Please respond to messages without changing the subject heading. Thanks.
Répondez aux messages sans changer le titre du message. Merci

From the responses from the French students, President Bush seems to be a symbol of America, or one of the foremost associations of our country. It was surprising to see that none of the Brown students mentioned Bush when thinking of America because I would think that the president (the position in general, not necessarily the incumbent) would be one of the most recognizable associations.

Although the American students mentioned "security" once and "army" once, the French students paid particular attention to US military presence with distinctive negative connotations not found among the American students. The French students mentioned "guerre" twice, "Irak" twice, "violence" twice, and "terrorisme" and "force". It seems as though the American students were not as likely as the French students to associate the US with negative connotations of the ongoing war in Iraq.

I think these interpretations also have something to do with the media's role in presenting information to the global community, in other words, what types of information about the US are predominantly distributed to other countries.

I also find the lack of mentioning Bush, the military, and the war in Iraq in the American responses to be very interesting. It would seem that there is a huge disconnect between how citizens like us choose to associate with Bush and the war versus how involved the country actually is with Iraq (as demonstrated by how much money the US spends on the war, how many headlines it makes in the media, etc.) It's clear that we've chosen to dissociate the US, and thus ourselves, from certain aspects of its international policy and image. I wonder how or if the French tend make a distinction between how the US acts as a political state and how its citizens choose to be associated with it.

Il n'est pas surprenant que les américains et les français ne pensent pas à la même chose vis à vis du sujet "Etats-Unis". C'est essentiellemnt du à mon avis aux informations que l'on reçoit quotidiennement, par les médias entre autres. Les américains pensent d'avantage aux notions liées à la politique intérieure : "security, democracy, constitution..." alors que les français s'intéressent plus largement au rôle internationnal des Etats-Unis. D'où les idées de guerre, Irak, terrorisme... Mais les Etats-Unis restent le symbole de la puissance économique, de la liberté, de l'ambition, autant de concepts qui reviennent souvent et des deux cotés.

Je pense que les mots des français sont expliqués par le fait que les Etats-Unis sont le seul pays à partir en guerre aujourd'hui, ou en tout cas le seul à pouvoir le faire. Notre passé est différent, je viens de Rouen, en Normandie, et ma région porte encore les séquelles de la 2eme guerre mondiale, avec des monuments partiellement détruits, des immenses trous de bombes dans les forets,des monuments en mémoire des personnes tuées pendant cette période, ect. A l'inverse, les américains ne peuvent voir la guerre qu'à la télévision, et c'est peut être pour cela qu'une guerre les marque moins.
Nous pensons qu'une guerre est la pire des solutions, et les actions des Etats-Unis depuis la fin de la guerre froide nous montre sans cesse des images des GIs, des F16, des tanks, ect, et cela nous marque beaucoup, c'est donc l'une des choses auxquelles on pense quand on parle des Etats Unis

In my point of view, when I think of this superpower with so many high-tech armes, the word like "war", "violence" or "force" will appear in my mind. No matter it is true or not, I think it is the kind of impression of U.S.A for most of other countries.

I think it is normal. Because we couldn't know other country as much as ours. For the foreigners, the president is usually the presentation of a country. It is true that I have heard that the Americans always make fun of him. But it doesn't change the impression. For me, the Nicolas SarKozy is a symbol of France. Even his marriage could somewhat reflect the marriage condition of the French. Actually, it maybe false for many French. Like one of my french teach, she told us that she actully didn't vote for him and seems she don't like her president much. Anyhow, it is the way thing work~
The president always present his country in front of the foreigners.

I found the specificity of the French students' responses very interesting (specific cities, colleges, fast food restaurants, and people) whereas the Brown students' responses were all very general ideas and concepts of the United States. I am interested to see if the responses to "France" show opposite results, if the French students responded with more general concepts and the Brown students responded with "Paris" and "Sarkozy."

