Americanization in other countries has been a topic across the world for many years. But it shouldnt come as a big surprise. Some things in the book were interesting and enriching, but its no surprise many other countries to upon us in a negative manner. Despite our government's attempts to persuade us to believe we're always in the right, many other countries feel the americans have put themselves in conflicts just for power and repuatation. Vietnam for example caused controversy as well as this upcoming conflict with iraq across the globe and even on our own soil. I personally believe in our military and for the most part, government and our decision making, but to others we're just another powerful and threatening country. Amusing how many French dislike like the americans and probably discuss it over a nice bottle of coca-cola. Ironic, dont ya think. America is the best country in the world and im very very proud to be hear, wouldnt want to be anywhere else, but we arent perfect, bc no one is.

Because the author thought it important enough to write almost an entire chapter on the subject, I thought the Coca-Cola controversy deserved comment, or rather the reasons it did become so controversial. The French were told hideous lies about the product to ensure their business was lost, like that their children’s “hair would turn white” or that it was a “poison.” The French were especially afraid of change at that time, because they were still trying to decide what was, in fact, “French.” Then again, who were we (collectively speaking) to impose out “culture” on others? The French were obviously not interested. However, we went so far as to threaten withdrawing aid from them, simply because they wouldn’t allow a product into their country. Other products such as cars and refrigerators were imposed upon the French; however, these convenient inventions would have been made by someone else, if not for the US. Other components of American pop culture such as film and music are now rampant in France. While visiting there, I noticed 99% of their TV programming, radio stations, and movies were all American. I never really saw anything “French” in these fields. Underlying this issue is a basic fear of change, a fear of the unknown. Just because we see our nation as being superior, as does almost every other nation, does not give us the right to force our ways of life onto others. As we’ve seen, each culture is different. What works for ours, will not necessarily work for others, no matter how good our intentions.
There are many things I wanted to mention, so I’ll just throw them all together (I’m not including who else mentioned these same opinions, because there are so many, and I wrote this this morning before the other posts could be made). The age that this book was written about was not THAT long ago. I found it hard to imagine the working conditions of the people were still so lagging in France. No wonder our countries’ factories were so appealing to look to for a positive change in French industry. I can’t imagine the immense reforms required to completely tear down and rebuild a long tradition of non-“transparent” businesses. I also found it interesting that earlier cars had been looked down upon, as Aragon mentioned. Then later, “the symbol of prosperity was the automobile parked in the working man’s driveway.” As far as French identity is concerned, Kuisel stated that the French did not lose any of their “Frenchness” to the “cocacolonisation” of their country. I also found it interesting that Americans were defined as “conformists.” What made the French think that they weren’t and we were? (It’s not a rhetorical question, I really don’t know. Please help me out.) However, I wanted to mention that all societies must have a degree of conformity to function well.
As a whole, I was very interested in reading about the anti-Americanism in French culture. It conjures up many questions about what “civilization” is defined as, who has superiority, and should ways of life be forced upon other cultures, just because we see them as being beneficial to us? I’m constantly thinking of more. The more conclusions I come to, the more questions there are to be asked. I think the most basic thing I can say, though, is that everyone fears change to some extent. In this case, tensions magnified them even more.

First off, sorry this is so late, I was planning on posting this morning and then the server was down and have been running around all day, but here it is!
  I like many of y'all was taken back by this book and France's view of America during this time period. I guess I never really thought about how great America's influence was, and how offensive American culture could be on people. Today we always here about globalizabtion and how cultures are loosing their uniquiness, and its interesting to see some of that in this book. I was about to say we see its roots here, but then I remembered back to class discussion we had maybe two or three weeks into school where when we talked about Hellinism, and how the Greeks in many ways forced their culture on non-Greek cultures.
   This book highlights the "Hellinism of this time period"- the Americanization of France. As we talked about in class today, with WWII ending, Russia and America became the dominant powers and as such they're culture began to dominate. This was not all that surprising to me, we see it today, but what surprised me was the extent and the response to America. "France might be facing a gadget society, the worship of mammon and the DEATH OF CULTURE"(111). This seems a little harsh! Though America was becoming the dominant culture in many ways, the French did not have to choose to forget their own culture. The French people were not without choices. The huge scale commercialization was abnoxious I'm sure- I'm a proud American and I find many parts of the commercialized American society to be repulsive, but I don't think Americanization was the "death of culture."
   I found this book intriguing and it made many good points, points to ponder, but I also found it, like I know many of you have commented to, to be a little too harsh as well.

