jean-François Brière. 1995. Les Français. 2ded. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

References 273

275

Additional Readings

Althen, Gary. 1988. American Ways: A Guide for Foreigners in theUnited States. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Archdeacon, Thomas J. 1983. Becoming American: An Ethnic His-tory. New York: The Free Press.

Ardagh, John. 1990. France Today. Harmondsworth, UK: PenguinBooks.

Austin, Clyde N. 1994. Cross-Cultural Re-Entry: A Book of Read-ings. Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University.

Behr, Edward. 1995. Une Amerique qui fait peur. Paris: EditionsPlon.

Bernstein, Richard. 1990. Fragile Glory: A Portrait of France and theFrench. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Blonsky, Marshall. 1992. American Mythologies. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Blow, Robert, ed. 1990. Abroad in America: Literary Discoveries ofthe New World from the Past 500 Years. New York: Continuum.

Boorstein, Daniel. 1995. Histoire des Américains. Paris: EditionsRobert Laffont.

276

Brierley, William, Colin Gordon, Collin Randelsome, KevinBruton, and Peter King. 1993. Business Cultures in Europe. Ox-ford: Butterworth Heinemann.

Brillat-Savarin, Jean-Anthelme. 1970. The Philosopher in the Kitchen.Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.

Butler, Jill. 1994. Paintbrush in Paris: The Artistic Adventures of anAmerican Cat in Paris. New York: Workman.

Byram, Marie-Thérèse. 1992. Simple Etiquette in France. Sandgate,UK: Simple Books.

Camber Porter, Melinda. 1993. Through Parisian Eyes: Reflectionson Contemporary French Arts and Culture. New York: Da CapoPress.

Carles, Emilie. 1992. A Life of Her Own: The Transformation of aCountrywoman in Twentieth-Century France. New York: PenguinBooks.

Corbett, James. 1994. Through French Windows. Ann Arbor, MI:University of Michigan Press.

Corbin, Alain. 1986. The Foul and the Fragrant: Odor and the FrenchSocial Imagination. Translated by Mirian L. Kochan. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Crossman, Sylvie, and Edouard Fenwick. 1990. California: Le NouvelAge. Paris: Editions du Seuil.

Daninos, Pierre. 1977. Made in France. Paris: Julliard.

Darnton, Robert. 1990. The Kiss of Lamourette: Reflections in Cul-tural History. London: Faber and Faber.

Descartes, René. 1986. A Discourse on Method: Meditations andPrinciples. London: J. M. Dent and Sons.

———. 1934. Discours de la Méthode. Paris: Librairie Larousse.

de Tissot, Olivier. 1985. Le Livre de Tous les Français. Paris:Gallimard.

DeVita, Philip R., and James D. Armstrong, eds. 1993. DistantMirrors: America as a Foreign Culture. Belmont, CA: WadsworthPublishing Company.

d’Iribarne, Phillipe. 1989. La Logique de l’Honneur. Paris: Editionsdu Seuil.

Fraser, Matthew. 1994. “How France Grooms Its Elite.” The Globeand Mail, 13 June.

Gannon, Martin J. 1994. Understanding Global Cultures: Metaphori-cal Journeys through 17 Cultures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Garreau, Joel. 1981. The Nine Nations of North America. New York:Avon Books.

Gauthey, Franck. 1989–1990. “Universalisme et Particularismesdans les Approches du Management.” Intercultures 8: 81–90.

Gay, William C. 1996. Living in the U.S.A. 5th ed. Yarmouth, ME:Intercultural Press.

Gillan, Maria M., Jennifer Gillan, and Marna M. Gillan, eds. 1994.Unsettling America: An Anthology of Contemporary MulticulturalPoetry. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.

Goodstein, L. D. 1981. “Commentary: Do American TheoriesApply Abroad?” Organizational Dynamics: 49–62.

Gopnik, Adam. 1996. “The First Frenchman.” New Yorker, 7 Oc-tober, 44–53.

———. 1996. “The Virtual Bishop.” New Yorker, 18 March, 59–63.

Grizell, R. 1992. A White House in Gascony: Escape to the OldFrench South. London: Victor Gollancz.

Gruère, Jean-Pierre. 1990. “Réflexions d’un Français surl’application de méthodes pédagogiques américaines dans uncontexte ‘latin’.” Intercultures 11: 13–20.

