|
|
|
Poor Relation or Honorable Peer? Reflections on American History in French Universities*
Marie Bolton
University of Clermont-Ferrand II
| WHEN IN THE CONTEXT of the La Pietra Report I was invited to write an article on the "challenges, limitations, and rewards" of teaching American history and American studies in French institutions of higher education, I quickly realized that I needed to move beyond my own experiences as an American working in France. On the one hand, the frustrations that I have had in adapting to the French system and my nostalgia for the American university system in which I received my education colored my thinking and made me too sensitive to the negative elements in France. On the other hand, the intellectual stimulation of working abroad, the benefits of a stable and secure career in a system much kinder to working people, and a deepening appreciation of the values to be found in French universities made me overly enthusiastic. Professionally, as in almost all aspects of life, I have generally found myself wishing that somewhere on an imaginary island in the mid-Atlantic I could make my own blend of the best of both systems. To move beyond these contradictory perspectives, I solicited information from my Americanist colleagues here in France. The result is an article that is neither a quantitative, scientific comparative analysis of the American and French systems of higher education, nor a pure narrative of my personal experiences working in France. I have tried to strike a medium more happy than unhappy between the two. This article presents not only my own reflections as an American academic in France, but responses generously provided me by French and American colleagues from both Anglophone studies and history departments, many of whom raised provocative issues and forced me beyond my habitual thinking about teaching, research, and the recent American thrust to "internationalize" United States history.1 |
1
|
|
My teaching experience in France began when in 1994, I was offered a two-year position as maître de langues (language instructor) at the University of Saint Etienne Engineering School. I had moved to France from Berkeley, California the previous year along with a newborn baby and crates of photocopied archival material destined to be transformed into my Ph.D. dissertation in American history. Arriving in a farmhouse on the outskirts of a tiny village hidden in the eastern massif central, I had no idea of how to insert myself into French university life. Fortunately for me, my dissertation director, David Brody, was something of a Francophile and was personally well known in French American history circles due to his many working visits to the country. He put me in touch with leading members of the French American Studies Association (Association Française d'Etudes Américaines, or AFEA), who in turn encouraged me to make myself known in France by speaking at as many French and European American history and American study conferences as possible and by publishing in French journals. While tailoring dissertation chapters to conference and journal themes may not have been the most logical writing plan, it turned out to be an excellent way to establish a career in France. Catherine Collomp, a historian of United States immigration and social movements at the University of Paris XII, became a member of my dissertation committee and was instrumental in helping me through all the steps necessary to getting a tenured job in France. David and Catherine provided the advice and encouragement needed to complete a dissertation and begin a career in a foreign country. But it was the role I was meant to play in Machiavellian departmental politics that brought about my entry to French teaching with the maître de langues position. |
2
|
|
Basic requirements to becoming a maître de langues were enrollment as a doctoral student and linguistic competence as a native speaker of the language to be taught. Recruitment at Saint Etienne was through the office of international relations, at the time headed by an American civilization professor nearing retirement and impatient with the Saint Etienne Anglophone studies department's hesitancy to recruit anglophone faculty members. He pushed to hire me, a newcomer, not only as language instructor, but also as a part-time teacher of American history in the Anglophone studies department. His plan called for my eventual placement in the department once my dissertation was completed, as part of his goal to revitalize the department by hiring outsider faculty. That this never occurred was due to bitter and divisive departmental politics, topped off by his retirement coinciding with the completion of my two-year term. A second baby and a completed dissertation later, in 1997 I took a temporary teaching position as an American historian in the Anglophone studies department at the University of Lyon II. From there, in 1998 I was selected for what has been a very satisfying job as tenured maître de conférences (associate professor) in American history and civilization in the Anglophone studies department of the University of Clermont-Ferrand II, a position that has included a stint as assistant department chair. |
3
|
|
Saint Etienne provided me with the crash course segment of my ongoing training in successfully adapting my teaching and research to France. My first surprise was simply to find myself teaching in an Anglophone studies, or English, department. To a historian, there might seem something almost blasphemous in this situation. Accepting it gracefully required letting go of pre-conceived notions of academic territory. To begin to understand this, a useful beginning place is to consider the presence of American history and American studies in French higher education, as well as the structure of French Anglophone studies departments. |
4
|
|
One measure of American history and American studies is the membership of the AFEA. In 2001, this organization counted a total of 538 members, 290 of whom consider themselves "civilizationists," meaning specialists in American history, American studies, or cultural studies, as opposed to literature.2 Of these 290 members, 95 were the French equivalent of full professors, 127 were assistant and associate professors, 20 were university teachers without research obligations, and 16 were advanced graduate students close to completing their dissertations. In preparing this article, I posted a survey on the email distribution list of 399 AFEA members, soliciting responses from those 218 members who identified themselves civilizationists. Of the nineteen answers I received, one did not fit this category, leaving me with eighteen valid survey responses. The small size of this sample precludes any generalizing, but is still useful as a gauge of some attitudes present among certain French American history and American studies academics. It also probably represents the thinking of those scholars most engaged in the questions raised.3 |
5
|
|
My respondents formed a mature and geographically diverse group. Fourteen had over ten years teaching experience and were located in French universities scattered throughout the country. The group was cosmopolitan, both in terms of self-identification (four are French-American bi-nationals and two are Americans) and in professional experience in the United States and in European countries outside of France (fourteen have studied in the United States, a few have taught, and all have had research experience, sometimes remarkably extensive). Finally, it is a group that demonstrated active and on-going thinking about the questions the survey raised about the experiences of French and American academics and the current American efforts to "internationalize" the study of American history and American studies.4 I was impressed by the thoughtfulness of many of the answers that occasionally ran into pages and demonstrated a real desire to discuss the issues raised. A set of follow-up questions I sent out several months after the initial questionnaire generated additional detailed comments from many of the respondents who generously shared their thoughts and experiences. Some respondents also relayed the thinking of history department colleagues from whom they requested information. I also was fortunate to have history department colleagues in the United States and in France who took the time to share their perspectives. What follows is an amalgam of information drawn from the comments of fellow academics as well from my own experiences. |
6
|
|
In general, American civilization scholars work in Anglophone studies departments in one of the eighty-three French universities. A small handful work in history departments, research institutes, or specialized non-university institutions of higher education.5 It is important to realize that French Anglophone studies departments are not structured in the same way as American foreign language departments. As one respondent pointed out, these "are not, strictly speaking, language departments, but rather language, literature and history/civilization departments...[which end] up creating a system in which rich cross-influences are...possible, [giving students] about as good a training and background as a foreign student of another country's history is likely to get. How many American students begin with a serious study of another country's language and literature at the same time as they begin to study its history?" |
7
|
|
The hybrid nature of these departments
does not make an easy workplace. When asked to "describe specifically
the challenges and limitations" met in teaching, many responses
referred to problems stemming from the fact that the vast majority
of United States history and American studies instruction in France
occurs outside of history departments.