Edited by author 02-18-2003 01:11 AM
     For most of my life, I have been a very naive American. Never having been out of the country, I had a very simple view of the way the world felt about the United States: it's plain truth that it's the greatest country in the world, the purest and most successful symbol of freedom and democracy, so everybody must love us, right? The patriotic understanding of what our country stands for that we learn in elementary school heavily implies that we are the shining star of the world and so everyone should love us. The current debate over war in Iraq notwithstanding, "Seducing the French" was the nail in the coffin of my unadulterated American smugness.
     I agree with Brent (/m368) that every country in some way influences other countries in the world; however, it is clear that the United States has exercised unprecedented cultural hegemony over the rest of the world since the latter half of the twentieth century. This is a little odd when viewed in the light that the American understanding of our own culture is the "melting pot" myth, whereby we take aspects of all cultures and fuse them into a unique American culture. I call this a myth only because there are certainly disproportionate cultural contributions among the different people that comprise the United States. The French, however, have criticized American culture for being soulless and mechanized, and were afraid that by incorporating American culture (that is, a vacuum of culture) into theirs, a total loss of culture would result. Like Sara (/m371), I have studied Ritzer's "McDonaldization of Society", an extreme extrapolation of Max Weber's sociological theory of rationalization of society. Ritzer contends that American society can be increasingly explained by the efficient and quick managerial and production methods of fast food restaurants. When studying the extreme rationalization of society in this context, one can't help but feel a tinge of the creepy feeling that Kuisel describes the French having about the spread of American culture. At the very least, we can sympathize with their desire to retain the essence of what makes them French.
     I think Corey's contention that "we are just another powerful and threatening country" (/m380) is inaccurate. To French eyes (and in all reality) during the postwar period, we were THE powerful and threatening country, not counting the Soviet Union. The Marshall Plan was seen during the postwar period to be a shining example of American pretense: "The Fourth Republic feared that the program might make Paris appear subservient to Washington; subservience was a sure formula for failure" (100). So, not only does France want to preserve their cultural identity in the face of America's sudden and blinding rise, they also seek to ignore their status as a declining power (relatively speaking, of course).
     On a personal note, I take issue with Christina's offense (/m378) at the way the Americans seem to have been portrayed as overbearing. Since my arrival at Furman, many of my closest friends hail from different continents. I have developed an acute sense of how arrogant and ignorant the average citizen of the United States is. Most people from other countries could rattle off a list of facts and impressions about the U.S., but I doubt that, if pressed, I would be able to accurately describe the culture of more than a handful of countries around the world. I mean, our own President has demonstrated some trouble with simple geography, and I doubt that the average American citizen is much different. I once saw a cartoon about the American impression of the world in which a map was drawn with America labeled "US" and all the rest of the world branded as "NOT US". I had little sense of how arrogant our ignorance was until I became close friends with people of a totally different perspective.

Edited by author 02-18-2003 01:44 AM
The following is excerpted from Ted Halstead, "The American Paradox," The Atlantic Online, January-February 2003(http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/01/halstead.htm)

"Without question we are the richest, most powerful, and most creative nation on the planet. Our economic and military might stems from our embrace of a particularly high-octane brand of capitalism, supported by financial markets that are deeper and broader than any others, labor markets that are more flexible, and a culture of entrepreneurialism that is unparalleled. These attributes have turned America into the world's unrivaled engine of innovation and wealth creation. We boast more patent applications than the entire European Union; almost three times as many Nobel laureates as Britain, our closest competitor; and more business start-ups per capita than almost every other advanced democracy. One in twelve Americans will start his or her own business, evincing another outstanding American trait—our great tolerance for risk. And our export of movies, television shows, music, and fast-food chains makes us, for better or worse, the dominant cultural force on the globe.