Why do you think the second most common associations made by the French after Bush/war is American pop culture icons like In N Out burger, McDonalds, Paris Hilton, basketball, Hollywood film and TV while we made almost no similar references to aspects of our culture? Similarly, in looking at the lists for "France" the American associations are a lot more cultural (croissant, beret, Eiffel tower) as compared to the French students' more conceptual list (liberté, égalité, fraternité). Why might culture have a less significant effect on people when thinking about their own countries?

I don't think that culture has a less significant effect on people when thinking about their own cultures, but rather that we define our own cultures differently than others may define them. One could argue that "freedom" and "opportunity" are key components of American culture. I can imagine that much of the French exposure to American culture, and therefore the means by which they define it, comes from what they see on the television (tv series or Paris Hilton's latest escapades), what they read in the newspaper (U.S. military operations, Irak) and from cinema (Hollywood). I think that when we think about our own country we hone in to it's values (freedom, liberté, égalité, fraternité) and what it represents to us (home, power, misused) which can be both positive and negative.

I think this conversation about how current international politics motivate many of these responses relates to my thoughts about this category. I found that the French responses were a lot more imagistic (George Bush, McDonald's, Statue de la liberté, hotdog, chewing gum, Harvard, etc.), whereas the American responses were more ideological (diversity, freedom, hegemony, power, etc.). At first, I couldn't really pinpoint why the responses might differ in this way, but this discussion of international politics makes me think that globalization has something to do with it. Perhaps images (as opposed to ideology) from America are more quickly absorbed by French society (or all societies). Maybe by the time certain ideologies from the U.S. travel to France, they have been misconstrued to the point of meaninglessness, therefore French society does not (or cannot) define American society in terms of ideology. Do you think ideologies defined by the U.S. are taken seriously by the international community or by France? And why do you think images have the power they do in influencing the way people think on a global scale?

L'image qu'on a des Etats Unis nous vient en grande partie des films, qui sont faits de clichés, et des médias, qui sont engagés donc ne donnent pas tous les éléments nécessaires pour juger par nous même. Dans nos réponses, on retrouve les informations qui arrivent jusqu'a nous. Mais tant qu'on n'est pas allé dans le pays, on ne peut pas imaginer comment c'est.
Sinon, je pense qu'on ne parle pas de la culture quand on parle de son propre pays parce qu'on est tellemnt dedans tous les jours, qu'on ne l'associe plus à la France. Ca fait partie de notre monde.

Il est vrai que lorsqu'on parle d'un pays étranger, on n'évite pas les clichés ou les images faciles (comme avec le béret et la baguette). Pouvez-vous cependant être plus spécifique quant aux idéologies qui seraient mal perçues ou mal comprises ? Nous avons souvent un point de vue assez basique sur l'idéologie et les valeurs américaines (liberté individuelle, opportunité, patriotisme, démocratie, etc..) qui ne me semble pas totalement faux... Par ailleurs, considérez-vous le pouvoir ou l'hégémonie (américaine) comme une idéologie plus que comme un état de fait ?

I would have to agree with Julie here. Belinda, you've brought up an interesting point concerning the incapability on the part of other countries to define American ideologies. What exactly did you have in mind? Julie, in response to your comment, I can't say that the majority of Americans themselves have more than a basic view of American ideology. That is to say that most American actions and stances are founded in a set of basic norms embodied in the Declaration of Independence. Freedom, right to the pursuit of happiness, value of democracy, value of cosmopolitanism (which has been essential to the American project but seems to be waning in recent years) and the other things that you pointed out are indeed integral to American beliefs. There have been movements, for example, to modify the immigration exam to involve questions of identity and American values, instead of dates and numbers.