6
Historically, these departments have emphasized the study of literature,
largely British and to a lesser degree American, along with linguistic
language studies. Gradually over the past few decades, British,
American, and more recently Commonwealth civilization have earned
recognition as disciplines in their own right. That the change has
occurred can be seen on an administrative level. A majority of departments
formerly known as English departments have changed their names in
the last decades to Anglophone studies. The shift in emphasis has
not come without struggle, and some old-school scholars still occasionally
question the validity, or even the right to existence, of non-literary
studies.
|
8
|
|
This conflict should be understood
on two levels. Intellectually, it has features of the culture wars
common to American humanities and social studies departments, pitting
those who uphold the study of a traditional canon, in this case
British literature and especially Shakespeare studies, against those
who support a more innovative curriculum. In the 1970s, civilizationists
were primarily historians in approach, although themselves products
of an education in literature, supplemented by selftraining or training
abroad in American history.
7
This cohort successfully established itself and is now at or near
retirement age, succeeded by successive generations of formally
trained civilizationists, scholars with dissertations in American
history or American studies. Civilization is now firmly established
as a specialty, with its own credentials and professional organizations,
and more diversity has appeared within its ranks. It has broadened
from historical or sociological approaches to include as well cultural
studies, ethnic studies, area studies, and other perspectives. This,
in turn, has generated turf battles between "purist" historians
and "hybrid" studies scholars, as demonstrated by a perusal of the
contents of the Revue Française d'Etudes Américain
(RFEA).
8
Two respondents expressed frustration with these intellectual battles:
one writing in protest against colleagues who are "politically correct,
politically committed, anti-American, [and] ethnic minority oriented,"
and the other against "the total lack of openness on the part of
purely literary Americanists who cannot conceive that American studies
can unite literature, history, sociology, etc." A third respondent,
himself an American trained in history in the United States, expressed
frustration with the situation in universities where he finds "too
few trained historians of American history...[and] with too many
of the untrained pronouncing and exercising responsibilities over
policy and practices in regards to research in American history
and over promotion in the field." These last comments should be
tempered by two points: first, they reflect a historian's response
to working in a community largely made up of American studies scholars;
and second, as another respondent commented, they illustrate the
fact that Americans working in France tend to be overly critical
of their adoptive country's university system.
|
9
|
|
At the base of these intellectual distinctions lies the second level of conflict: disagreement over the distribution of the extremely limited resources available to humanities and social science departments for teaching and research. French universities have seen a boom in student numbers. Any person who has passed the rigorous baccalauréat exam has automatically earned the right to enter the university without going through any further screening process. In 1989, the French government set a goal of an eighty percent passing rate for this exam by the year 2000. This was highly ambitious considering that a mere seven percent of students passed in 1953 and only twenty-nine percent in 1986. Today over seventy percent of the students taking the baccalauréat exam pass.9 At the same time as passing numbers have risen, the numbers of non-university higher education alternatives have greatly increased. These include the elite Grandes Ecoles, as well as a plethora of technical institutes, private colleges, and business schools. Over two million students are enrolled in institutes of higher education, with close to 1.5 million students in the state universities, almost double their population in 1980. Government spending has not nearly matched this growth rate.10 The situation is worsened by inequities in the Education Ministry's financing of universities which for the past several years has allotted a higher budget to schools of science and technology than those of humanities and social sciences, regardless of enrollments.11 As a result, although efforts are slowly being made to improve conditions, in many French universities the humanities and social sciences buildings in particular are strikingly run-down, equipment is scarce, libraries are often unable to purchase books, research funds are practically non-existent, the administrative personnel are understaffed, and staff and professors alike are often somewhat demoralized.12 |
10
|
|
Nonetheless, within the social sciences and humanities, American history holds its own in terms of importance, especially considering its position in France as non-national history. This begins with its rather strong presence in the secondary school curriculum. All students who graduate from French high schools have had some exposure to United States history and geography. This instruction occurs in French and at various points in a student's career. Teachers trained in history and geography are required to provide a unit of instruction on the United States constitution, often taught in comparison to the French constitution, and a unit on general United States history and geography in the final years of high school. These subjects are taken seriously by both teachers and students, as they may appear as questions on the important baccalaureat exam. Economics courses generally refer to the American social, political, and economic systems as the context for contemporary and 20th century global economics. Similarly, teachers of political science and philosophy classes may choose to present examples drawn from American history to illustrate the points being made. Finally, those English teachers with an interest in American civilization orient their English-taught classes to include some instruction in the topic along with literary and linguistic studies. All students arriving at the university, then, not only those continuing in Anglophone studies, have received some social science instruction on the United States. It is hard to imagine a parallel situation in the United States in regards to the study of any other nation, leading to the point that it is impossible to compare the teaching of national history and the teaching of foreign history. A more fruitful comparison would be between American academics in American history and French academics in French history. As one respondent pointed out, "it is hard to find an equivalent for French academics in American history, since the way the United States looms large on the French (and international) scene is pretty unique." |
11
|
|
