- Email: [email protected]
A cultural analysis of the rhetoric of François Mitterrand
Inlernaliond Journsl of Inrerculluml Reblions, Vol. Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.
I I, pp.279-294,
1987 Copyrght
0
0147-176707 163.00 + .oO 1987 Pergamon Journals Ltd.
A CULTURAL ANALYSIS OF THE RHETORIC OF FRANCOIS MITTERRAND
BEATRICE
K. REYNOLDS
University of Houston- Victoria ABSTRACT The purpose of the study was to analyze President Mitterrand’s political discours and allocutions (19.52-1985) as cultural products in order to determine whether they reflect his world view, including his concepts of time, values, ways of organizing information, and argumentation process. The analysis shows that relational thinking, characteristic of the French culture, is reflected in his communication pattern or style and therefore his world view and rhetoric can be described as “French.”
Francois Mitterrand made political history on May 10, 1981 when he became the first popularly elected Socialist president of France’ (“Les tres nette,” 1981, p. 1). He brings to the presidency an impressive political background, having had the longest and most varied parliamentary and political career of any French politician and President of the Fifth Republic-General Charles de Gaulle, Georges Pompidou, and Valery Giscard d’Estaing (Barrillon, 1981, pp. 4-5; Grosser, 1984). He also has distinguished himself as the only French politician and Chief of State to have made an official visit to Israel and to have publicly supported the Camp David accords; in addition, he was the first French politician to protest against the installation of the Soviet-22 missiles in Eastern Europe (Reston, 1981, p. A14). As the most famous man in France, he is portrayed as politically ambitious by French journalist Catherine Nay (1984) in Le Noire et le Rouge ou I’Histoire d’une ambition and as Gaullist in his political style by the French press2 (Besancon, 1986). To Americans in the
Requests Sciences,
for reprints should be sent to Dr. Beatrice K. Reynolds, University of Houston-Victoria, Victoria, TX 77901.
Division
of Arts and
The author appreciates the office of the Presidence de la Republique for having sent numerous copies of President Mitterrand’s speeches and interviews used in the study, and the Ambassade de France, Service de Presse dInformation, Washington, D.C. for their assistance. ‘Mitterrand defeated popular vote.
incumbent
President
Valery Giscard
d’Estaing
with 51.82%
of the
*Alain Besancon compares President Mitterrand with General de Gaulle and Louis-Napoleon. He says that both Napoleon III and Mitterrand think they derive their legitimacy of
280
Beatrice K. Reynolds
United States and to others, including the French, he remains an enigma, or as Pautard (1984) writes, President Mitterrand is the most famous unknown person in France (p. 22). As a minister, deputy, and currently President of the Fifth Republic, Mitterrand uses rhetoric or persuasive communication as a means of accomplishing his political or policy goals. Like other political leaders, he is frequently placed in intercultural and multicultural environments which have included state dinners, commemorative occasions, foreign parliaments, and congresses. Additionally, he periodically addresses the multicultural television audiences in France. International journalists who interpret his messages for public consumption in their own cultures add yet another dimension to the already complex rhetorical settings. Given the cultural diversity of the audiences, misunderstandings are bound to occur. Although the misunderstandings may be perceived as political in nature, Edmund S. Glenn (1981) hypothesizes in Man and mankind; Conflict and communication between cultures that misunderstandings occur because “different cultures organize information and develop world views in different ways” (book jacket). Only by understanding how people organize information, he says, can we “understand the product and make predictions about how an individual or a culture will react in situations” (p. 4). Thus, enhancing our knowledge of the relationship between culture and communication with the intent to alleviate intercultural misunderstandings is consequential. An analysis of President Mitterrand’s political discours and allocutions, or speeches and short addresses, as cultural products can contribute to that understanding and simultaneously provide insight into his views of the world and France’s place in it. Two questions posed here are: (a) In what ways do the speeches reflect Mitterrand’s world view, including his values, concepts of time, ways of thinking and organizing information; and (b) What, if anything, characterizes Mitterrand’s rhetoric as “French”? A cultural analysis of Mitterrand’s political rhetoric should yield data that can be used in the future for cross-cultural studies of communication patterns or styles of other prominent political figures and for determining potential areas of intercultural clash. METHOD Glenn’s paradigm, which enables one to compare and contrast different cultures and subcultures, their ways of processing information and power from history and a personal heritage. ism and the left from 1848, the Commune, was in charge of the cabinet for a year when Socialists, and Communists, was elected in the cabinet.