But like the Roman god Janus, America has two faces. Despite being the richest nation on the planet, we suffer from higher rates of poverty, infant mortality, homicide, and HIV infection, and from greater economic inequality, than other advanced democracies. We have far more uninsured citizens, and a lower life expectancy. On a per capita basis the United States emits considerably more greenhouse gases and produces more solid waste. We spend more per student on K-12 education than almost all other modern democracies, yet our students perform near the bottom on international tests. We have the highest rates of teen pregnancy and among the highest proportions of single parents, and American parents have the least amount of free time to spend with their children; indeed, the average American works nine weeks more each year than the average European. Our performance on many social indicators is so poor, in fact, that an outsider looking at these numbers alone might conclude that we were a developing nation."

        The French along with many other nations resent our country because our culture is coming into and mixing with their own. I think being unique is all fine and dandy, but is it really the best thing? Look at the Balkans; all the death and destruction that is going on down there is fundamentally due to each little ethnic group’s not wanting to lose any of its national identity. Maybe the reason America works so well is because when the immigrants came over here they had lost their former national/ cultural identities and become Americans. The French are trying to preserve their traditions and culture by doing away with all American influence in their country, but they should just find a happy medium between culture and commercialization. The renewal of culture does not have to mean the death of commercialization; there is always a happy medium.
 I agree with Justin when he said “France developed a new jealousy for a power that they wanted to be.” After WWII France was really just a hollow shell of a country. Their national identity was weakened, their industry was hurting, and their pride took a serious blow. It was easy for them to adopt American pop culture, but as their economy began to strengthen and people regained pride in France, there was a call to return to the old ways, France’s ways. Still just a shadow of the great power they once were, the French are bitter towards Americans because of our success. France knows that America does not need them, but they sure as hell need America. For a country who wants nothing to do with our culture, they sure are dependent on our industry.

hey, "I agree..." was supposed to be the start of a new paragraph.

I just read the article Dr. B posted and it took me back. I guess I'd heard many of those statistics before- that we are the best of the best, and others how we are the worst of the worst (within advanced democracies), but rarely have a I seen them layed out next to eachother. I found his question, are we abandoning the common good?, fascinating. Are the costs we're paying for "our bests" worth it? We live a country where we have the most advanced medical breakthroughs, yet few can actually afford to attain this care. Many of the richest people in the world reside within our border right next to one of the largest number of the poorest. This article really makes you think twice about the "greatness" of America.

The article is definitely a surprise to me. I didn't know that the poverty rate and test scores were so low. It appears that as a whole, the country is doing so well, yet when you break it down to individual aspects, we're not. With the exception of a large national debt, the United States is the most prosperous country economically in the world, yet we manage to have higher poverty rates than other economic competitors. I suppose that there are prices to pay for having a stable economy and a respected country, ...however I am surprised by some of those statistics. I never had a clue that Americans, on average, work more than the Europeans. Now, I don't see this as a real roleplaying statistic, but it is definitely surprising to me, just as the infant mortality rate. I think it's important to find the root of these problems, so we know how to make America even better...