The relative importance the French system gives to American history continues at the university level even outside of Anglophone studies departments. While only two full professors and a very few associate professors nationwide work in history departments as United States specialists, most universities offer one or two courses taught in French by historians who have developed United States history as an outside teaching field. In addition to the work done by scholars teaching in the universities, there exist two official research centers in American history, the Centre d'études Nord-américaines, located in the École des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, and the Institut Pierre Renouvin, located at the University of Paris I. Additional work in United States history is carried out within a group of political scientists working on North America at the Centre d'études des Relations Internationales. These somewhat elite scholars are full-time researchers with minimal if any teaching duties, but who throughout the year sponsor seminars and workshops on topics in American history. Many other research groups in American civilization or in Anglophone civilization with a thematic specialty including Americanists exist throughout French universities, sponsored by Anglophone studies departments. They provide settings for scholars to exchange their work in regular seminars, workshops, and conferences, as well as to publish in university press journals or books. They also provide an important administrative structure, along with the individual departments, through which research funding and travel grants are allocated. |
12
|
|
In sheer weight and numbers, the civilization instruction and research produced through Anglophone studies departments outweighs all other sources. This is largely due to the crucial fact that, unlike any other language, English is universally taught in France, from primary school through the university and other university-level institutions. Although significant numbers of students seek an undergraduate degree in Anglophone studies for non-teaching purposes, the overriding task of Anglophone studies departments is to produce the great numbers of teachers necessary to meet the demand. The French do not employ a market system to generate secondary school teachers, but rather a merit system based on passing difficult competitive exams after completion of a three-year university degree (the equivalent of the American bachelor's degree, as French high school runs a year longer than American high school). Only a very small percentage of students pass these extremely demanding graduate level exams. Based on estimates of the numbers of entry-level high school teaching positions required nationwide, the national education system decides upon the number of students to admit into teacher training programs each year, with each student guaranteed a job upon completion of his or her training. Exam results are ranked, and only a predetermined number of the highest scoring students are admitted into the teaching program. Regardless of how well a student performs, only the top ranks are admitted, based on a preset quota. |
13
|
|
Two different teaching-related exams are offered. Initial acceptance into a secondary teacher certification program is based on success on the Certificat d'Aptitude au Professorat de l'Enseignement du Second degré (CAPES). To prepare for this exam, students take a full year of instruction in courses specifically tailored to that year's exam cursus. The English CAPES always includes components of linguistics and a mix of American, British, or sometimes Commonwealth literature and civilization. A national, university-level committee chooses exam content and instruction is provided by Anglophone studies department faculty members. Upon successfully passing the CAPES, students may begin teacher training, or at any point thereafter they may attempt to pass the even more rigorous Agrégation exam, open only to successful CAPES candidates and also to any student with a master's degree in the subject matter chosen. Benefits of passing the Agrégation include a higher salary level, reduced teaching hours, and an increased status, not only within the teaching community, but in French society in general. Holders of the Agrégation may also apply for non-research university teaching positions, and acquisition of the degree is considered an important step before beginning graduate study leading toward a university research and teaching career. Course content for preparation of the Agrégation exam is similar to the CAPES, but at a higher level and even more demanding. As for the CAPES, instruction is provided through university departments. |
14
|
|
The topics for these exams are determined by an elite group of scholars from each subject matter field and reflect that year's polemics stemming from curriculum conflicts. For instance, in the 1999–2000 and 2000–2001 academic years, students of Anglophone studies were required to prepare for an American civilization question on "Manifest Destiny, 1803–1898." Partly in reaction to this "pure history," the 2001–2002 and 2002–2003 topic, "Organized Crime in the City and on the Screen, 1929–1951," has been presented as cultural studies, requiring not only the study of written material, but film analysis as well. The competitive exams impose a curriculum on university instructors who are otherwise relatively free to choose their own. This can be a stimulating experience as it provides an opportunity for the intensive study of a new field. It can be a burden as well, as these courses require extensive preparation, are particularly challenging to teach, and have a shelf life of only one to two years. A successful course involves not only providing the best possible coverage of the subject matter but also training students for the sorts of questions most likely to be asked. This in turn requires a mastery of the topic's historiography, generally based on the most recent United States scholarship in the specialty, and an understanding of the perspectives from which leading French scholars have chosen the topic and will conceive the question to be asked. The courses involve work with the best students, who are highly motivated, demanding, and quick to protest any perceived shortchanging in their training. The exams themselves are centrally administered and graded and exam results are often seen to reflect not only the success or failure of individual teachers, but of entire departments and even universities. A department gains status in France often through consistently positive competitive exam results rather than through its research-oriented masters and doctoral programs. |
15
|
|
One respondent argued that the teacher training aspect, or "the job offer issue, is crucial to understanding the current set-up" in American history. By this, he is referring not only to the department in which American history is taught, but to the sheer numbers of faculty and students involved. The great majority of other language group civilization specialists also work in language departments, such as German area studies, Italian area studies, Spanish area studies, Slavic area studies, and so forth. The populations are small enough in these departments so that the work done in pure research centers becomes proportionately more visible. In contrast, because of the great demand for English teachers, Anglophone civilization, meaning again not only American, but British and Commonwealth studies, has such an overwhelming number of "positions available, that [research centers] almost disappear from view behind the battalions of civilization specialists." As American civilization has become part of the training curriculum in both the competitive exams and in research-oriented graduate study programs, the proportion of department faculty specializing in the field has grown. Paradoxically, the growth of American civilization as a field has contributed to its continued placement within departments of Anglophone studies because it trains its own future cohorts. Since French history departments also have their own training cycles and have largely focused on teaching national history and producing national history teachers, "specialists of foreign areas in history departments often [have been] seen as a waste of precious resources; why recruit them in history departments at all when their recruitment was much easier in language departments?" |