President Mitterrand, he says, inherited socialJaures, and Blum. Leon Blum, Socialist leader, the Front Populaire, a government of Radicals, 1936. However, in 1937, the Radicals overthrew
thinking, and their world views, has implications for interrelated disciplines such as linguistics, sociology, and politics, including the study of communication style. The paradigm will be used here to analyze President Mitterrand’s organization patterns and argumentation process, and hence his world view, as reflected in the speeches he gave from 1952 to 1985 while serving in various ministerial capacities, as deputy in the National Assembly and in the Senate, as a presidential candidate, and President of the Fifth Republic (Cotteret, Emeri, Gerstle, Moreau, 1976; Mitterrand, 1977, 1981, 1986; Roche, 1971). The speeches also will be analyzed thematically in order to determine his value orientations and concepts of time which constitute parts of his world view. Glenn’s triangular model has three polarities which describe the cognitive processes: subjectivity, co-subjectivity, and objectivity. Polarities of universalism-particularism and association-abstraction constitute the ways of thinking or ways in which information and knowledge can be organized or reorganized. Understanding these processes is crucial, for they account for the cultural differences in people’s world views. However, as Glenn notes, “all of the cognitive characteristics of the pure model are represented in every culture, but . . . in different proportions and different arrangements” (1981, p. 276). The subjective apex is dominated by an associative process of thinking in which experiences are arbitrarily tied together through space and time, and thus the organization of information is diffuse and the meanings are unclear. The communication style in this mode is characterized by an absence of definition of terms, “by appeals to feeling, by careless generalizations lacking a definitional basis, and by transduction. . . . It is neither deduction nor induction . . .” but irrational, and at times, antirational (1981, p_ 159). Associative subjectivism requires mutual understanding and an in-group sharing of experience among the communicants. The co-subjective apex suggests that meaning is created by “a broad sharing of symbols and meanings . . . ; it consists of sets of culture specific beliefs” such as myths (1981, p. 36). Terms are defined broadly and rationally; attempts may be made to validate the subjective beliefs through either presentation of logically constructed deductive arguments, or the beliefs may be demonstrated empirically. Co-subjectivity tends towards universalistic patterns of thought. Communication in this mode is characterized by generally shared premises or principles, by universal elements which include “appeals to rules, laws, codified duties, universal values, which transcend the particular situation at hand . . .” (1981, p. 159). The objective apex involves “particularistic” thought in which objects are classified or categorized and examined as components; it also involves abstractive thought, which is marked by definition of information relevant to the situation and the relationship between the informational units
282
Beatrice K. Reynolds
(1981, p. 39). Communication in this mode depends on the presentation of specific facts and induction. Glenn observes that “associative subjectivity” dominates the thinking and behaviors of European cultures (1981, p. 279). However, the French culture, he claims, achieves the “relational ideal”; the French deem equally important universals and particulars; they establish relations between the two. Universals are made to suit reality through the development and verification of them. Relational thinking, he says, insures “the participation in a common world view” and facilitates “verbal communication among the French” (1981, p. 302). Unlike the French, however, the Russians tend toward co-subjective universalism while the United States culture may be “viewed as being objectivistic, pragmatic, and neo-particularistic” in thinking; however, since President Wilson, American foreign policy is dominated by subjective-universalism (p. 3 12).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Themes A thematic analysis is important in any study such as this which treats rhetoric as a cultural artifact. The themes in Mitterrand’s speeches reflect the current conditions and the growing strength of the Socialist Party in France, and they often are interrelated with issues, principles, and values. When developed as ideas and arguments, they suggest his world view; they also give insight into the concerns of the French governments as well as Mitterrand’s own political stance, including that of the Socialist Party in France. Thus at one level, the development of the themes constitute the basis for political clash; yet at another level, they are potential areas for intercultural misunderstandings. President Mitterrand’s presidential rhetoric on foreign policy and defense focuses on five interrelated subjects: independence, balance of military power, construction of Europe, human rights, and the development of poor countries. Recurring themes which President Mitterrand developed in his presidential addresses and in previous speeches focus on the nation, human rights, and socialism. Included among these themes are peace, disarmament, liberty, cooperation, justice, fe bonheur,’ and the French and France’s place in the world. As a presidential candidate in 1965, 1974, and 1981, he espoused his 3.k bonheur is difficult to translate into English. Mktraux and Mead write that le bonheur “carries combined meanings of welfare, felicity, good fortune, etc.” Rhoda M&raux and Margaret Mead, Themes in French Culture A Preface to Study of a French Community, Hoover Institute Studies, No. 1. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, (1954) p. 27.