Edited by author 02-18-2003 03:16 PM
     I think it is unfair to say that every foreigner shares a hatred for our country. To me, that is an unnecessary generalization. Obviously Kuisel’s books deals can’t speak for everyone in France. No doubt some French embrace other cultures, just like some Americans aren’t patriotic. That said, though, I find this book to be helpful in explaining the interactions between the two extremes of acceptance and resistance that happen between the two cultures — that middle ground the author describes of selective imitation and adaptation — as providing the most insight.
     I, like Robert in post 383, have always had the impression that foreigners revere, respect, and admire the American way of life. We as Americans are taught at a young age a sense of national pride which becomes engrained in our minds and we can’t see why everyone doesn’t think we are great. I have come to the conclusion that every culture is self-centered in some way; Americans aren’t the only ones with pride and some arrogance. Kuisel himself say that the French response to Americanization was a “defense of civilization,” or there since of national identity that they didn’t want destroyed. This happens in America as well. The example Dr. Benson gave in class that, according to some conservative politicians, Americans must reproduce more so as not to be overrun by minorities in our own country and to keep our “American” identity illustrates this perfectly. I personally don’t think that this type of pride is bad as long as you don’t let those feelings lead to ignorance about other nations or stupid prejudices (like in the example of conservative thought above) like we seemingly have done.
     As a defense on the behalf of the seeming smugness of Americans, some claim that European nations are forced to know more about other countries politics and culture because they are surrounded by them on the European continent. Americans have it much easier to adapt an isolated mentality because of our location far from a lot of countries. While the geographic conditions may be true, that is not an excuse for the lack of knowledgeable Americans today common for most citizens. (I didn’t even know where Kosovo was until just recently when we have had all of this exposure to maps of Eastern Europe in class)
     However, while French people may know more about American culture than Americans do about other nations, they can not possibly know everything. The areas the novel studies of interaction between the two cultures (the Marshall Plan, economic missions, foreign investments, and American consumer products) try to be an all encompassing cross- section, but can’t possibly touch on all the interactions between these two cultures. Kuisel even said he had to limit the scope of his book to a few examples so as not to get in over his head by trying to characterize all the intricacies of such a vast relationship. While this little exposure is more than most Americans can claim to have of any other culture, it can’t possible convey all the nuisances of what it is to be an American.
     In my opinion, what they are exposed to in the vast majority of these interactions is the American culture concerned with making money -- the fast food chains, the rock stars, economic policy aimed to stimulate growth and help the world, but more importantly the U.S to name a few. These are all unarguably parts of American culture, but more expressly the brand of “high-octane capitalism” that the Atlantic Online article from Dr. Benson’s post characterizes. It is obvious that some of these things wouldn’t seem to appealing. What Parisian would want a McDonald’s hamburger rather than French cuisine? While it would be impossible to ship all French people to America to get a sense of the more positive aspects of American culture, I think only an experience like that would let render a more comprehensive understanding of a complex culture.

Historical Origins, Backgrounds: Constraint or Pick and Choose.

Nasty girl important – 3d reich. Trying to uncover the “real” background.
Selected what they remembered and what they forgot.
Repression affected what came out – it was an upset to the community
Seducing French. Effects of Wld Wars + also second ind. Revolution
(which helped rise of U.S.) put them in position to be seduced.
Could they have resisted the progress? (Not so much America but
changing new technology and modernization.) They do select some.
But couldn’t resist them all?
Coke and health reasons – not successful.
Coke, but would also drink wine -- because they were scared they tried harder.
Because of Americanization, became even more conscious of Frenchness.
They keep their French identity.

Place and Time
Small town atmosphere, post WW II, on eve of Berlin wall collapse
Place is questioned in Nasty Girl as concept – Living room and tree as symbols.
Time is relative – town council decides arbitrarily 30 vs. 50 year delay.
StheF specific to France, but generic domination of Marshall Plan over
   Different societies.
France so tied to place that they have strong insecurities. They remember
        When they were great.
Time and history very important to the French culture.
France’s fall from world leadership harder to French pride b/c history.
America doesn’t have a history, so why do they get to be world leaders?
Opinion changed with time.
Depended on who was involved? Who was leading, and what were the
Different groups that have popular influence?
Disagreed with statement that WWII and I.R. necessary to clash of cultures
Bound to happen anyway. New methods sped it along.
Took a new generation after Nazis, before people could think about it clearly
Previous generation had experienced the horrors. Versus Sonya
Nasty Girl only happens where people have something to hide.
I.R. and wars expedited the process.
“Seducing the Germans” would have been harder because of their history
is there a country or a place that doesn’t have something to hide?
(America, for ex. Had internment camps – though not on same scale.)
Not just unique to them.

Range of the Human Condition
Realized that the idea of French culture and sdt of living based on their history
Huge blow, worried about being submissive.
For America, std of living based on consumer goods and material possessions
France has built-in common history vs. America as upstart.
America forges culture through consumer identity and conformism.
We all have an idea of what is successful.
Everyone conforms to some extent
What we “want’ to think about as core values.
Vs. society hiding what happened.

Competition and Survival
Talked about competing to keep their own culture.
Survival of the fittest with America trying to impose new concepts/cultures
French wouldn’t accept some things that would help them, because of
      Their identity.
Older people wanted to keep drinking French wine wearing French clothes,
But younger people thought it was a cool thing to do.
Competition between the different groups in France.
In Nasty Girl, competition between people covering up their identity
    so that nobody spills bad deeds, preserve their status.
Does your resume (history) make or break competitiveness?