16
|
|
Another element in an understanding of the location of American history in Anglophone study rather than history departments involves the institutional framework in the Unite States and in France. One respondent objected to drawing a "disingenuous" parallel between the two countries, arguing that "it is hard to imagine that United States history departments would not have specialized almost exclusively in United States history if they had been developed today, rather than at the end of the 19th century when the 'cultural' status of the United States viz. Europe was still under discussion (look at the dwindling interest of these departments in non-English publications over the past thirty years as a possible proof). In France the separation was institutional...but the proportion of foreign history specialists to national history specialists is not necessarily lower in France than in the United States, where the high-profile activities of [leading Europeanists] tend to obscure the real weight of the masses of [Americanists] teaching at smaller institutions." |
17
|
|
The number of students passing through Anglophone studies departments, either as undergraduates, research-oriented graduates, or graduates preparing for competitive exams, has been and remains significant. However, the influence of these departments within universities and the Ministry of Education is in continual decline. Some of the challenges facing Anglophone studies scholars, as mentioned above, are material. Other are moral. The growth of the applied sciences and technology departments within universities and other higher education institutions in France has encouraged an emphasis on the mastery of the English language as a purely technical skill. University administrators have increasingly spent large sums of money on developing multimedia language laboratories designed for use primarily by science and technology students and often intentionally run outside the purview of Anglophone studies departments. Former education minister Claude Allègre was a highly visible champion of this approach, whose oft-stated goal has been to equip students with the language skills necessary to function and compete in international conferences and markets. Ironically, behind this push is the understanding that it is precisely American competition and market dominance that must be countered, not to mention American linguistic preponderance. This perspective encourages the broad exposure to the Unite States that all students receive in high school curricula, yet its logic is not carried through at the university level to increase the role given to Anglophone studies departments. On the contrary, since government financing is limited, the belt has been tightened even more for the humanities and social sciences, a policy defended by attacking these departments as too intellectual to meet the needs of modern-day students. In a country where philosophy remains an obligatory subject in high school and the baccalauear exam is still highly intellectual in content, this represents quite a sea change. It is particularly dismaying for Anglophone studies departments, founded in the conviction that a full grasp of the English language is only possible through an in-depth study of Anglophone literature and civilizations, alongside a rigorously scientific linguistic training that goes far beyond mere usage skills. |
18
|
|
Despite the institutional pressures placed on Anglophone studies departments, many Americanist scholars remain spirited. As one respondent pointed out, although the humanities no longer attract the "best" students or receive sufficient financing, they maintain an "extraordinary independence" which (outside the competitive exam curricula) allows teachers to "share their enthusiasms" with students, rather than dutifully providing them with a "return on their investment" in education. Students enter the university after having completed a rigorous secondary school curriculum that provides them with a rough equivalent of the American general education requirements. They are required to declare their majors immediately upon enrollment and have a close administrative relationship with their chosen department. Faculty members, at the department level, handle a great number of non-teaching chores, including enrollment and counseling. Depending on their university, students take about eight to ten courses per semester as undergraduates, all of which are in their major with the exception of perhaps one or two per semester. Contact hours with teachers are few and students are expected to work extensively on their own. This system is going through a lurching transition with a never-ending series of top-down reforms designed to open university studies to larger numbers of students and to bring French universities into line with European organizational norms. These reforms are applied unevenly at the level of individual universities, but in general have produced faculty opposition as they are not followed by the necessary financial support and administrative modifications. Instead, both faculty and support staff find their work loads increased to cope with the flood of entry-level students who often are not equipped to succeed in the university.13 |
19
|
|
At the same time, faculty have to deal with material obstacles in teaching. As one respondent summarized, "no budget—no facilities." Obtaining books for students to purchase is often a daunting task, especially outside of Paris. Most universities do not have campus bookstores and students purchase their books from a local bookstore. Ordering is not centralized, but rather each teacher contacts the bookstore and places an order for the books needed for a class. Most instruction is oriented around the study of primary source documents for which excellent collections published in France and elsewhere in Europe exist for American history. More recently, a few American history surveys have been published in France, written either in French or English. These books are generally supplemented by photocopies of documents provided to students in class. Textbook collections of essays written on the competitive exam topics are also readily available in both French and English, and an extensive body exists of French language monographs on various topics in American history and American studies.14 |
20
|
|
