The French, as other nations, sought to create a national identity. The French, at times, did this by making themselves the opposite of Americans. Throughout the book, comparisons are made between Americans and the French. “Human beings versus technology (120)”, American pragmatism and moralism against French universalism(124)”. Eventually, some French people, in particular the missionaries, began appreciating things like America’s universities, museums, and technological proficiency. They also realized that some American techniques could not be wholly used in France because of cultural differences.
 I am amazed, as Molly was, by the sudden change in their ideas about the United States. The Cold War which led to events like the Cuban Missile Crisis, had the effect of lessening anti-American sentiments, at least for a short period of time. Writers, such as Domenach, began writing about “American open-mindedness (129).” Before this time American were more likely to be portrayed as mindless conformists. To some the “American popular culture was not ‘authentic’ (119).” Some even believed the American way of life was eclipsing the traditions of the common people. These ideas can be traced back to Romanticism and modern ideas about authenticity. I found the fact that even though groups of French people may have been opposed to the “Americanization” of France, they still saw the necessity of American protection. Even when de Gaulle wanted to go to the extreme of backing out of NATO, he wanted France to “still be sheltered by the American nuclear umbrella (139).”
 During the cold war, there were groups who wanted to remain neutral and not be drawn to either of the superpowers, the US or the Soviet Union. This seemed to be caused by the fact that they realized that if the superpowers went to war, the war might be fought in Western Europe and France did not want to become the battleground for a possible Third World War. They had been that for the first two World Wars. They also remembered “America’s tardy entry” into the first World Wars (137).

Edited by author 02-17-2003 01:44 AM
In Richard Kuisel's Seducing the French, he poses the question: "what did the French perceive was at risk if the American model crossed the Atlantic?" (231). This new order threatened the loss of "their Frenchness" (3). However, was it really America that was threatening to take it away or a "consumer society" (3)? They simply were afraid of change, not the spread of American ideals. "Americanization was more a change brought about by selection and adaptation" (232). So why then is this change referred to as "Americanization"? It was America that took over France's title as super power and with the new super power brought capitalistic change. France began to associate the two and therefore were oppossed to both. This association brought a hatred of all that was American, whether it was a change or not.
The French people thought that change would render them un-French. And it did, indeed, alter them. The "total household consumption grew 40 percent between 1950 and 1957, ahead of the annual growth of production, investment, and income" (104). The "opening of Euro Disneyland outside Paris in the spring of 1992" brought about a new kind of entertainment (227). They adopted the new "symbol of prosperity, [...] the automobile parked in the working man's driveway" (92). The were introduced to refrigerators, typewriters, televisions, and McDonald's. All of these changes obviously altered France's economic, social, and even political viewpoints and modes of operation. However, was this new change really the "Americanization of France" or the "'Frenchification' of America" (233)? I believe that they did not lose their French identity, but adapted the new ideas created in America to fit them. France became a new version of itself, but remained French all the same.

Kuisel's book Seducing the French definately shed much light on Franco-American relations during the twentieth century. First, both nations adamantly believed that their idea of culture and standard of living was superior to that of the other culutres. This especially led the United States to "champion" their way of living across Europe, which would later be viewed by the French as an act of neocolonialism. The United States in particular viewed their "high standard of living" based on the amount of consumer products in their home, and the ability to have the latest "it." This coincides with the resurgence of pop culture and modernity which we spoke of in class. However, the French viewed their cultural superiority in respect to intellect and art because of the immense history of France. They prided themselves and their nationalistic tendencies in their intellectual and enlightenment thinkers, as well as famous buildings such as the louvre museum and the cathedral of Notre Dame. As written by Kuisel, "Americans had a genius for the former (mass-produced goods) but not for the artistic--not for haute coutre or luxury textiles for example (114), which comprised a "cultured," France society.
This conflict in idea of culture brings about French claims of American conformity, which again relates to the concept of pop culture. I don't know the exact page number, but a quotation exists describing how Americans would buy the most convenient and cheapest, new product to keep up with the trends, whereas French persons would search for that luxury item that was more expensive, yet rare and precious. This illustrates a huge difference in the ideas of early French society.
Nevertheless, these differences in what is proper culture, does not mean that France does not want to bridge the technological gap between her country and the United States. Eventually, France would become more "Americanized," by adopting some of the consumer goods manufactured and produced within America. Like Jennifer posted, the opening of the Euro-Disneyland discussed towards the end of the book reveals that France does incorporate changes into its society which model that of an American standard of living. Also, I thought it was interesting how the opinion of America changed as French sociologists went to the US to study the "flower children" of the counter-revolution in the 1960s and found that America too had more to it than consumer goods---the desire of the youth to rebel against consumerism.