Hall, Edward T. 1983. The Dance of Life: The Other Dimension ofTime. New York: Anchor Books/Doubleday.

———. 1976. Beyond Culture. Reprint, New York: Anchor Books/Doubleday, 1981.

———. 1966. The Hidden Dimension. Reprint, New York: AnchorBooks/Doubleday, 1982.

———. 1959. The Silent Language. Reprint, New York: AnchorBooks/Doubleday, 1981.

Hoffman, Eva. 1989. Lost in Translation: Life in a New Language.New York: E. P. Dutton.

Hofstede, Geert. 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International Differ-ences in Work-Related Values. Newbury Park: Sage.


278

———. 1980. “Motivation, Leadership, and Organization: DoAmerican Theories Apply Abroad?” Organizational Dynamics:42–63.

Jarvis, John. 1995. “Euro Disneyland Paris Cultural ResearchProject.” Research Report no. 2. Pittsburgh: Robert Morris Col-lege, 16 August.

Jeambar, Denis. 1994. “Hommes politiques: où s’arrête leur vieprivée.” Le Point. 5 novembre, 36–44.

Kalb, Rosalind, and Penelope Welch. 1992. Moving Your FamilyOverseas. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Kaplan, Alice. 1993. French Lessons: A Memoir. Chicago: Univer-sity of Chicago Press.

Kaspi, André. 1996. Les Américains: Points d’Histoire. Paris: Edi-tions du Seuil.

Kenna, Peggy, and Sondra Lacy. 1994. Business France: A PracticalGuide to Understanding French Business Culture. Lincolnwood,IL: Passport Books.

Kohls, L. Robert. 1996. Survival Kit for Overseas Living: For Ameri-cans Planning to Live and Work Abroad. 3d ed. Yarmouth, ME:Intercultural Press.

Koning, Hans. 1995. “A French Mirror.” Atlantic Monthly. Decem-ber, 95–106.

Lallée-Hognon, Isabelle. 1995. “L’expatriation, une affaire defamille.” L’Expansion, 4–17 septembre, 117–19.

Lamont, Michèle. Money, Morals & Manners. 1992. Chicago: Uni-versity of Chicago Press.

Laporte, B. 1995. “Point de vue américain: Les charmes pervers dela solidarité.” Le Point, 28 January, 47–48.

Lasch, Christopher. 1979. The Culture of Narcissism: American Lifein an Age of Diminishing Expectations. New York: Warner Books.

Lawrence, Peter. 1996. Management in the U.S.A. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Lewis, Tom J., and Robert E. Jungman, eds. 1986. On Being Foreign:Culture Shock in Short Fiction. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Lilla, Mark, ed. 1994. New French Thought. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Luce, Louise F. 1991. The French-Speaking World. Lincolnwood, IL:NTC.

Mermet, Gérard. 1998. Francoscopie 1999. Paris: Larousse.

Midda, Sara. 1990. Sara Midda’s South of France: A Sketchbook.New York: Workman.

Miller, Stuart. 1987. Understanding Europeans. Santa Fe: John MuirPublications.

Mooney, C. 1997. “Food for Thought: In France, Cafés ReturnPhilosophy to Its Popular Roots.” The Chronicle of Higher Educa-tion, 14 March, B2.

Nevers, Guy. 1985. “Les Français vus par les Français.” Paris: Ber-nard Barrault & Eugenie.

O’Hara-Deveraux, Mary, and Robert Johanson. 1994. Globalwork:Bridging Distance, Culture and Time. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pascoe, Robin. 1992. Culture Shock! Successful Living Abroad: AWife’s Guide. Portland, OR: Graphic Arts Center PublishingCompany.

Pérec, Georges, and Robert Bober. 1980. Récits d’Ellis Island:Histoires d’errance et d’espoir. Paris: Editions du Sorbier.

Peyrefitte, Roger. 1968. Les Americains. Paris: Flammarion.

Platt, Polly. 1995. French or Foe? London: Culture Crossings.

Schifres, Alain. 1994. Les Hexagons. Paris: Editions Robert Laffont.

Steele, Ross. 1995. The French Way. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC.

Stehli, J. S. 1994. “L’Amérique et le sexe.” Le Point, 12 octobre,22–23.

———. 1992. “Les Américains.” Le Point, 31 octobre.