More serious problems arise when ordering books from the United States. Due to their prohibitive price, history textbooks are totally out of the question. The emphasis on primary source documents means that the use of United States history monographs is not common among French teachers, but for those who wish to use them obstacles abound. Bookstore employees are reluctant to spend the time and energy necessary to order from American publishers small numbers of books that if unsold are difficult to unload. In addition, bookstores are not free to order directly from publishers, but are required to use a wholesaler who often refuses to order from the United States, citing high costs for limited return. American publishers are in turn reluctant to ship small volume orders overseas, and some have recently begun to refuse any orders of under fifty books. University libraries have exceeding limited budgets but are often able to order a single copy of the required book which can then be put on reserve for students to consult on site. For an in-depth examination of a book, however, that is clearly unsatisfactory. In other words, legal methods of providing the latest American scholarship for use in class are limited, although the use of Internet purchasing should improve the situation. |
21
|
|
In contrast to the enthusiasm of many respondents, others mentioned students themselves as a limitation to effective teaching. In part, their comments resemble the perennial complaints of dropping standards that one hears in American universities, fueled by the spectacular increase in student numbers. One summed up the basic problems met in teaching as "[t]hose associated with mass production—45 students per class, anonymity of students, difficulty of pitching courses to the level of the students, increasingly catastrophic command of English among first-year students (some measure of selection needs to be introduced [as] the French bac is no longer a guarantee of capacity to succeed at university)." Others emphasized the passivity of French students and the great difficulty in generating discussion in class. This was attributed in part to the emphasis on rote learning in French schools which fails to foster "independent critical thinking" and in part to students' timidity in expressing themselves in a foreign language. Language was often emphasized as a key limitation to teaching. As one respondent put it, "the only general student population [at the undergraduate] level having a fairly in-depth exposure to United States history is...in the English departments. Since they are primarily language and literature specialists, it's pretty hard to get them to a satisfactory methodological level in history when they have already so much...on their plates. Conversely, in history departments, you can't get very far in United States history even with a group of people who have a decent methodological training, because usually eight out of ten can't understand complex, written English, or have such a hard time of it, more accurately, that they will flatly refuse to make the effort, understandably enough." |
22
|
|
In spite of teaching problems, most respondents were eager to describe its rewards. They spoke about the pleasures of communicating with students and transmitting to them knowledge about the United States. One wrote in answer to the query about the rewards of teaching in France, simply, "THE STUDENTS!" No official means exist in the French universities to recognize teaching excellence, but these academics consider their teaching to be a reward in itself. Several spoke happily of experiences mentoring students and seeing them continue their studies or spend a year studying in the United States and coming back "fully enthusiastic." One respondent who teaches in a large university in the Paris suburbs wrote extensively about the satisfaction of teaching return students, who are "motivated, independent, and thrilled to be in class" and to whom "it is unnecessary to explain why it's worth studying history." She went on to describe "the pleasure in helping students discover the value, richness, and interest of a historical document.... I let myself be carried away. I let myself be interrupted." Others wrote about the intellectual satisfaction in preparing courses for the competitive exams and the great satisfaction in seeing successful students begin their teaching or research careers. |
23
|
|
Several respondents mentioned challenges in teaching familiar to American academics, but with a French twist. For instance, "trying to debunk the clichés and stereotypes about the United States the French students have been taught in high school or fed by the French media." As in the United States, in France this means countering the cultural myths generated by consumerism and images from American films and television series. It also requires tackling negative stereotypes of the United States sometimes encountered in the French press or in class work. The French as a whole are usually passionate in their opinions about the United States, blending good and bad impressions to form individual points of view. American influences are hard to escape, from the ubiquitous McDonald's and Coca-Cola to an awareness of American dominance in international markets and politics. One respondent pointed out the problem in teaching students with "stereotypical beliefs about the United States...occasionally reinforced by teachers who emphasize (more or less consciously) certain negative aspects of American history—Puritan hypocrisy, Native American genocide, slavery, segregation, to say nothing of the Watergate scandal and/or the Vietnam War." All-out hostility to the United States is rare, as one respondent pointed out, since students "did, after all, choose to study English and American culture." Another respondent stated that "the anti-Americanism that was once common is no longer an issue among students. That, however, does not prevent certain of them from vigorously discussing [deeply-held beliefs]." Students tend to identify with much of American popular culture at the same time that they reject what they see as the negatives of American global domination, especially deploring United States military interventions and environmental insensitivity. The more politically-minded see the United States as an imperialist power doing more harm than good in its search for markets and the expansion of what the French call "untamed capitalism." Other students do not analyze the role of the United States politically or economically, but rather look at its influence in purely cultural terms. |
24
|
|
For academics with training and teaching
experience in the United States, teaching in France requires a reassessment
of course content. A too critical history course offered to American
students is countered in the United States by the positive images
of the country received simply by residing there. In contrast, presenting
the same course material to French students sometimes feeds into
pre-established negative stereotypes without challenging their images
of the United States. This is particularly true when addressing
topics such as racism or imperialism. One respondent addressed this
issue directly: "The greatest challenge has been to get my students
to reach two conflicting aims at the same time: learning information
about American history and society, while acquiring the skills to
approach documents and issues from a critical standpoint.... [T]his
has also implied my providing a somewhat balanced perspective on
the United States, not only critical but also enthusing." Another
respondent pointed out that students "tend to be very sensitive
to when a teacher tries to 'plaster over' American faults.... Once
they decide that you are not trying to pull the wool over their
eyes, that you distinguish carefully between personal opinion and
fact (insofar as fact can really be ascertained), they are receptive
when you attack the stereotypes or at least attempt to modulate
them to correspond to some sort of reality."