I, like many of my classmates, found Kuisel's book to be an intruiguing work. As I was reading, I found myself reflecting back on the freshman summer reading, Fast Food Nation. Especially in the chapter discussing the conflicts centered around Coca-Cola exports, I remembered the brief mentionings throughough Fast Food Nation of similar backlash toward what was perceived as an attempt to "Americanize" the rest of the world. As has also been mentioned, I was interested by the changes in opinion regarding American culture and politics throughout the work, such as the change in Jean-Paul Sartre. He had previously been "delighted with American vigor and the easy relations among social classes...[the] American devotion to freedom and human dignity...[and] how Americans reconciled conformity with individualism" (50). However, in 1952, Sartre's tune changed dramatically. He joined ranks with the PCF and became a vocal anti-American. He called for a quick isolation from the U.S., stating that "America has rabies! We must cut all ties with it or else we shall be bitten and infected next." Through reading about Sartre's change as well as many others, it is easy to see how America has ended up in it's present position.
It seems that we often find ourselves doing what we believe is right and for the good of everyone, and yet we stand alone in international opinion. As of yet in the Iraqi conflict, we have made our intentions clear, but have gained little support for our imminent actions from the rest of the U.N. Like Lauren, I also had a hard time coming to grips with the backlash against a culture that I know and love so well. I think many Americans experienced the same thing when we saw images of people celebrating the destruction of the Twin Towers and the Pentagon on September 11. However, when one looks at it with a more objective mindset, in many cases it seems that other countries are justified in their resentment of both our government and our culture. What other country has assumed the right to waltz into any other country and dictate how its leaders should govern it? What other country exports its cultural 'advancements' onto others with such fervor? I'm not saying that many things in our culture today haven't been borrowed from other countries, but I'd be interested to find out if there was another country that had the same difficulties that the Coca-Cola company did in moving its enterprises overseas. What other country is as greatly loved, hated, and feared all at the same time? It is an interesting position we've made for ourselves. It is impossible to look back on history and not realize that many of the problems we face today are direct reactions to previous foreign relations and conflicts. At one point, Kuisel mentions the lack of response to "Americanism" by the middle eastern ethnicities and countries. I dont think that it is a coincidence that it is those same countries and peoples with whom we are currently at odds.

The book explains France’s way of holding on to its roots and at the same time Americanizing certain identities of smaller aspects. France had a, and possibly still does, a problem with the great wave of American influence. France’s strong feeling of nationalism is revealed through their unwillingness to be open to total Americanization. After much revolt against American persuasion, France finally succumbed to certain ways of America, yet at the same time maintaining a fine balance between defining aspects of France and adoption of American culture. However, I agree with Kuisel when he states that maybe all the hype over America smothering French culture was a little too much. Doesn’t every country influence others in some way?

Americans have no problem with taking cultural ideas from other countries to improve and strengthen our own culture. In fact we find it almost intriguing to add and embrace different things to our lives, such as, fashion in clothing and home designs. American clothing has been altered by influence from countries that are known for fashion. Also, many homes have taken on a new look by adding culture from other countries. The important thing to keep in mind is to maintain that fine balance between clinging to our own unique culture and adopting other things to refine it.

I found Seducing the French to be overly repetitive in its description of how Americans were too dark and dirty to be emulated. I felt like I kept re-reading the same points over and over again, however good of points they may have been. I find it extremely interesting how France's view of American people and their "culture" gradually improved over time. From the early 1940's when the slogan was "Yankees go home," to the 1980's when "France had become the most pro-American country in Western Europe" (212), there was definite improvement. The idea that is hardest for me to understand after reading the book, and looking back on some of the opposition to accepting Americanism is understanding how we could have been so hated when many French people lived in America at the time. Understandably, we aren't going to have a common culture, as many French annalysists and jounalists pointed out, but the mixture of all cultures should be someting worth being emulated, because it goes along the same lines as "the best of both worlds." Therefore, the "Americanization" that France and other countries were trying so desperately to escape from was part France, England, and any other country you can think of. It is a mix of all the theologies and ideas from so many; that is part of what makes it so great.
         I agree with Stephanie in saying that part of the reason for the conflict between the two countries has to do with the differences in each others idea of standard of living. However, I find problems with understanding how the French really had a different standard of living than the Americans. Throughout the book, emphasis is put on the idea that Americans stress "bigger and better." That they work for the betterment of themselves, and living in a bigger house and building bigger skyrises and making the most money. However, on page 101, it talks about how on one mission, the missionaries observed that the American system had "very simple tastes and habits in certain ways. Hot dogs and hamburger cost less than a cut of beef manicured by a French butcher. A Frenchman doesn't hesitate paying because it's his way of conceiving life." It seems to me that what was observed was Frenchmen spending a high amount on food simply because he could. That seems similar to builidng expensive buildings and more expensive houses, simply cause we can. I think that personally, a lot of what was being questioned by the anit-americans was really not a part of american ideals, but human ideals, and a lot of what was fought over was simply the idea of power of expansion and pride that ones own country is the best. In class we talk a lot about nationalism and what is stired up when nationalism occurs, and that is simply what cause the ani-americans to speak up in the events discussed in this book.