Storti, Craig. 1990. The Art of Crossing Cultures. Yarmouth, ME:Intercultural Press.

Taylor, Sally Adamson. 1995. Culture Shock! France. Portland, OR:Graphic Arts Center Publishing Company.

Todorov, Tzvetan. 1989. Nous et les Autres. La réflexion françaisesur la diversité humaine. Paris: Editions du Seuil.

Varro, Gabrielle. 1988. The Transplanted Woman: A Study of French-American Marriages in France. New York: Praeger.


280

Vigarello, Georges. 1987. Le Propre et le Sale: L’hygiène du corpsdepuis le Moyen Age. Paris: Editions du Seuil.

Wanning, Esther. 1991. Culture Shock! U.S.A. Portland, OR:Graphic Arts Center Publishing Company.

Weber, Eugen. 1991. My France. Cambridge, MA: The BelknapPress of Harvard University Press.

Wilson, Margaret D. 1969. The Essential Descartes. New York:Mentor.

Wylie, Laurence. 1977. Beaux Gestes: A Guide to French Body Talk.Cambridge, MA: The Undergraduate Press.

Zeldin, Theodore. 1982. The French. New York: Pantheon Books.

281

Internet Resources

French and American Official Organizations

American Chamber of Commerce in France:www.amchamfrance.org/

American Political Process & Social Issues: www.amb-usa.fr/irc/political/politic.htm

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA): www.cia.gov/

Directory of French Government Sites: www.admifrance.gouv.fr/

Directory of U.S. Government Sites: usinfo.state.gov/agency/irc/fedgov.htm

French Central Bank: www.banque-france.fr/index.htm

French Embassy in Washington DC: www.info-france-usa.org

French Ministry of Economy and Finance: www.finances.gouv.fr/

French Ministry of Foreign Affairs: www.france.diplomatie.fr/

French Prime Minister: www.premier-ministre.gouv.fr/

282

French Trade Offices in the U.S.: www.dree.org/usa/

Invest in France Agency—North America:www.investinfrancena.org

Library of Congress: lcweb.loc.gov/homepage/lchp.html

The Center on the United States and France:www.brookings.edu/fp/cusf/center_hp.htm