|
25
|
|
Of course, these are issues familiar to teachers everywhere. But more specifically to France, one respondent remarked that "it is not so much the strong negative stereotypes that bother me. It is the misunderstanding of basic facts and the transfer of French stereotypes when dealing with similar situations." As an example, she pointed out that the strong presence of African Americans in the French media, especially in sports and music videos, and the large number of articles and books devoted to the place of African Americans in the United States "has some [students] convinced that they must make up at least 50% of the American population." Even after explaining American demographics, "perceptions often seem stronger than reality and are difficult to root out." Another example is the word suburb. "[The students] simply assume that since it can be translated by banlieue, why then the phenomenon is the same and everything they know about France suddenly pops up in what they hear [without their always making the transition to] United States central cities." |
26
|
Overall, however, as another respondent argued, teaching United States history is not "any different from teaching any kind of non-French history, with all kinds of political myths and junky ideas (prejudices, in a word) to be disposed of. In fact, the general level of knowledge is probably better among students on the United States than on any other extra-European country. Contents-wise, the problems we may have are the same as those faced by any United States history specialist, here, in the United States, or anywhere else." This same respondent prefers a historiographical approach to analyzing teaching, focusing on historian's training:
The main problem is to escape the history-as-hagiography/history-as-fact (or 'experience') trap, considering the sheer pressure coming from most sides in most debates in the United States and outside.... The problem is especially acute in United States history because we can't build on the same corpus of philosophical works as in France. The Annales school, whatever its defects, drilled into French historiography the necessity of a historical-critical approach. I may be wrong, but I think a good deal of what is produced in United States history in the United States is wanting at that level.
|
27
|
Considerations of United States-generated scholarship led to a discussion of the American historical profession, in particular its current efforts to "internationalize" the study of American history. Respondents almost unanimously expressed distrust when asked about these efforts. The element of mission perceptible in the American approach can be irritating for scholars who have worked across borders for a long time. Why have Americans suddenly "discovered" what has been going on outside its frontiers? One respondent placed the internationalizing efforts in a political context, arguing that
I think any American claims about a free and equal exchange of ideas and learning from one another, while perhaps sincere, are baloney. Given America's superpower status, objectively the United States can only seek hegemony in controlling the representation of the United States that exists in other countries. In other words, it is part of a struggle for ideological hegemony in the world. [Since] the wealth of mankind lies in its cultural diversity, intellectual globalization in the present context of American superpower status probably should be opposed.
Another respondent argued that,
in many ways, Americans are not so much unaware as unwilling to be aware of what is going on outside their borders. They just don't think it concerns them. They very much resemble the French who are just as ethnocentric and who hate to climb down from their feeling of superiority. There has to be some splash (an uncontested expert, a superstar in his/her field...) before Americans wake up to the fact that there's a lot going on out there. Once they begin to pay attention, they continue to do so. On the other hand, Europeans have to be aware of what's going on outside their borders.
|
28
|
|
In fact, at least one group of American historians has long been working across borders. Beginning with a conference held at the University of Bremen in November 1978, described by David Brody and Herbert G. Gutman as "a stock-taking of current European work in American labor and immigration history," American and European historians of American labor and working class history have been working together in a regular series of conferences and publications. Dirk Hoerder edited the papers presented at the Bremen conference in his book, American Labor and Immigration History: 1877–1920s: Recent European Research.15 In 1980, Labor History published in two volumes a comprehensive survey of ongoing European scholarship in what Brody and Gutman called an "emerging European school of American working-class history." They describe Hoerder's book as an effort to break the "insularity of our scholarship [which] has long troubled American scholars" and praise the European scholarship which "has in the [1970s] begun to strike out in new directions, and nowhere more vigorously than toward the history of American working people."16 Hoerder also founded the Journal of International Working-Class History, a truly international collection of scholarship, including American history. Other European historians of immigration, labor, and social movements have since continued this pioneering work and American historians of these specialties regularly participate in European conferences.17 |
29
|
|
Outside of these fields as well, American historians have long been welcomed in France and other European countries as visiting professors and lecturers or to participate in conferences and be included in European publications. In fact, considering the high degree to which United States-based scholars are present in European academia and scholarship, one could almost wonder what the current fuss is all about. It certainly looks as if fruitful cross-cultural scholarship has been going on for a long time, at least outside of the United States. If there is a problem, it may be the lack of attention that United States historians pay to non-United States publications. One element of this is fear of reading non-English language work. This is unfounded since most American history and American studies journals in Europe are multi-lingual, with English almost always present in one or more of the articles included. |
30
|
From a similar perspective, one respondent suggested that the issue of language may be the essential barrier between scholars, pointing out that
particularly disheartening is the fact that in some areas of American history, where proper study requires knowledge of a non-English language—such as in the study of American foreign relations, international economic transactions, migrations and ethnic background, cultural linkages, non-British colonial regions in the future of the United States and so forth—a very uneven practice reigns in the United States. Many American historians still do not seem to feel that they need master the pertinent non-English-language primary sources. They thus operate without referring to the important material in the field—bibliographical, historiographical, even primary—and yet do not seem to be negatively sanctioned in doing so. In this they and their colleagues remain provincial. In contrast, historians in Europe will know of and basically incorporate varied American research—from doctoral dissertations to articles to books, etc.—into their work on the history of the United States, or be sanctioned for failing to do so.