Individual and Community Identity
Both G and F. want to search for their “true’ identity
France looses identity through material goods, Germany gets it.
How much character and identity defined externally.
Depends on how strongly you define your own identity
Could have a “new identity seeking” identity
Willingness to conform – whole problem in France. But America like it,
As do young people in france
Always conforming to outside forces.
How much of a constraint is the past?
As much as we think we can rely on self-determination, not true.
Even if resist, will be influenced by it.
Still going to be cultural ramifications.
Napoleon forced globalization, but here voluntary – you don’t have to.
One thing disgusted the French: Taking all these different cultures and butchering
“Inauthentic”
Not. Necc. A choice to conform. U.S. rebuilt Europe, restored countries that
Would have failed. Did they have a choice? Probably not.
The only things working at the time, other ideas not (comp/survival)
If a freshman told you a better idea, would you be reluctant.

Edited by author 02-19-2003 11:59 PM
Study Session

Friday, 6:30 PM, FH 204

Pizza will be provided, my treat.

Here is my posting (taking advantage of Dr. Benson’s amnesty policy) on the cold war, decolonization, and deconstruction:
     In light of what we talked about in class, the themes of time and place definitely apply to the “Emergence of a new society” talked about on page 596 of Spielvogel. The same idea that my group brought up in class that the cultural crisis between the French would have eventually happened without the world wars as a catalyst, albeit on a more gradual and less expansive basis. I think the same applies for the women’s movement and resulting expansion of women’s rights as well as the more “permissive society” that came about. The changes in post-war society like large scale technological improvements and economic growth obviously helped facilitate these changes. But even without the wars and the resulting changes in society conditions would have eventually arose that made women pursue their rights with the same vigor. On the same note, sexual liberation certainly would have come to pass as well. The competitive appeal of the ideas would have made them rise to the top even if it was a lot later down the road. It is most certainly an interesting trend to recognize however that wars tend to lead to changes like this. That people have to be beaten over the head for them to open their eyes and accept reform. For example, it took WWI to shake things up and give women suffrage. This question of causation has related to most of what we have studied in the course.
     Based on what we have looked at, I have come to believe that circumstances and great leaders aren’t unique. The Cromwells, Napoleans, Hitlers, and Etienne Lantiers are not so unique characters; they are merely products of society. If Hitler hadn’t come to power in Germany, someone else would have down the road. It isn’t the power of individuals that shape history, it is the forces behind society and cultures that put individuals in the place to exert their will – they couldn’t due it on their own. Following that same school of thought, I come to the conclusions that dynamic circumstance brought about this new culture (i.e. the aftermath of WWII), but with or without these exact criteria or set of events, that same culture would have taken shape because of the competitive nature of the idea.

The virtual study session can be found at (http://www.quicktopic.com/19/H/VQiTgjh59mdU)

After reading the article that Dr. Benson posted, I kept on going back to the idea of compeitition and survival. The article says that, "One in twelve Americans will start his or her own business." Can you imagine the competition in that kind of economy? With so many business in order to survive, you have to be selfish and interested only in your company and its progress. I think this is what leads to the overwhelming poverty and separation of wealth in our country. Only those who survive in this fiercely competitive economy will become wealthy and able to benefit. And those people who are wealthy, feel like they deserve to be because they worked hard to survive, separating the rich and the poor even more.

After reading the article that Dr. Benson posted, I grew very angry at some of the negative responses to each positive aspect of our country. For instance, as shannon also discussed, one in twelve is going to open their own business, yet they say we have the biggest gap in our economic classes and most poverty. Isn't this the nation of dreams, the one nation where you can be whatever you want to be and have many opportunities available to you. We may have a low poverty rate, but that doesn't mean all those people weren't given a chance to achieve. Maybe i am being a little harsh, after all, i came from parents who were able to provide a nice lifestyle, and din't have to work as hard as someone from low income housing to make it to where i am. However, in this country, I believe that if there is a will, you can find a way. That alone should be the greatest aspect of the US, and there is nothing to negate that fact.