The Elysée Palace: www.elysee.fr

The White House: www.whitehouse.gov/

U.S. Embassy in Paris: www.amb-usa.fr/

U.S. Department of Commerce: www.doc.gov/

General Information about France

Directory of French Professional Sites: www.indexa.fr

Europe Online France: www.europeonline.com/fra/index.htm/

French Culture at About.com: frenchculture.about.com/culture/frenchculture/

Links to Websites about France: home.earthlink.net/~jillej/liens.htm

FYI France: www.fyifrance.com/indexa.html

Globe Online: www.globeonline.fr/

Hapax: French Resources on the Web: hapax.be.sbc.edu/

Imaginet: www.imaginet.fr/

Pointeur Adminet: www.adminet.com/

The City of Paris: www.paris.org/

Web France International Community of Sites: www.wfi.fr/

Media and Publications

Agence France Presse: www.afp.com/

Club Internet: www.club-internet.fr/

France-Amérique: www.france-amerique.com/

FranceLink to French Radios: www.francelink.com/

Le Monde Diplomatique: www.monde-diplomatique.fr/

Pariscope: pariscope.fr/

Radio France International: www.rfi.fr/

Television Broadcast TF1: infos.tf1.fr

Television Broadcast France 2: www.france2.fr

Television Broadcast France 3: www.france3.fr

Internet Resources 283

285

Index

A

Abbé Pierre, 48

Académie Francaise, 27, 38–39

l’Administration, 12, 115, 204, 232, 238, 255, 256

aesthetic sense. See style

affective mode. See esprit critique

affiliation vs. achievement cultures, 181–82, 201, 204

promises vs. commitments, 180, 182

Algerian crisis (1958), 27

American hegemony: response to, 29, 157–58, 161–62

Americanization, 30, 39, 157, 158

Ancien Régime, 38

Annan, Kofi, 157

Arche de la Défense, 28

argument. See esprit critique

Assemblée Nationale, 73–74, 99, 114–15, 120, 157, 160

assimilation vs. pluralism, 127, 129–32, 260

Astérix. See symbols

286

authoritarian vs. participative workplaces, 110, 135, 199–200, 220–21, 236

B

baccalauréat (le bac), 16, 73, 77, 251

Badinter, Elisabeth, 94, 133, 142, 227

Banque de France, 27

Bennett, Milton J., 150

Beurs, 127, 130, 132, 162

Bibliothèque Nationale, 28

body language, 22, 185, 188

Bosnia, 28, 49

Boutros-Ghali, Boutros, 39, 157

Bové, José, 161–62

business:decision making in, 165, 172, 180, 197, 198–99, 220, 236dining etiquette in, 257–58management practices in, 220–21risk taking in, 204–07teamwork/teams in, 172, 201–04, 205, 236time-management patterns in, 194–96, 198, 233women in, 225–26, 256See also corporate mergers, culture-driven values in

business dress, 261

business ethics, 201, 207–10, 212

business meetings, intercultural, 180, 196, 197–98, 202, 203

business negotiations, 201, 210–13

business relations:affiliation vs. achievement cultures in, 181–82, 201, 204building of, 180–82, 236historical sense and, 30–31working language in, 180, 188, 193, 210, 230

Index 287

C

Caesar, Julius, xxi, 25

Calvet, Jacques, 143

Carroll, Raymonde, xxi, 88

Cartesianism, 14, 94, 147–49. See also rationalism

Catholicism, 25, 26, 125–26, 142, 144, 162. See also religion

centralization of state power, 15–16, 26, 111, 115

decentralization trends, 14, 28, 160–61

Champollion, Jean-François, 27

change, 241attitudes toward, 24, 30, 36, 182, 222, 236as effect of historical events, 158, 159, 162status quo vs. personal initiative, 205. See also competitive drive;

status quo vs. empowerment

Charlemagne, 16

Charles Martel, 48

child-rearing practices, 64–69. See also family; school system: ex-pectations and goals; socialization

Chirac, Jacques, 29, 114, 118

church and state, separation of, 123–25

Civil Pact of Solidarity (PACS), 99

cleanliness, personal, 39–40

Clinton, William J. (Bill), 104, 120, 154

Clovis, 25, 124

cohabitation (political), 115

communication, nonverbal, 188–89, 192

communication styles, 187–91, 192, 230, 242, 244high context, 189–91, 197, 198, 210, 211, 234, 242low context, 189–91, 193

Communist Party (P.C.), 114

competitive drive: status quo vs. personal initiative, 204–05, 225

conflict resolution: in workplace, 186–87

288

confrontation. See esprit critique

conscience and practicality, 16–17

level playing field, 17, 212self-interest, 17

Constitution of 1958, 120

corporate mergers, culture-driven values in, 175–228initial considerations, 180–200managerial considerations, 217–28operational considerations, 200–16

corporations:Aventis Pharmaceuticals, 165nCoca-Cola Co., 5, 30, 39Daimler-Chrysler, 224–25Disneyland Paris, 4–5, 11, 30, 54, 109, 220, 258Fashion Flair, 6–7Fisons, 168nHoechst-Marion-Roussel, 165nMcDonald’s Corp., 6, 39, 161Nike, Inc., 17Peugeot, 143TotalFinaElf, 143, 158

Corsica, 14, 160

Coubertin, Pierre, Baron de, 204

couples/pairing up, 97–99, 124, 142

Courts of Love (Middle Ages), 93

Cresson, Edith, 120

cultural baggage, 263

cultural collages:American, xviii–xixFrench, xvii–xviii

cultural guidelines, 242–46

cultural superiority, 37–39. See also mission to civilize

Index 289

culture, effects of, xv–xviidefault mode factor, 33–34hidden differences, 4–7, 145, 152iceberg metaphor, xv, 145

culture shock, 246

customer service, 33–34, 201, 214–16

D

Danton, Georges-Jacques, 26

dating behavior, 97–98

de Beauvoir, Simone, 133

débrouillardise/débrouiller, 51, 207. See also indépendance/débrouillardise vs. self-reliance; Système D

decision making, 36, 165, 172, 180, 197, 198–99, 220, 236

Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789), 15, 27, 132

de Gaulle, Charles, 15, 27–29, 48, 114, 118, 156

de Gramont, Sanche, xvii, xix

départements, 14. See also regions

dependence vs. independence (personal), 59–60, 68, 75, 87

Descartes, René, 147–48, 150

difference, emphasis on. See esprit critique; individualism; women

dignity, social, 5, 54, 108–10, 113, 119

Discourse on Method, A, 147

distance communication: in workplace, 188, 191–94

diversity, cultural, 162. See also assimilation vs. pluralism; immi-gration issues