I realize that I didn't really make the point I wanted to about conformity - it seems like we have studied this is almost every class (proletariat or bourgeois) or industrial struggle though we haven't stated so explicitly. The French don't want to be conformists in fear of losing their identity, yet they do end up adopting some American ways. How far do they have to go before it is considered conformity? We've talked about this idea in the movement of peoples (barbarian invasions), and in capitalism in the characteristics of the large companies that have the potential to control everything. The idea of conformity has good implications in movements such as the industrial revolution by the increase of productivity or increased communication. But when it comes to cultural ideals, conformity becomes a significantly more detrimental notion.

Firstly I just want to say how cool it is when two of your classes relate to each other. What I mean is that while reading Seducing the French an article I read earlier in my Sociology class kept coming into my mind. The article is entitle 'The McDonaldization of Society" by George Ritzer. It is an account describing the culture of America and how it has changed to become increasing consumer related. How our culture is defined as finding the fastest and most efficient ways to participate in everyday activites. It details how the emergence of the fast food industry has many positive aspects, yet may also be seen as detrimental in individual lives by decreasing quality of food and time spent with family and friends. The fast food industry and other similar industries that define the culture of America, as mentioned by Kuisel, were ones that the French stubbornly fought against. They desired to acheive the economic stability of America without the so-called negative cultural aspects.

As postwar French so desperately looked around to other cultures to find some sort of identity and stability their outlook on America is interesting in its metamorphosis throughout time. One interesting outlook that strunk me was on page 190 where Bosquet, a French novelist and poet, describes an imagined American family in Chicago. "The Browns stayed at Holiday Inns and ate at Howard Johnson's so that their vacations held no surprises. . .They strove to please everyone and avoided introspective or philosophical conversation." What a way to view America?!?

Overall, as some of my classmates have alluded to, overall culture has become more of a culmination of what holds best in each situation. "The Americanization process...was more a change brought about by selection and adaptation" (232). And just as the French eventually saw some aspects of the American culture as beneficial to their own, so did the Americans view France. The book speaks of the "Frencification" of the American culture which can again be veiwed more as an adaptative response. On a more personal note, last summer when I traveled to Paris with my family this element of culture jumped out at me. There are McDonald restaurants on the street corners in France (pg. 187-figure 20), yet it is very obvious that the complex, reflective French culture is still dominant. Sitting on the street corners sipping wine and cappucinos while smoking cigarettes and talking of philosphy and books is a truly French concept. Yet, through the "Frenchification" of America we are seeing the emergence of French clothing, and coffee shops peak through the fast food restaurants. Culture, as described by Kuisel is shaped in many ways. And I think this book did a really great job of showing how the major historical events (like Dr. B continually reminds us of) have a vital part in shaping our everyday lives both politically and culturally.

While I was reading this book, I kept noticing the contrasting ideals of Americans during the 50s and 60s. During this time, America was gripped with fear of Communism but also had certainty that the French needed to learn about American economy and techniques. This is why I think the French leftists were so critical of American culture overtaking France. America was so scared of Communists and their ideals controlling their capitalistic economy that Senator McCarthy went on a witch-hunt to punish high officials that were suspected to hold Communist beliefs. The French were “frightened of seeing a growing shadow of gigantic idols fed by lies, terror, and denunciation” (52). Alongside these fears, America was asserting their economic and cultural influences on the French through the Marshall Plan and the missions where French businessmen would tour American factories. No wonder the French were so skeptical of American culture! How can America be so certain in this age of uncertainty and fear of the Soviets?

What also amazes me, as Kimberly and Molly have pointed out, is how the French changed their opinions on the infringing American culture; with a consumer economy booming in America, the French began to see the higher standard of living in cars, washing machines, and coca-cola. I think what began to soften the French opinion towards the United States was the French people overlooking the contradictory ideals of fear and certainty because of the cool new things they could have from America.
Also, I found it interesting how apparent the "white man's burden" was in America's thinking towards France. Even though America did not think of the French as a differnent or lower race, they saw the French economy has inferior. Americans felt that France desparately needed their type of economy in order to progress and survive in the world. I think this idealology is another reason that the French harbored some negative feelings towards the U.S. I would too if another younger country was looking down on my economy and my traditional culture and consumer interests.