A Cultural Analysis
283
vision of France and the kind of Chief of State France should have in order to achieve that vision. In his campaign against General de Gaulle in 1965, he presented himself as the antithesis to de Gaulle, using as his campaign themes progress, solidarity, and being responsible. In a speech he gave December 3, 1965, which Manceron (1966, p. 242) considers one of Mitterrand’s best, Mitterrand asked the constituents to choose between an old candidate and a young one; a soldier who incarcerated the honor of France and a man from a generation who had accepted his duties to fight, who had been a prisoner of war and in the French Resistance; disorder and stability; the current regime or coalition of parties. The political choice he offered the citizens, he said, signified a new policy in government, a change of habits and will, of independence, of justice instead of arbitrariness, liberty for the trade unions instead of a return of privileges, a unified structure, and disarmament. He concluded his speech by saying that believing in justice and le bonheur was the message of the left (Mitterrand, 1977, p. 431; Roche, 1971, p. 260). In his campaign of 1974 against Valery Giscard d’Estaing, he asked the constituents to choose between the past and the bourgeois class, represented by Giscard d’Estaing, and the future and socialism, which he represented (Roche, 1971). Mitterrand developed his campaign around the broad theme of France and its place in the world while focusing specifically on peace, justice, equality, liberty, national independence and unity, the unification and construction of Europe. Essentially, he wanted a more just, free, and responsible society (Cotteret et al., 1976, pp. 70-78). As Cotteret writes, Mitterrand presented himself as the liberator of the French, the securer of harmony, and the agent of change (pp. 73, 78, 107); his campaign slogan could easily have been libertk, egalitk, fraternitt (p. 78). When Mitterrand campaigned against Giscard d’Estaing again in 198 1, he made socialism a key issue, and he continued to develop the related themes of justice, liberty, a world at peace, social harmony, peaceful coexistence, le bonheur, security, unemployment, and national solidarity.