E

education, 71–77, 185as agent of assimilation, 131elitist nature of, 16, 21, 73, 115, 138, 221, 223

290

as key to future advancement, 16, 71–73, 115, 135, 138, 218,222, 223

public, 16, 71–72, 75–76, 123, 254reforms in, 16, 73–74, 252See also family; school system

egalitarian principles. See hierarchical vs. egalitarian societies

Eisenhower, Dwight D., 29, 120

Eisner, Michael, 4, 154

Elysée Palace, 28, 118

emotions. See esprit critique: affective mode

esprit critique:affective mode, 18, 180, 185–87, 228, 232, 235argument, 18, 46, 126, 141confrontation, 18, 46, 186emphasis on difference, 18, 45, 141. See also individualism;

womengroup harmony and, 18, 89, 101–02, 232

estime vs. self-esteem, 47, 51–52, 68, 78, 223

ethics:contextual application of, 16–17, 142, 209Système D and, 207–10, 232, 237See also business ethics; conscience and practicality

etiquette, social, 257–62business dress, 261business entertaining, 257–58host and guest expectations, 258–59topics of conversation, 259–61

European Monetary Union, 113

European Union, 9, 28, 112, 115, 156, 160, 161

Euro Disney. See corporations, Disneyland Paris.

expatriation, components of a successful, 239–46

learning the language as primary, 229, 242, 244

Index 291

F

family, 59–70, 103, 126, 140–41, 143, 220as coterminous with éducation in child rearing, 65, 71, 219extended vs. nuclear, 59–62, 67, 125as social circle, 59–60, 62–63, 85, 105, 184, 186as source of identity, 46, 63–64, 183as support network, 59, 62

fate, role of, 138, 140

Faulkner, William, 24

feedback, negative vs. positive, 46, 47, 66, 67, 77, 217, 223, 237

Ferry, Jules, 16

Fifth Republic, 27–28, 118

formality vs. informality, 21–22, 104, 153, 180, 183–85, 210, 261

vous vs. tu, 21–22, 184France Libre, 27, 28

Francophonie, la, 39

Franks, 16, 25

French Republic, 9, 14–15, 27–28, 133, 160

French Revolution, 9, 14–15, 21, 26–27, 112, 114, 134, 136

friendships, 46, 57, 79–91, 105, 186, 220

circles chosen from, 79–83, 135, 184, 234forming, 81–85, 90–91, 141list of nouns for gradations of, 79–80meaning of, 85–90romance/love distinguished from, 80–81, 94–96

G

Gaillot, Jacques, bishop, 126, 222

GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), 156

Gaul, 10, 12, 25

gender issues, 96, 120–21, 133–34, 225–28

292

generation gap: in workplace, 222

Giroud, Françoise, 93

Giscard d’Estaing, Valéry, 116

globalization, 156, 157, 161–62, 167, 170

Gore, Albert, 104

Goscinny, Anne, 62

grandes écoles, 21, 27, 115, 153, 219, 221, 232, 255–56

graphology, 153

Guignols de l’Info, Les, 117–18

H

Hall, Edward T., 89, 190, 218

Hall, Mildred Reed, 89, 190

harmony, group. See esprit critique

Harris, Philip R., 105

Henri III de Navarre (King Henry IV), 127

heroes: exemplars vs. role models, 48–49, 62, 117

hierarchical vs. egalitarian societies, 132, 134–36

hierarchy:economic, 21professional, 105, 110, 183, 188, 198, 205, 219, 224social. See social class

high context vs. low context. See communication styles

Hill, Richard, 46

history, 23–31continuity and, 24, 63. See also traditionsimmediacy of past events in, 23–25, 30–31lessons from, 28–31past, present, future as continuum, 24, 162

honneur, sense of, 52–53, 216

Hundred Years War, 24

hygiene, personal, 39–40

Index 293

I

identity: definers of, 88

immigration issues, 112, 113, 129–32, 162

indépendance/débrouillardise vs. self-reliance, 49, 50–51, 67, 69–70, 104

individualism, 18, 19–20, 43as right to be different vs. being independent, 45–48, 53, 86, 87,

156, 202. See also esprit critique; womeninformation retention vs. information sharing, 172, 180, 199–200,

