Newsweek has published a article describing a very clichéd and short-sighted picture of modern France. The title itself, Plus Ça Change, is not correct French (it doesn't mean anything) and shows that the author, who pretends to unravel the secrets of France to millions of readers worldwide, does not even have a basic command of the French language.
Judging from the opening line ("Seventy years ago, the Nazis conquered France. Since then, the country has changed less than you might think."), the purpose of this piece of writing is to demonstrate that France hasn't changed much in the last 70 years, at least compared to the USA. Oddly, the arguments all point at the exact opposite.
The author, David A. Bell, writes that France was much more rural and religious in 1940 than now. That is a clear sign of change. American society was much more stable in these regards over the same period.
I disagree with he writes that France was "homogeneous" in 1940. What now constitutes the territory of France has never been a homogeneous place. It is and has been since the late Antiquity Europe's most heterogeneous region in terms of ethnicity, languages and local cultures. Mr Bell believes that France has become multicultural because of post-war immigration. This is doubly false.
First of all, French society itself has become much more homogeneous thanks to the greater mobility between region and especially because of the nationwide media (radio, TV, Internet) that have created for the first time a true sense of common identity between Alsatians, Provençaux, Bretons, Parisians and Basques, among the multitude of other cultural entities. The French have lost most of their dialects and minority languages in everyday life, and now speak overwhelmingly standard Parisian French. Lifestyle has been harmonised too. When Northerners once exclusively cooked with butter and Southerners with olive oil, modern French cuisine, in the homes and restaurants alike, has transcended these borders. There are still marked differences between North and South, but far less than 70 or 100 years ago.
Secondly, France has not become an immigration country after WWII. Again, Mr Bell provides the evidence himself when he explains that "between 1918 and 1945 France actually welcomed more immigrants—measured as a percentage of the population—than any other Western country, including the United States." Why would he say that France was culturally or ethnically homogeneous in 1940 then affirm in the next paragraph that it was not ?
The bottom line is that France has a deep-rooted heterogeneity in its regional diversity, AND a immigration-induced cosmopolitanism going back at least to the early 20th century. It's wrong to say that France was homogeneous in 1940 and multicultural in 2010. Only someone who doesn't know much about French society could write such a thing.
There are other signs that Mr Bell is just an English-speaking tourist in France. He writes : "... and in some areas of Paris, asking for "baguettes" in a restaurant will not produce the familiar long loaves of bread, but the other food-related item to which the French word refers: chopsticks." If asked in French, one would say "Je voudrais une baguette" for the bread, but "Je voudrais des baguettes" for the chopsticks. There is no way this could cause confusion to French speakers. So my guess is that, if it happened to him, he didn't ask properly.
The changes over the last 70 years in France are not peculiar to France. The same trend can be observed in any Western country. The world evolved, technology progressed...
So what is it that hasn't changed in France since 1940 ? The taste for good food, intellectual debate and luxury items ? These are essential elements of French culture, just like owning guns or going to church are central elements of American life. It is these aspects of society, which survive over centuries, that make up a country's culture. I don't understand why someone would write about a country to say that its modern culture is the natural continuity of its culture 70 years ago. It's self-evident.
Judging from the opening line ("Seventy years ago, the Nazis conquered France. Since then, the country has changed less than you might think."), the purpose of this piece of writing is to demonstrate that France hasn't changed much in the last 70 years, at least compared to the USA. Oddly, the arguments all point at the exact opposite.
The author, David A. Bell, writes that France was much more rural and religious in 1940 than now. That is a clear sign of change. American society was much more stable in these regards over the same period.
I disagree with he writes that France was "homogeneous" in 1940. What now constitutes the territory of France has never been a homogeneous place. It is and has been since the late Antiquity Europe's most heterogeneous region in terms of ethnicity, languages and local cultures. Mr Bell believes that France has become multicultural because of post-war immigration. This is doubly false.
First of all, French society itself has become much more homogeneous thanks to the greater mobility between region and especially because of the nationwide media (radio, TV, Internet) that have created for the first time a true sense of common identity between Alsatians, Provençaux, Bretons, Parisians and Basques, among the multitude of other cultural entities. The French have lost most of their dialects and minority languages in everyday life, and now speak overwhelmingly standard Parisian French. Lifestyle has been harmonised too. When Northerners once exclusively cooked with butter and Southerners with olive oil, modern French cuisine, in the homes and restaurants alike, has transcended these borders. There are still marked differences between North and South, but far less than 70 or 100 years ago.
Secondly, France has not become an immigration country after WWII. Again, Mr Bell provides the evidence himself when he explains that "between 1918 and 1945 France actually welcomed more immigrants—measured as a percentage of the population—than any other Western country, including the United States." Why would he say that France was culturally or ethnically homogeneous in 1940 then affirm in the next paragraph that it was not ?
The bottom line is that France has a deep-rooted heterogeneity in its regional diversity, AND a immigration-induced cosmopolitanism going back at least to the early 20th century. It's wrong to say that France was homogeneous in 1940 and multicultural in 2010. Only someone who doesn't know much about French society could write such a thing.
There are other signs that Mr Bell is just an English-speaking tourist in France. He writes : "... and in some areas of Paris, asking for "baguettes" in a restaurant will not produce the familiar long loaves of bread, but the other food-related item to which the French word refers: chopsticks." If asked in French, one would say "Je voudrais une baguette" for the bread, but "Je voudrais des baguettes" for the chopsticks. There is no way this could cause confusion to French speakers. So my guess is that, if it happened to him, he didn't ask properly.
The changes over the last 70 years in France are not peculiar to France. The same trend can be observed in any Western country. The world evolved, technology progressed...
So what is it that hasn't changed in France since 1940 ? The taste for good food, intellectual debate and luxury items ? These are essential elements of French culture, just like owning guns or going to church are central elements of American life. It is these aspects of society, which survive over centuries, that make up a country's culture. I don't understand why someone would write about a country to say that its modern culture is the natural continuity of its culture 70 years ago. It's self-evident.