     Like others, it was interesting for me to observe the French views of America in chronology of the 20th century, as they changed over time. Many have discussed different speakers against America as well as aspects of American culture that initially were despised by the French. All of these observations and deep insights were handled very well by the class. Bravo to you!
     However, what captivated me most was the actual 'seducing of the french' that finally was recognized around the 1980's, as well as the reflection upon 'the dilemma of americanization' near the end of the book. French is the foreign language that I have studied, so I had somewhat of an appreciation for the term 'franglais.'(see pg 192) In high school, my french teacher always told us that we were speaking 'franglais' when we tried to invent french words that are derived from what we know in english in order to get our point across. However, in France in the 1960's, this change in language was even a threat to French nationalism; it was also a sign that the French were being seduced as franglais was accepted in advertisements and in colloquial speech.
   By the 1980's, what the Gallist government and socialists were fighting against was accepted as an infiltration into French culture. However, the so-called 'Americanization' is not all that it seemed; it was not a superpower forcing a country to become more like them. "Perhaps the most important cause for this gradual realignment--...--derives from the growing similarity of the two nations' socioeconomic orders."(225) Therefore, it was a conversion of the two nations' needs towards the end of the 20th century.
   I love what Kate said about America being 'the most loved, hated, and feared country all at the same time.' That is exactly right, both when the French were trying to avoid a seduction into Americanization, and now, when countries hate us because of their jealousies of our freedom. We are very envy-able. However, when attempting to protect their nationalism, countries must see that even in France, "often what appeared to be Americanized was still quite French." (232) Though maybe influenced by American culture and economics, countries are still their own. By the way, isn't America 'the melting pot' of the world?? As Dr. Benson has said from the beginning, countries are fascinated with each other and so are influenced by each other. It's not just Americanization, but Westernization, and even Globalization. We are all seduced by each other, while remaining our own.

by the way, guys, don't think I'm a slacker, I tried to submit the posting below twice this morning before class, and it wouldn't load. sorry again!

    Kuisel's Seducing the French made me finally stop and think about how other cultures and countries view our country. I had never really cared before, except very recently with the war possibilities and everything going on. I never really thought it mattered until then. But I think it's interesting to see how the development of this country was seen by others. It is no doubt that we're stereotyped by other nations as cocky. However, we have definitely earned the right to be "feared" as Kate said and Leah referred to. With such a strong economy, it is understandable for people in other countries to look in and be jealous, and want to come up with a negative stereotype for us to justify everything. But I think the French, overall, in their observations were fair in their assessment of America.
    I was very interested in the fact that some sort of "Americanization" has been going on, mostly recently in the late twentieth century. I agree with Leah in that because of the similarities that were already present between the two countries, it is not surprising that other changes be made so that the countries grew to be even more alike, in economic and social aspects. Shannon said something very interesting regarding the French's eventual acceptance of the United States. America has so many things that are attractive to other countries, and so they finally realized that there is no point hating something that you can learn from, or grow from. Whatever it takes for someone to change their opinion....

     As I read Kuisel's Seducing the French, I did not realize the opinion's and thoughts that many French people had toward America. I took French in high school and was always taught that they loved American culture and ideas. Maybe that is the case for the young generation, but I just thought my misconception was interesting.
     The Americanization in France was something they chose to accept. American boomed after WWII, and like Dr. Benson said, became the most dominant power in the world along with Russia. France developed a new jealousy for a power that they wanted to be. They had "envy of a superpower by a nation that had not quite fully accepted its relative decline in the world" (215). Any country that once had the power that France once had is for sure going to have animosity toward a developing nation who grabs the power. France might possibly be jealous because America had done things right. For many years, they have been staging revolution in order to get a successful power in place. America's revolution was immediatly victorious, and it seems like everything they did afterwards was superior to the developments in France.
     France did not succumb to Americanization, they accepted it. Coke, movies, and cars were all abopted by the people in Europe. America offered things and ideas that people naturally thought was "cool" and socially glamorous. In this process, the French did not become American, instead they took customs and products and made them French. With the booming of fast food industries, "french cuisines did not disappear" (232). Coke is not an American idea, it is an international product that has its own identity in each nation. A person does not necessarily become American for using their product. I don't feel more Italian after eating at a fine Italian restuarant or and more Japanese after playing my video games. The French need to stop worrying about American and concern themselves with their own affairs.