Another critique of the current transnational trend in the American historical profession related it to the publish or perish syndrome, a situation which simply does not exist in France. To obtain a university position in France, a candidate must have his or her credentials, including an evaluation of research produced, approved by a national faculty council. Candidates are then chosen by a department hiring committee, and brought into a department as maîtres de conférences (associate professors) on a one to two year probation period. At the end of their probation, they are confirmed in their position and granted tenure as French civil servants. It is almost unheard of not to confirm a candidate. From this point on, with variations based on prior acquisition of the agrégation or previous job experience as a secondary teacher, maîtres de conférences (mc) follow one of several career tracks laid out by the National Education Ministry. Advancement and regular pay increases are based on seniority. A mc's expected workload is roughly calculated as half research, half teaching, plus additional time to be found for administrative tasks. Research is taken seriously and on the whole the majority of mc's present papers and publish fairly regularly, but not at nearly the pace of their American counterparts. The forced frenetic activity of American tenure-track professors is completely alien, and from the French perspective provides yet another example of inhumane American working conditions. This is especially true considering that the underlying threat forcing many American academics to take on a gargantuan publication workload is fear of losing all chance of tenure and falling into the desperate straights of the numerous untenured "gypsy" scholars. Job insecurity is almost unknown among French academics. On the contrary, it is often understood in France that parents of infants and young children, especially mothers, people suffering a life crisis such as divorce or the loss of a loved one, will slow down their research to maintain a high quality of teaching and to cope with their personal lives. Although difficult choices must sometimes be made in balancing personal and professional lives, they seem to be less anguished or forced in a system that grants tenure relatively easily. |
31
|
This is not to say that ambition is unknown. The major career advancement for a mc is to become professeur (full professor), bringing a higher level of pay, qualification to direct doctoral dissertations, additional political leverage within the university, and greatly increased prestige both within and without academia. Becoming professeur requires a considerable amount of professional activity: an extensive publishing record generally including a monograph, organization of workshops and conferences, committee work, and so forth. In addition, candidates must write a lengthy thesis paper demonstrating the coherence of their research projects which must be defended publicly, much like a doctoral dissertation. Their credentials and work to date in teaching, research, and administration then must be approved by a national faculty committee. Mc's working toward this goal must pick up the pace to succeed. Many scholars in France, both mc's and professeurs, drive themselves hard personally to achieve high levels of scholarship and the international recognition that follows. However, it is a carrot rather than a stick approach and the majority of mc's complete their careers without becoming professeur. This situation has the education ministry worried about the possibility of a future shortage of full professors, but on a personal human level it makes for an arguably higher quality of life. One respondent put it as follows:
The French system is predicated on the idea that out of ten people hired, two will turn out to do serious research and the eight others...will be decent teachers. It's not such an unreasonable approach, considering that in the United States everybody is supposed to do serious research and you still get [only] two out of ten people coming up with something worth printing. Moreover, in the United States system, [what comes] out of the eight others is still printed, with disastrous results. Still, United States history in France is an extreme case of non-pressure, in which the drawbacks of the French approach (a built-in tendency to do nothing at all) reach above-average proportions, I fear. In my view, the main challenge for a research here is to prevent oneself from being swept [along] in the general inertia, so to speak.
|
32
|
|
From the French viewpoint, it is possible to conceive of many American academics as desperate for publication at any cost and driven to open new frontiers of research not so much out of scientific curiosity but in response to the tremendous pressures on them to be productive. One respondent saw the resulting sheer quantity of United States scholarship as a danger for French academics: "A critical attitude to the enormous intellectual production generated in the United States [is vital]. It is all too easy to be swamped by the volume of production, and to adopt, unconsciously, the American mind-set." |
33
|
|
High production can also be related to the empiricist approach firmly established in United States history since the 19th century professionalization of the field. With the establishment of standards of research, professional associations and journals, individual genius was discouraged in favor of earnest but less brilliant work meant to contribute to a larger body of knowledge. American historians are still encouraged to believe that their own small contribution will one day be synthesized into a larger picture of the whole, yet that day is constantly put off into a vague future. Added to that are bureaucratic pressures on university history departments to produce articles at a high pace, plus job security issues. The result is a constant scramble to uncover new territory. As one respond put it, "as virgin fields become rarer, explorers become more numerous and desperate. In a true Manifest Destiny fashion, the logical solution to such a conundrum is: let's annex the (scientific) territory next door! Since United States specialists are the clear superpower among historians of the United States, the temptation is irresistible." |
34
|
|