220, 221, 235

Institut de France, 27

intercultural interactions, analysis of, 175–80

intercultural marriages (and relationships), 99–102

intercultural workplace. See corporate mergers, culture-driven val-ues in

international geopolitics, role in, 154–56

international mergers. See corporate mergers, culture-driven valuesin

Islam, 127–28, 132, 162

J

Jeanne d’Arc, 25, 48

Jews (Judaism), 128, 162

job performance appraisals, 172, 207, 217, 222–25, 232, 234, 237

John Paul II, pope, 124, 125

Jospin, Lionel, 161

justice. See legal system

K

Kennedy, John F., 49, 120

Kohls, L. Robert, 53

Kuisel, Richard, 158

294

L

language, 45, 187, 253as agent of assimilation, 131as aspect of mission to civilize, 20–21, 37–39as voice of contre-pouvoir in new world order, 161

language elitism, 35, 37–39dictionary of proper usage and, 38

Larousse, Pierre, 20

La Semeuse. See symbols

leadership, concept of, 217–18

Le Chambon-sur-Lignon, 127

le cercle. See symbols

Le Club Med, 83

le coq. See symbols

legal system, 136–37

supernational European law, 161Légion d’Honneur, 27

Le Pen, Jean-Marie, 113, 130

Lévy, Bernard-Henri, 93

l’hexagone. See symbols

Louis XIII, 38; Louis XIV, 15, 26; Louis XVI, 26

M

Magna Carta, 136

Mamère, Noël, 157

management, 244–45adapting to different practices of, 179, 220–21, 233, 236, 241–

42attitudes toward, 217, 218–20

Marat, Jean-Paul, 26

Marianne. See symbols

Index 295

Marie-Antoinette, 26

meetings. See business meetings

mergers. See corporate mergers, culture-driven values in

mission to civilize, 131linguistic aspect of, 20–21, 37–39political aspect of, 26–27, 158

Mitterand, François, 28, 29, 116, 118, 119

money, attitudes toward, 36, 143–44, 225, 259

monochronic time. See polychronism vs. monochronism

monoculturalism vs. multiculturalism, 129–32, 133. See also assimi-lation vs. pluralism; immigration issues

Moran, Robert B., 12, 105

Morgan, Ted. See de Gramont, Sanche

Muslims, 127–28, 132

N

Napoléon, 14, 15, 26–27, 128

Napoleonic Code, 27, 136

National Front Party (F.N.), 26, 113, 114

national identity, 115, 155, 157, 158, 159–61

national independence, 29, 156

National School of Administration (ENA), 115, 126

native language (safety valve), 188, 193

NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), 29, 156

negotiations, business, 201, 210–13

newspapers:Le Canard Enchaîné, 143Libération, 130Non merci, Oncle Sam, 157

296

O

old-boy network, 21, 221, 232

Orleman, Paul, 166, 195

P

pan-European identity, 159–60

Paris, 15, 28, 47, 63, 105, 183

Pascal, Blaise, 74

Pépe Le Pew, 35

perfection, attainment of: attitudes toward, 36, 138–41

performance appraisals. See job performance appraisals

personal assessment vs. impartial test, 152–54

personality development, influences on, 69–70

pessimism vs. optimism, 137–38

as reflected in language, 138

Peyrefitte, Alain, 131

political leaders, 217authority vested in strong, 15, 118as examples of individualism, 156requirements for, 115–17response to American hegemony, 29, 157–58, 161–62

political parties, 113–115

political role, international, 154–56

politicians:attitudes toward, 117–20media focus on private lives of, 118–20, 142

politics, 89, 111–21ethnic minorities underrepresented in, 130–31influence on daily life of, 111–13, 115, 156women in, 120–21, 256