Values Once developed as ideas and arguments, the themes suggest President Mitterrand’s value orientations, his concepts of time, and ultimately his world view as well as his visions for France and Europe. His societal orientation and political bent are indicated by various values which dominate his discourse: social harmony, peace, le bonheur, social justice, solidarity in Europe, brotherhood, friendship, cooperation, and national security. Not only do these values show him to be a socialist, which is to be expected, but his emphasis on such values as liberty, self-determination, and human rights demonstrate that he is humanitarian. That he is a
Beatrice K. Reynolds
284
nationalist is evidenced by the dominant values specifically identified with the nation such as will, unity, recognition, and independence. Mitterrand’s value orientations are conceptualized in his view of a French society which is just, free from people’s exploitation of each other, and one that guarantees personal and collective liberties. Social harmony and fraternitk, which he sees as integrated with le bonheur, exist in the society. For the French to have ie bonheur as well as freedoms, they must be employed. Thus liberty, le bonheur, and employment are interrelated. Individuals have responsibilities to themselves and to others, as do the politicians, the President of the Republic, and the Prime Minister. The roles and functions of the Chief of State, the regimes, and the Constitutions all are important, and Mitterrand’s development of them suggests that he values legalistic mechanisms that enable the government to be faithful to the will of the people, which he also values. Mitterrand’s concept of France is located in I’mit&, la nation, and la patrie, or unity, the nation, and the fatherland (Cotteret et al., 1976, p. 78). Mitterrand is very proud of France, its accomplishments, and its people. He values national unity, for it is through unification that national strength is derived and social harmony is more likely to be achieved. National recognition and economic independence also are valued, for without them, France will be unable to recapture the grandeur it once had, and it will be unable to reestablish its position in the world and in Europe. The grandeur of France is contingent on a world at peace and its friendship with European nations, especially with its neighbor, West Germany. In essence, France can once again be the model nation of fruternitri: egalitk, and libert& and one worthy of being emulated, as it was in the past. In his televised speech in Moscow, June 22, 1984 (%a visite du president,” 1984, p. 3), Mitterrand succinctly summarized some of these values when he told the Russians that both Russia and France have written remarkable pages in European history. When he spoke about France, he called it a land of culture, a refuge, a cradle of humanistic and revolutionary rights, a country of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, and of liberties. President Mitterrand is proud to be French; he also is proud to be European. As a presidential candidate, he had a vision of France; as president, he has a “global vision of Europe,” of its grandeur, and its place in the world. To him, geography, history, time, and space bind together Europeans as a community and make it possible for Europe to strive toward achieving the vision. Concepts
of
Time
Mitterrand’s perceptions of the past, present, and future are important rhetorically and interculturally. The past as conceptualized and realized
A Cultural Analysis
285
in l’histoire provides the cultural basis for traditions and culturally shared beliefs or universals from which Mitterrand reasons, and a context from which the French, if not others, can learn valuable lessons. Of major importance to Mitterrand and the French is the eighteenth-century French Revolution, from which the seeds of democracy and socialism were sown. He frequently alludes to the Revolution and other significant historical periods, citing events to support his claims and reminding the audience of its rich cultural heritage, to be borne in the present. In addition, he alludes to the great literary and political geniuses of France who exemplify French cultural history and whose thoughts still have a place in contemporary France: Gambetta, Clemenceau, Louis Blanc, Pascal, Voltaire, Corneille, Racine, and Victor Hugo, to name a few. The present is uncertain; its roots lay in the past, which is revered. The past is knowable, immutable, certain; it is valued even more so, for the grandeur of France was part of the past. Thus the past links and binds the present to it; similarly, the past links the French and France to other European countries. Their mutual historical past becomes common ground and one which President Mitterrand uses effectively. For example, when President Mitterrand spoke of past France-German relations, as he did to the Bundestag in Bonn, West Germany, January 20, 1983, (Mitterrand, 1986, pp. 183-209), he emphasized the positive aspects of European history shared by both countries. He said that their past relations were strained, yet France and Germany also shared “prodigious series of inventions and cultural, literary, artistic, philosophical, economical, and technological research. The centuries have witnessed and beamed with joy at leaving Europe an immense civilization, ours, with its own genius” (p. 186).
C’est tome une histoire, celle de Europe, qui accompagne les tourments des relations franco-allemandes avec prodigieux, cortege d’inventions et des recherches culturelles, litteraires, spirituelles, artistiques, philosophiques, economiques, technologiques. Les siecles ont vu naitre et rayonner a partir a 1’Europe une immense civilization, la notre, avec son propre genie. (p. 186)
At the Kremlin, June 21, 1984, Mitterrand (1986, pp. 161-170) told the Russians that France and Russia are among those nations whose roots are the oldest and the deepest. However, history intervened to prevent the countries from fighting one another. Rares ont et&les moments au tours des siecles ou nous nous sommes affront&, et lorsque ces affrontements se sont produits, le mouvement nature1 de 1’Histoire les a aussitot surmontes, effaces, avant de nous reunir jusques et y compris dans la fraternite d’armes. (p. 162) (Rare are the moments in the course of centuries when we confronted one another and when these confrontations occurred, the natural course of history immediately surmounted them, unobtrusive, up to and including in the fellowship of arms.)