Hegemony is an interesting topic, to say the least. I don't think Americans consider hegemony in the same terms that those from other countries do. I think there is a perceived responsibility on the part of Americans to perpetuate liberal democracy and to intervene in instances of crimes against humanity. This translates into the hegemony viewed by other states, that is the tight grip the US has on international affairs. I don't think domination is an ideology present in the minds of Americans, but rather an interest in the extension of the values embodied in our constitution (freedom, democracy, etc.) As I said before, the paradigms of one end translate into a very different perception from the other. (I would also note that there is a great discrepancy between the American public view and the government's foreign policy. Hegemony is certainly a priority as far as the latter is concerned.)

Je voudrai juste avoir votre point de vue sur les films de michael moore. Tout simplement parce que ses films, et quelques infos négatives (guerres, tueries dans des universités),sont des sources d'informations non négligeables sur ce qu'il se passe aux états-unis. Il est évident que ces informations ne se suffisent pas à elles même, et qu'il faut prendre du recul par rapport à ce qui y est dit; mais au fond, cela détériore quand même l'image que je me fais des états-unis et je pense que ce serai formateur d'avoir un point de vue différent.

Alors voilà, que pouvez-vous me dire de sujets sensibles tel que les assurances maladies, les tueries dans les lycées, ou les problèmes rencontrés lors des élections de M.Bush.

Je trouve également ses films permettent de mieux prendre conscience de la réalité aux USA.
Il dénonce beaucoup de choses et c'est pour cela que le gouvernement américain se méfie de lui.

Est ce qu'en tant qu'americain vous vous retrouvez dans les films, ou bien les considerez vous vous aussi comme de la fiction? J'aimerai savoir si ce cote negatif des Etats Unis que l'on retrouve dans ces films concerne la grande majorite des americains (car si ce n est pas le cas, ma vision de votre style de vie aura été faussee par Hollywood).

Damien,

You have brought up some very important, challenging, yet exciting questions. I'm very glad you brought up the films of Michael Moore. I was in contact with a student near Geneva and we had this very conversation. I personally find it deplorable that these films have as great an impact as they do on the international view of the United States. I will not contend that Moore's films provide a necessary forum for discussion, and address serious issues within our country. This is the point of free speech and critical commentary. However, Moore's presentations are extraordinarily biased, sometimes hypocritical, and horribly skewed. To begin, Moore grew up in Flint, Michigan, home of General Motors. Many members of Moore's family worked for General Motors and were actively involved in workers' unions there. It must be noted that Moore's contempt for large corporations does not derive from factual data, but from a deep-seated resentment of unfortunate familial circumstances. Moore was a high-school dropout who made his living by writing inflammatory articles and tagging along after politicians. He made a name for himself not through scholarly reporting, but errant, vehement rabble-rousing. Moore has become notorious for seizing inappropriate moments in the public spotlight to spread his radical viewpoints, which are unfortunately misconstrued in many parts of the world as truth. (I've attached a clip of his acceptance address during the 2003 Academy Awards. I would like to note that none of the other documentary producers were aware he was about to do this.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxoFJpJ3_fM Finally, I would like to mention that much of his films have been edited to suit his own means. In the film Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore interviews a Minnesotan Congressman, Mark Kennedy. In the film, Moore asks Kennedy whether he would send his children to Iraq and Kennedy purportedly does not answer. I know Kennedy's niece. His response was cut out during the editing process. Moore's radicalism may stem either from resentment for his family's history, or from his religious fundamentalism (raised Roman Catholic, he attended a Catholic school). He is a flaming deconstructivist, a shameless mudslinger. I must add, so that this report is not viewed as overly biased, that I do not necessarily support the current administration either, and that I too find issue with certain facets of our country. Be that as it may, I would strongly caution people to do some more investigating into Moore's issues before taking his portrayal for the absolute truth. (By the way, in spite of his presentation in Bowling for Columbine, Moore is a lifetime member of the NRA: the National Rifle Association.)

To that effect, I thank you for participating in this exchange and for searching to learn more. Truth is rarely ever found in one place, so thanks for asking around. Was there anything in particular you wanted to know about school shootings, the administration, or the pharmaceutical companies?