polychronism vs. monochronism, 194–96, 198, 233

deadlines and, 36, 180, 193, 195

Index 297

Polytechnique, 253, 256

Poulidor, Raymond, 204

power: in corporate setting, 183, 209–10networks/blocs, 199–200, 237, 242

presentation styles, 37, 107, 180, 196–97

privacy, psychological, 22, 43, 53–57, 70, 77, 82, 178, 183–84, 189

private vs. public spheres, 22, 56, 67, 83, 135, 183–84

Protestantism, 127, 162

Pyramide du Louvre, 28

Q

qualitative vs. quantitative evaluations, 152–54

quality vs. production schedules (speed), 201, 213–14

quoted remarks of prior sojourners, 264–67

R

Rally for France (R.P.F. party), 114

Rally for the Republic (R.P.R. party), 114

rationalism, 13–14

deductive vs. inductive reasoning, 75, 137, 149–50

intellectual vs. pragmatic approaches, 146–49, 233

logic, 14, 149, 196, 211

theoretical vs. empirical analyses, 149–52, 169, 256

realism vs. idealism, 138–41, 142

regional identity, 14, 74, 160, 162

regions:Alsace, 14, 160Alsace-Lorraine, 105Basque, 10, 14, 160, 161, 162Brittany, 14, 160, 162Burgundy, 141

298

Coté d’Azur, 61Gascony, 160

relationship-oriented vs. action-oriented societies, 235. See alsoaffiliation

religion, 123–28, 259as marker of identity, 126near-universal affiliation with Catholic, 125–26other faiths: Islam, 127–28, 132, 162; Jewish, 128, 162; Protes-

tantism, 127, 162reserve vs. extroversion, 21–22, 185

body language revealing of, 22, 185psychological privacy and, 22, 53–57, 183–84

resumés, preparation and evaluation of, 106–07

Rhone-Poulenc Rorer (RPR): case study, 165–73; 178–228cultural change mission, 167long-term commitment, 168

Richelieu, Cardinal Duc de, 38

risk-averse vs. risk-taking cultures, 198, 201, 204–07, 210–11

Robespierre, Maximilien, 26

Rockwell, Norman, 138–39

Rodin, Auguste, 40

Roman law vs. English common law, 136–37

Roman occupation, 10, 25

romance/love, 35, 93–102, 186. See also friendships

Romano, Dugan, 99

Roosevelt, Franklin D., 28–29, 120

Rosenblatt, Roger, xviii

S

school system, 247–56collège (middle), 247, 249–50competitiveness of, 16, 72–73, 204, 253

Index 299

expectations and goals of, 74–77grandes écoles, 255–56. See also separate entryhigher education, 252–53language learning in, 76, 240logic stressed in, 75, 251–52lycèe (high), 250–52maternelle (subprimary), 71, 247, 248primaire (primary), 72, 247, 248–49universities and public education, 254See also education

Second Sex, The, 133

séduction, art of, 94–96. See also friendships; romance/love

self, perceptions of, 43–57, 106

Self-Esteem: Love Yourself to Better Live with Others (André andLelord), 51n

self-help books, 50

self-restraint vs. self-expression, 44, 55–56, 65, 68, 70, 142–43

sex, attitudes toward, 141–43

sexual harassment, 226–28, 235

Simons, George, 206

social class, 36, 185, 204, 218abolition of, 21, 26, 134–35the aristocracy and, 21, 135distinctions, 134–35friendships across, 83, 135

Socialist Party (P.S.), 114, 119

socialization:centrality of family in, 59éducation and, 65–66function of mealtime in, 69personality development and, 69–70

solidarity, national, 14, 18individualism and, 19–20, 47–48

300

vs. self-interest, 19, 48–49social dignity related to, 108–10vs. special interests, 19–20, 47–48

Solidarity Tax on Wealth, 47

status quo vs. empowerment, 219–20micromanagement vs. minimanagement, 236, 242

stereotypes, 33, 35–40, 244

Stewart, Edward C., 150

style, 17, 37, 101, 204, 212

in dress, 17–18, 37subjectivity vs. objectivity, 107, 152–54, 231

substance vs. form, 37, 107, 197

symbols:Astérix, 9, 10–11, 25, 62la Semeuse, 20le cercle, 21, 62–63, 87, 90, 200, 214, 215le coq (rooster), 9, 11–12l’hexagone, 13, 15, 62Marianne, 9–10, 20