For President Mitterrand, l’histoire is an important force and its impact
286
Beatrice K. Reynolds
is consequential. Speaking at the p/ace Carnot in Carcasonne, June 25, 1985 (“M. Mitterrand appelle,” 1985, p. lo), he told an audience of 3,000 that he was faithful to his convictions and his concept of society, and said that he felt the burden of a great history. The future is not arguable, since it is tenuous and unpredictable, yet one should know what it ought to be in order to prepare for it. Envisioning the future is possible, as is the possibility of changing its course. Le destin and I’avenir, or destiny and the future, are associated with social and political progress. Only the left can direct and structure the future; the left also can create a society which is orderly and just, and one in which individual and collective rights can be exercised responsibly, and people can achieve a happy life. Speaking to the National Assembly on May 22, 1968, Mitterrand (19’77, pp. 488-492) evoked the past in an effort to instill hope in a future that present-day ills would be corrected. He reminded the deputies that a new alliance of socialism and liberty was brought about by the heirs of 1789, the bloody battles of the nineteenth and first part of the twentieth century. “But in the name of Liberty,” he asked, “what are we doing?” (p. 490). He responded by saying that through the democratization of education each child will be given a chance in life, the right of information will be written into the Constitution, individual liberties will be protected, and there will be a balance of power which the people have not experienced in ten years. He concluded by telling the deputies that the new majority, the left, is capable of returning confidence and hope to those who doubt and to those who are suffering (p. 490).
Organization of Information
and Argumentation
Process
Mitterrand’s themes, values, and concepts of time derive their persuasive power through the overall structure of the message, and the reasoning process. Mitterrand’s rhetorical methodology, reminiscent of the 18th century French revolutionary orator Pierre Vergniaud, is clearly neoclassical and reflects aspects of the French culture. His speeches, which he wrote himself,” can be described as elegant literary compositions, formalistic and doctrinaire, depending on the exigencies of the moment. His modus u~e~~~di may be explained by considering specific aspects of the French educational system and his educational training. Glenn (198 1) notes that the French educational system neglects “neither universals nor particulars,” for the French children are taught “universal concepts” as models or paradigms and principles, which they personalize in their usage (p. 305). Wylie’s (1974) description of a young French student being
4President Mitterrand’s press attach&e President writes his own speeches.
wrote
the researcher,
February
4, 1986, that
the
A Cultural Analysis
287
taught literature also is helpful here, for it attempts to explain how the child is taught to analyze in detail the text in order to comprehend the relationship of the parts to the whole, or the relational way of thinking, which Glenn says characterizes the French culture’s way of thinking and organizing information. Such training in contextual analysis and thought patterns are evident in Mitterrand’s speeches. The text is first broken down into its logical divisions, and the author’s purpose in each division is explained. Difficult or obscure words and expressions are explained. Only when each of the component parts of a passage is understood and when the relationship of each part to the whole is made clear is the passage put back together again. (p. 74)
Mitterrand’s academic interests and educational background undoubtedly influenced his rhetorical methodology as well. Educated at the College Saint-Paul in Angoul&me, he did extremely well in political science and economics (Nay, 1984, p. 60). He told journalist Paul Gi!bert in an interview that he likes what is written: language, philology, grammar (Mitterrand, 1981, p. 14). He thinks true literature is the exact correspondence of the word to the thing, and he prefers the writer who knows how to say what he sees. He attributed his attitude to having been educated in the classical school where French essays and recitations in Latin taught him rhetorical figures, which he said, influenced his style. His country and his boyhood background were additional influences, he said, which produced other writers who adopted the same language and style. Literature and political science continued to interest him as a young university student of law at the Sorbonne and Sciences-PO in Paris. Hence, that Mitterrand clearly states his opening remarks, gives force to his ideas and arguments through his use of rhetorical questions, rhetorical figures such as anaphora, asyndeton, antithesis, balanced sentences, and rhetorical techniques such as enumeration and repetition is not unique, since effective communicators in Western Civilization with a neo-classical educational background can be expected to do likewise. What is of interest from a cultural perspective are the ways in which he organizes his ideas and arguments. Characteristic of Mitterrand’s deliberative rhetoric especially, which is formal in style, is his use of rhetorical questions and/or the enumeration of them as a means of separating a speech into distinct parts, suggestive of the partes system taught in Roman rhetoric. These divisions permit Mitterrand to categorize and clarify information relative to the major issues he develops, thus enabling the auditors to follow his reasoning more efficaciously. Culturally, the organization pattern reflects the manner in which the French are taught to analyze and organize information units and the influence of his classical education. The system of classification also is at the core of France’s legal system (Glenn, 1981, p. 306).