These arguments, with the recurrent use of the term "superpower," repeated reference to the volume of American scholarship and its hermetic nature, make clear the sense among many scholars in France that internationalism smacks of imperialism. Non-American scholarship is suddenly viewed as providing "a new, fresh, foreign perspective," one worth investigating and writing about, as of course this article itself illustrates. This is useful for the careers of French historians of the United States, but perhaps not intellectually defensible. As one respondent put it, "I read the La Pietra Report, but I am puzzled by the results, as it seems to be without real focus, trying to promote American history, to stress comparison and to open to too wide a panel. Puzzled [too, as] the only good thing would be to build a concrete community of scholars, from which some common research could arise." Another respondent joined in, arguing that "it is not the task of Americans to 'internationalize' the study of American history, but rather to open themselves up to foreign research, which so far they have done only in homeopathic doses." The internationalizing drive is experienced as yet another example of an American impulse not to cooperate on a truly equal footing with non-Americans, but rather to dominate, in this case in terms of intellectual activity. |
35
|
|
What kind of conclusions can be reached after looking at the reflections of a group of American history and American studies scholars working in France? Personal satisfaction in teaching and research is probably where French and American academics resemble each other the most. They are furthest apart at the institutional level, with the two cultures creating vastly different workloads, working environments, and career pressures. Differences are also intellectual, as French scholars are apt to analyze the scholarship and behavior of the American historical profession as part of a larger political or theoretical framework. In terms of cross-border scholarship, the current American push for transnationalism is difficult to comprehend in its current form. Of course, the opinions expressed here do not pretend to reflect a scientific sampling. They are rather the serious thinking of twenty-some scholars who have granted me the privilege of sharing freely their perspectives and experiences in the hope of enlightening American academics about what is going on outside of their borders. |
36
|
|
* My most sincere thanks go to my colleagues in France who took the time to share their thinking with me: Eric Athenot, André Béziat, Nathalie Caron, François Duban, Annick Foucrier, Anne Garrait-Bourrier, Pierre Gervais, Guillaume Marché, Bruno Marchis-Mourin, Genéviève Massard-Guilbaud, Mark Niemeyer, Mathiu O'Neil, Jacques Portes, Margaret Serandour, Dominique Sipière, Melinda Tims-Rias, Gene Zbidowski, and Joseph Zitomersky. Additional thanks go to Nancy C. Unger for her American-based insights. Although I alone am responsible for the weakness in this article, its strengths come from the generous and cooperative spirit of these fellow scholars.
Notes
1. Richard Pells discusses the experiences of visiting American scholars in Not Like Us: How Europeans Have Loved, Hated, and Transformed American Culture Since World War II (NY: Basic Books, 1997), 146–151. In contrast to Pells' presentation of the perspective of visiting scholars, this article reflects the experiences of permanent members of French academia, regardless of country of origin.
2. The term "civilizationist" is itself a topic of controversy, as Pierre Guerlain points out in "Malaise dans la civilisation? Les études américaines en France," Revue Française d'Etudes Américaines civilisation?", RFEA (83), Jan. 2000, 13–27, in particular 30. See also Marie-Jeanne Rossignol, "Quelle(s) discipline(s) pour la civilisation?", RFEA (83), Jan. 2000, 13–27.
3. I sent the survey out twice, in early and late September 2001. In early September, not all members would have returned from summer travels, and for the many members whose Internet access is limited to the workplace, a good number of these would not yet have returned to the university. Classes generally start in October, meaning September is a busy time of preparation (generally at home) and grading a make-up exam session from the previous spring. In addition, the events of September 11, 2001 may have disrupted normal work patterns. Also, many scholars may have considered themselves simply too busy to respond. Finally, although this is hardly a scientific observation, I would say that a certain French bias toward individualism tends to undercut cooperative efforts.
4. The position of French American studies in relation to the U.S. has recently been much discussed. See for example, several articles in the RFEA issue entitled, "Civilisation américaine: problématiques et questionnements" (83) Jan. 2000.
5. Membership data
provided to author by AFEA assistant secretary general Jennifer
Merchant. See also the AFEA website, <
http://etudes.americaines.free.fr/
>. For a general treatment of French higher education, see John
Ardagh, France in the New Century: Portrait of a Changing Society
(London: Penguin Books, rev. ed., 2000), 551–570. See also
Ministère de l'éducation nationale, "Projet de loi de
finances pour 2001: Budget coordonné de l'enseignement supérieur,
2.1.12.1 : Les établissements," at <
www.education.gouv.fr/sup/bces2001/f2112.htm
>.
6. This is true as well in most non-Anglophone European countries. Participation in various American historians' meetings and round-tables in European-level conferences over the past several years has demonstrated to me that many of the difficulties encountered by historians teaching in language departments are similar throughout the continent.
7. The Education Ministry formally recognized civilization training at the university level beginning in 1976. See Guerlain, "Malaise dans la civilisation?," 34.
8. Contents of the RFEA are available on-line at the AFEA web site (see note 4).
9. Ardagh, 538–39. See also Libération, special supplement "Universités: Facultés d'innover," October 2001, 5.
10. Ibid.
11. "Universités: Facultés d'innover," 3.
12. Based on the author's personal observations and numerous conversations with staff and colleagues in various universities; also commented on in Ardagh, 556–57. For an American civilizationist's reflections on the state of the French university, see Nelcya Delanoe, Nanterre la folie (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1998).
13. Ardagh criticizes French academics for slowing down needed reforms, but he does not take into account either their top-down political natures, nor the budget crunch and parallel decline of working conditions that have accompanied them. See Ardagh, 565–566.
14. See the AFEA web site (note 4 above) for a thorough list of recent French scholarship in American history and American studies.
15. Dirk Hoerder, ed., American Labor and Immigration History, 1877–1920s: Recent European Research (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1983).
16. David Brody and Herbert G. Gutman, "Preface," in Hoerder, American Labor and Immigration History, viii.
17. For French contributions, see the AFEA web site (note 4 above).
|
Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.
|