Les clichés d'américains obèses reviennent quand même assez souvent. Concernant la guerre en Irak, on a toujours eu des informations sur le côté négatif, alors que je crois que au début au moins, les Américains n'étaient pas totallement contre. On nous parle aussi beaucoup en ce moment d'un certain fanatisme religieux chez les chrétiens. Mais je suis sur que c'est de loin pas la majorité des Américains.

Florence,

Yes, in the beginning, there were many Americans in support of the war in Iraq. You must keep in mind that the American people were still quite shaken from the attacks on September 11th. Americans were legitimately frightened. Following these attacks, Americans felt a level of insecurity that I would argue exceeded that felt during the Cold War. The administration acted upon this insecurity and started the war on the grounds that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein, for many, represented a viable threat. Of course, such weapons were never found, and the legitimacy of the war quickly went downhill after that. Even at the onset, one mustn't assume that everyone was for the war. Many, many people condemned the administration for acting against United Nations wishes. As always, there were mixed reactions. That's why generalizations can be so damaging.

Concerning religious fanatacism, you are correct: it is far from the majority. Unfortunately, the small minorities of religious fanatics are very vocal, and are concentrated in certain areas such that they can collectively elect senators and representatives to Congress. As in any circumstance, people are people and mustn't be assigned the stigmas of minorities.

Sur la religion, notre point de vue peut être assez modelé par le fait que la laïcité (considérer que la religion doit demeurer une affaire privée, séparation de l'Eglise et de l'Etat ) est une valeur très importante aux yeux des français. Notamment on n'entendrait jamais, et ce serait choquant, une personnalité politique française exprimer une conviction religieuse ou se référer à Dieu dans des discours publiques.
Sans parler de fanatisme, il me semble que cela dérange moins aux Etats-Unis, et que les discussions sur la foi ou la morale religieuse sont plus présentes, de quelque bord politique que l'on soit. Je crois qu'il s'agit d'une différence plus culturelle qu'idéologique, mais elle peut donner le sentiment que les américains sont plus attachés à la religion.

Est-ce une fausse impression ?

PS. Aujourd'hui c'est la fête des Saints catholiques, demain c'est la fête des Morts.
Happy Halloween.

Yes, and no. "Separation of church and state" has long been cited in commentary on our political system and policy formation. Unfortunately, this is a hypocritical claim at times. Many ignore this policy, and many more are quick to point out that this separation was never written into the Constitution. This same people will point to the national motto, "In God we trust," as proof that this separation does not exist. You are correct; secularism in the American state is not as strong as some claim, and not as strong as it is in France.

I was going to bring this up earlier, but I forgot, so thank you for reminding me. An important thing to consider when discussing any facet of American culture, whether political, religious, cultural, etc, is the diversity among the fifty states. As you may know the "United States" are so called because they were not always members of one political entity. Following the Declaration of Independence, the first governing document of our country was the Articles of Confederation which bound the thirteen states together in a loose common economic and security system, much like the European Union, actually. (A fun little fact: before the document was signed, Canada was pre-approved should it apply for membership. Had it done so, Canada would have been part of the United States!) Each state under this system retained complete sovereignty, except for the thirteen articles designated in the document. This form of government was highly dysfunctional and was replaced, in 1789, by the present Constitution.

While the states are united today under one federal government, they all retain a considerable amount of sovereignty and strong individual identities. For this reason, it is difficult to generalize for the United States as a whole. Cultural traits differ quite a bit from region to region, and even from state to state. The same is true when it comes to religion. There is a region in the US referred to as the "Bible Belt." This region is characterized by strong fundamentalist, evangelical protestant leanings. The region covers the South, covering a rectangle formed by Florida, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Texas at the extremities (see attached map). It comes as no surprise that the more vocally religious politicians hail from these states.