288
Beatrice K. ~ey~otds
According to Glenn’s (198 1) model, the polarities of universalism-particularism and association-abstraction are ways of thinking and organizing information which account for cultural differences in world views. The French culture, he claims, achieves the “relational ideal” because it falls between the two apexes: universalism and neoparticularism, which is “the focusing on particulars joined with an awareness of categories and of the logic of classes” (p. 39). An excerpt from a speech which Mitterrand (1977, pp. 99-loo), then Minister of Interior, gave to the Algerian Assembly in Algiers, October 19, 1954, demonstrates his relational reasoning process in which he integrates his values: democracy, the greatest happiness for the greatest number, duty, national unity. Speaking on decolonization, a subject which dominated the debates in the mid-1950s, Mitterrand, prudently a liberal and a reformist on Black Africa and Algeria at the time (Nay, 1984, p. 212), defended the government’s enforcement of the statute of 1947 in North Africa and proclaimed the rights to a decent life, education, professional development, trade, exercise of liberties, and responsibilities of men (“M. Mitterrand demande,” 1954, p. 4). A definition of what constituted the French Republic was crucial to his defense of the government’s policy in Algeria. His case rested on that definition, from which he argued deductively and for which he used the Constitution as proof. The law itself was applied specifically to Algeria. “What is the French Republic?” he asked rhetorically. According to the Constitution, he said, the territory of the metropole (mother country), which consists of the departements of Algeria and the dkpartements and territories of France d’outre-Mer . . . (p. 100). Then he asked about the French citizen who did not find exciting the task of participating in the future of Algeria. Democracy, Mitterrand said, must assure more joy, more happiness, and more will to participate in common ownership to a greater number of people, without which nothing has meaning. He concluded by assuring them that human hope in “our name” was a sacred, fundamental right of all French. By November 1, 1954, the Algerians were openly revolting against France. Mitterrand delivered another important speech on decolonization of North Africa and Algeria to the National Assembly on November 12, 1954 (Mitterrand, 1977, pp. 101-109; “M. Mitterand: les measures,” 1954, pp. 14-15) in which he again clarified France’s policy. He first stated that this intent was “le deroulement des faits” or the unraveling the facts-a way of categorizing his information; he then proceeded to discuss the events that had occurred from the night of October 31 to November 1, 1954: sabotage of the channels of communication, fires, bombings, deaths, all of which he termed terrorist action, crystallized a most serious situation. Morocco and Tunisia experienced terrorism in the same way, he said. Using the same method of reasoning as in his speech of
A Cultural
Analysis
289
October 19, he argued that “. . . Algeria is French because the dkpartements of Algeria are the dkpartements of the French Republic” (p. 103). Although French laws are applied differently from Flanders to the Congo, nonetheless, he said, the law is French; it is what the people voted for, because there is only one Parlement and one nation of territories of the Outre’Mer as with the dkpartements of Algeria (p. 103). Not only is it the rule of France, he said, but it is imposed by the French in the Constitution, which conforms to their will. It is “our truth, the basis of our policy” (p. 104). Likewise, the relational pattern of thinking dominates President Mitterrand’s (1986) speeches on foreign policy and defense in which he argues predominately from principles or rules including France’s independence from its allies; the people’s right to choose their own destiny, to remain independent, to exist and have the means for their existence; noninterference of one country in another, except where human rights are concerned.’ These principles are the bases for France’s foreign policy, which he says inspires “a global vision of Europe.” The universals are truths, at least to the French, and are presented as such. They are developed and validated through historical events and facts, the last two World Wars, as well as aspects of the historical past which bind together the Europeans as a community. For example, on September 28, 1983, he told the United Nations of France’s intention to use its nuclear weapons to insure its own defense, “nothing more, nothing less” (p. 222). He supported the principle of non-interference as part of France’s defense policy by saying that the events of World War II necessitated its application. His argumentation process can be demonstrated further by the following four examples. President Mitterrand (1986) explained the principles of non-interference and the right of each nation and State to make its own decisions as basic to French foreign policy when he spoke to the Popular National Algerian Assembly in Algiers, December 1, 1981 (pp. 321-334). He told the Assembly that “French foreign policy . . . rests on the simple idea that each people and state can and must freely choose its system of social justice, leaders, alliances, and system without outside interference” (p. 326). Mitterrand discussed France’s policy in accordance with these principles which he applied to Chad, South Africa, and western Sahara, repeating that “Chaque peuple a le droit de se determiner lui-mCme,” or that every nation has the right to make up its own mind itself (p. 330). Mitterrand then applied the principle of the right to exist and the security and means of existence to the Arab-Israeli conflict. SPresident Mitterrand’s press attachee wrote the researcher, February 4, 1986, that his most important speeches were published in his recent book, Rkf/exions SW tupotifique exrhkwre de la France.
290
Beatrice K. Reynolds
Et cela suppose aussi qu’aucun peuple ne soit exclu d’une patrie; et quand on a une patrie, on y choisit ce que l’on veut, c’est-a-dire I’on y b&tit des structures institutionnelles de son choix . . . que le droit mutuel soit reconnu, que les peupies vivent et qu’ils se determinent . (p. 33 1) (And that assumes also that any people cannot be excluded from a country; and when one has a country, one chooses there what one wants, meaning that one builds there the institutional structures of one’s choice . . . that the mutual right is recognized, that the people live and they make up their own minds.) However, when he told the Israeli parliament in Jerusalem, March 4, I982, that the Arab-Israeli conflict could be resolved, were the Arab
countries to recognize Israel’s right to exist and the means for its security and were Israel to recognize that the Palestinians should have a homeland, Prime Minister Begin considered Mitterrand’s position on the Palestinian state a principal obstacle in friendship in the future with France (“M. Mitterand devant le Parlement,” 1982, p_ 1). President Mitterrand (1986, pp. 313-321) addressed the principles of human rights also in his speech in Mexico at the Monument of the Revolution, October 21, 1981; he inspired the peoples in the Third World and, especially, Latin America, by offering hope and support to those fighting to regain their national dignity and freedom. His two messages were: there can be no political stability without social justice, and there can be no real economic growth without preservation of national dignity, of cultural origin (p. 316). He argued for the application of the same rule, the same right of non-interference, free determination of the people, peaceful solutions for conflicts, and a new international order (pp. 317-318). Then he expressed a moral principle which is codified in France. Not helping someone in danger is a serious offense in France, he said, but not yet the case of international law. “But it is a moral and political mistake which already has cost too many dead and too much sorrow to too many abandoned people. . . .” (pp. 317-3 18). Addressing the Bundestag in Bonn, January 20, 1983, on the 20th anniversary of the France-German Treaty, President Mitterrand reaffirmed France’s desire for peace in Europe, defined a strategy for Western security, and criticized the Russians for having installed the 35-20 medium range missiles in Eastern Europe. He told the parliamentarians that France’s principle of independence was essential to its sovereignty, which was why France could not participate in the discussions on nuclear weapons in Geneva. He said that peace was possible only through negotiation. He then discussed the European community, saying that it rested on two principles, from which he reasoned deductively: “internal unity and common identity vis-a-vis the other countries” for without unity of Europe, the States will only be isolated. Without an identity outside Europe, we would disappear into a vague zone of free exchange” (1986, p. 199). He proposed and defined four principles which, when applied, would be the