Système D, 207–10, 232, 237

T

Tapie, Bernard, 117

teamwork/teams, 89, 109, 172, 201–04, 205, 236

Thinker, The, 40

thinking (or being) vs. doing orientations, 40, 45, 85–86, 104, 107,148, 152, 201, 233, 236emphasis on achievement as reflected in, 44–45, 66, 107, 139

thinking patterns. See rationalism

Thomas, Clarence/Anita Hill case (1991), 227

Tiberghien, Susan, 100

time-management patterns. See polychronism vs. monochronism

Index 301

Tour de France, 94, 250

trade guilds, 250

traditionalist/modernist, paradox of, 24–25

traditions, 24, 60, 125, 128, 160, 231, 244, 245–46

Trouble with France, The, 131

U

Union of French Democracy (U.D.F. party), 114

universalism:contextual ethics and, 16–17as level playing field, 15nonconformity and, 18vs. pluralism, 14–15, 129–36, 162as principle of nondifferentiation, 121, 132–34

upward mobility: on the job, 222–25

V

Vatican, 125

Vercingétorix, 25

Versailles, 26, 154

Vichy regime, 28–29, 133

vous/tu distinction, 21–22, 84

W

War and Peace, 20

women:in business, 225–26, 256in politics, 120–21, 256emphasis on sexual difference of, 96, 134

Wood, Grant (American Gothic), 40

302

work, 82, 103–10attitudes toward, 108–10, 235conscience professionelle vs. work ethic, 106priority given to, 105–06as source of identity, 103–06, 235

work benefits, 105–06

workplace, intercultural issues in. See corporate mergers, culture-driven values in

World Cup (soccer) (1998), 49, 130, 162, 202

World Francophonie Day, 39

world power, role as, 29, 154–58, 161–62

World War II, 27, 28–29, 127, 131, 155

worldviews:societal characteristics of, 129–38sunglasses analogy pertaining to, 145–46, 154, 241

Wylie, Laurence, xxi, 13, 69, 214

Z

Zidane, Zinedine, 49, 130

Zola, Emile, 128

303

About the Authors

Gilles Asselin and Ruth Mastron bring together diverse per-sonal experiences and professional expertise in bridgingFrench-American cultures to form the bicultural author teamof Au Contraire!

Gilles Asselin is founder and president of SoCoCo Intercul-tural, a New Jersey- and California-based training and con-sulting firm specializing in Western European and U.S. rela-tions. As a speaker, coach, consultant and trainer, he worksextensively with international companies including Crown,Cork & Seal, Wyeth-Ayerst, and others to help executivesand managers succeed across cultures.

Born and raised in France, Gilles became a French Certi-fied Public Accountant in 1988 and spent more than sevenyears conducting and managing financial audit assignments,two of which took him to French-speaking Africa for threeyears—the French Peace Corps in Cameroon and a WorldBank project in the Congo.

He first traveled to the United States as a graduate stu-dent, and received a master’s degree in business administra-tion and a master of science degree in industrial and organi-zation psychology from the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh

304

in 1994. He has completed additional studies in interculturalrelations, including a research project on the meaning andimportance of work among French and American employees.He specializes in business relations and in designing andconducting training programs for employees of internationalcompanies.

Gilles has published a number of articles in French andAmerican business publications and also designed a traininggame, Diversophy: Doing Business with the French. He is amember of SIETAR, the Society for Intercultural Education,Training, and Research, and the French- and German-Ameri-can Chambers of Commerce of Philadelphia. He lives inPrinceton Junction, New Jersey.

Ruth Mastron, vice-president of SoCoCo Intercultural, wasborn and raised in the United States. She first developed herintercultural skills while studying in England, where she fin-ished high school. After three years of college in the U.S.,she traveled to France to complete her final university year.She received a bachelor’s degree (Magna cum Laude) inliterature from the University of California at San Diego in1979. Deciding to remain in France, she created and taughtexperimental and intensive English programs. After five yearsin France, she returned to the United States to design andteach corporate French language and culture programs. Priorto joining SoCoCo Intercultural, she held various positionswithin American subsidiaries of foreign companies, such asBritish Oxygen, Salomon S.A., and Thomson Software Prod-ucts, an American unit of Paris-based Thomson CSF, servingas communication liaison for their overseas internationaloperations departments.

Ruth recently completed her master’s degree in intercul-tural relations at the McGregor School of Antioch Univer-sity. Her work with SoCoCo Intercultural includes the designand delivery of intercultural training programs in a variety ofcontexts. She is also a member of SIETAR as well as the

About the Authors 305

Union des Français de l’Etranger, the French-AmericanChambers of Commerce of Los Angeles and San Diego, andSERVAS, an international peace organization. She lives inOceanside, California.

au contraire!: figuring out the frenchthe-eye.eu/public/worldtracker.org/language... ·...

Documents