To be brief (though I've already failed in that attempt) yes, religion does play a large role in politics, in spite of a general assumption of separation between church and state. An example is Bush's veto of stem cell research on religious grounds of the definition of life. While this may be the case, it is important to remember that this does not characterize America as a whole, and there are many in regions outside the South that find politics to be an inappropriate place for religion.

Happy holidays to you, too!
Attachments: bible belt.png

Julie,
Though secularism is also important in the US and as you mentioned, the source of various moral and religious debates, the division between "church and state" is not nearly as drastic as it is in France. I wouldn't say Americans are more religious than the French-- religion is just more of an exposed and freely expressed aspect of culture and daily life in the US. It seems to be more of a neutral concept here, whereas it's more negatively associated by the French. Is this true?
Do you find more French people are less religious because religion is forced solely into the private sphere?
Also, do any sorts of "religious studies" departments exist at French universities like they do here?

One last question--What's the connection between the Fête des Saints catholiques and the Fête des Morts?

Bonjour, pour répondre à ta question il n'est pas du tout mal vu d'être pratiquant en France tant que cela reste du domaine de la sphère privée, mais il est très mal vu et parfois interdit de l'exprimer dans certains contextes (institutions publiques, politique) et comme tu le dis, la séparation est bien plus drastique. Peut-être est-ce moins le cas aux US, parce que ce serait perçu comme une restriction de la liberté d'expression, et que vous êtes plus attachés à cette dernière ?
Sinon d'après les instituts de sondages (et wikipedia) les français semblent moins religieux que les américains, effectivement...

Je crois qu'il existe des cursus en sciences des religions et en histoire des religions. Je ne sais pas si cela correspond aux religious studies américains. On peut sans doute étudier la théologie dans des écoles catholiques privées.

D'après wikipedia Halloween vient de All Hallow's Eve, qui signifie littéralement : "la veille de la fête de tous les saints". Donc la Toussaint tombe le lendemain, et la fête des Morts encore un jour après (le 2 novembre). Comme le 2 n'est pas un jour férié, beaucoup de gens profitent du 1er novembre pour fleurir les tombes de leurs proches. Pas mal de français fêtent aussi Halloween, mais c'est une fête importée et commerciale. Du coup on a un peu tendance à tout confondre. Mais notre calendrier est rythmé par les fêtes religieuses (bien que nous soyons laïques).

Je pense c'est une question assez intéréssante.
Par exemple, moi,je suis un étudiant chinois, et ça fait deux ans que je suis en France.L'impression que j'avais de la France n'est pas du tout paraille que celle que j'ai mtn.

C'est à dire que quand on nous demande votre prémière impression de quelle que chose que l'on ne connaît pas vraisment bien,nous donnons souvent des "impressions"qu'on reçoit des autres, et principalement celles des médias

Certainly! Had I formed my opinions of France based on what many of my family members (who had never been to France, incidentally) had told me, I would have never fallen in love with the language, I would have never travelled there, and I would have never intended to spend a year of study abroad there. Everything must be taken with a grain of salt, as we say. It is wise not to be ignorant of exiting stereotypes, but it is also prudent not to make one's own judgments based on those stereotypes.

Je trouve surprenant qu'aucun américain n'ait mentionné George Bush alors que certains français l'ont cité.
Question pour les américains:quelle est l'image actuelle de George Bush dans les médias américains?Est-il toujours aussi critiqué qu'auparavant?

This also surprised me the first time I saw the responses. However, I don't think a lot of students on Brown's campus would think that George W. Bush would be representative of their ideas and associations of the United States.

Our president is certainly still criticized in all forms of media, and this continued negative image is exemplified by his very low approval ratings. He is often the "butt of all jokes," in printed and visual media, and there are many actors, television shows, and even movies that parody the George W. Bush character.

Merci de ta réponse,c'est bien ce que je pensais. Je ne pensais pas qu'il était aussi critiqué, au tel pont qu'il soit parodié.