One of the issues discussed in Kuisel's Seducing the French that I found especially interesting was that of the introduction of Coca-Cola to France and other parts of Europe. Some of the reasons the Communists and other opposers of the introduction of Coke to the European market, such as the myth that it would turn your hair white to drink it, were completely ridiculous and obviously manufactured in order to halt international distribution. This issue over a relatively harmless American drink nearly caused relations between the United States and France to crumble. The fact that France was so insecure in it's national identity is clearly demonstrated by this controversy. The anti-Americanism at the time eventually weakened, but only after United States influence in France had declined and the nation felt more secure.
Like Justin, I believe that you can experience other cultures without losing your national identity. If this were not true, tourism would not be an industry. I went to Europe several years ago and was thrilled to have the opportunity to learn about other countries and see a way of life so different from my own. It did not even cross my mind that by indulging in a foreign culture, I might be compromising my Americanism. In addition, many of the products that I own were not produced in America, but in another country. The global economy of today is so far-reaching that it is very unlikely to find a product manufactured in the United States.

I strongly agree with Brent's statements on the book. I was slightly annoyed and borderline offended by the way the American influence of culture on the French was portrayed. I felt like Americans were made out to look overbearing. The text seemed to indicate that we were completely synthetic and smothered the French's originality. I think that each culture is a mixture of a majority of its own traditions and elements of other's customs that have come to influence them. I think it’s important for the cultures, on some levels, to blend. Countries can learn things from each other and should be accepting of each other's differences. They should want to learn about different cultures and assimilate the aspects that interest them into their own ways of life.
To the same end, however, a country should never conform to a sense of "worldly standards" in terms of culture. Each country should still possess unique elements that they never lose sight of. We have learned much about conformity on many different fronts this term, as Lauren mentioned. We learned both about the good influence it can have over something like industrialism. I also saw how important it was to not conform from the movie "Nasty Girl". If the main character had given into the wants of others she would never have been able to divulge the information she was able to find and her city would still be in the dark about the issues she researched. For this reason I also see that it is also very important to keep one’s individualism at times. Therefore, I believe that countries should stive for a culture that embraces that of other countries yet takes pride in its own special and unique ways of life.

     Seducing the French includes heavy research, discussion of many opposing viewpoints and opinions, and an interesting argument that Americanization did not hurt France or 'French-ness' overall. However, from his discussion of the Marshall Plan to the introduction of Coca-Cola, to the policies of de Gaulle, to his final conclusion, Kuisel takes a very biased and overly pro-American viewpoint shaded by rose-colored glasses. The Marshall Plan was touted as an opportunity to open cross-cultural doors and open other countries to the idea of free markets and American life. However, the Plan also was contested by Europeans as an egotistical statement by America that despite having little history in the political/economic arena, they knew what was best for Europe. Despite lauding American managerial styles and business tactics, Kuisel must also admit that many French did not like American "glass house" businesses (89), and ended up not liking most of the recommendations by Marshall Plan reports (100-101). In my opinion, Kuisel focuses too much on saying that certain French factions didn't like the Marshall Plan, and not enough discussing the worldwide dislike of the ethnocentric program.

     Kuisel could also take a less biased tone toward the Coca-Cola controversy. While he recognizes the viewpoint of the French ("serious political problems and raised anxieties about Americanization" (55)), he paints the picture that the French were out to get Coca-Cola unfairly. He labels the French policy to be careful and test new drinks as obstructionism, whereas in America, ANY new drink (alcoholic or nonalcoholic) would be subject to examination by the FDA before allowing sales. Kuisel also does not give enough credit to French concerns about Americans investing in France. While France would want money, there is no reason why they should accept giant American employers on their turf who do not have to play by French rules.

     The most interesting discussion in Kuisel's book is the section on de Gaulle, his policies, and their unintended results. Perhaps that just interests me because I am a political science major, and I'm a dork, but the fact that his hard-line anti-American stance resulted in a "passive acceptance of the American way" (153) is pretty ironical. Kuisel makes an interesting argument that "de Gaulle was correcting the imbalance in Franco-American relations and thus removing an essential source of anti-Americanism" (153). However, I would argue that while American arrogance may have decreased some since Vietnam and the 1960s-70s, America has become even more of a world power. With the fall of the USSR, America became the almost singular world power, and therefore even more of a danger to middle-power countries like France. I don't believe Kuisel takes this into consideration enough. Overall, Kuisel argues that despite a barrage of the American way, France is still France. I have never been to France, so I cannot argue against that point. However, I do have issue with the idea that Kuisel does not hold America accountable enough for our often arrogant and domineering policies towards other nations, seen clearly in actions like the Marshall Plan.