A Cultural Analysis
291
basis for Europe’s success: “‘unity of the market, community preference, development of common policies, solidarity” (p. 200). German Chancellor Helmut Kohn expressed satisfaction with President Mitterand’s conditions for peace, but German socialists thought the French President was too militaristic (“L’Avenir de la securitt,” 1983, p. 1; “Les socialistes,” 1983, p. 1). In a banquet speech at the Kremlim, June 21, 1984, President Mitterrand spoke frankly about France’s defense policy, outlining the conditions of peace. He reiterated France’s commitment to democracy and principles involving human rights, about which he spoke strongly, and of the exiled dissident, Andrei D. Sakharov. France, a democracy, guarantees the rights of each person, and it believes in its principles and thinks they constitute the strongest guarantee of peace, justice, and liberty, he said (Mitterrand, 1986, p. 164). He also criticized Soviet policy in Afghanistan, Poland, and Cambodia. Pravda censored these comments and the reference to Sakharov (“La visite du president,” 1984, p. 3).
CONCLUSIONS President Mitterrand’s world view is French; his relational mode of thinking is reflected in his discours and allocutions, 1952-1985, by his systematic analysis and categorization of information and his argumentation process. Universals and particulars are equally important; they are related, and he treats them as such, developing and verifying the universals or principles from which he reasons, thus suiting them to reality. His world view undoubtedly influenced his perceptions of France and Europe and himself as an agent of change, as demonstrated by the thematic analysis. France is shown in conflict, along with its struggles and aspirations, as it strives as a nation to cling to its colonial posts while also striving to achieve a more democratic Republic and a just, free, harmonious, fraternal, and responsible society. Values also are in conflict; they are debated at the tribune and during the presidential campaigns; framed as principles, they constitute the national bases for France’s current position on defense and foreign policy. However, President Mitterrand’s relational mode of thinking is evidenced even more fully in France’s defense and foreign policies. Mitterrand sees France as a nation independent, autonomous, and free from outside interference in its decision-making process. Thus France chooses to make its own decisions without succumbing to pressures. Yet, France is geographically and historically a part of the European community, as are the other European states. France’s survival depends on its relations within that community, and therefore it seeks the ways and means to maintain its ties of friendship. A world at peace is certainly a most important goal
Beatrice K. Reynolds
292
of France, if not of Europe and the world, as it is the chief means of preserving life everywhere. In sum, in President Mitterrand’s world view, France is both separate and a part of the greater whole-Europe and the European community. Relations exist between the two; they are rationalized and realized in his discours and allocutions and in France’s policies and actions. Within this broad context, President Mitterrand as a political rhetor, is shaping France’s future. Bourgeois-born and socialist, President Mitterrand symbolizes what is France and French-its culture, traditions, neoclassical rhetorical and literary eloquence, regality, the lofty ideals and principles for which French revolutionaries fought and died. In essence, President Mitterrand is France incarnate, emerging as a new voice of France, if not of Europe-a voice of libertk, egalitk, fraterniti, - bringing hope to the French and other Europeans for a better and happier life and visions which include the restoration of France and Europe to the grandeur they once had, making France respected again as a nation, so it can become an important force in Europe and the world, and Europe, a respected community of nations. As a political rhetor, President Mitterrand’s world view, like that of other political leaders, needs to be understood from a cultural perspective, if intercultural misunderstandings are to be avoided or minimized. Communication patterns are learned in a cultural context and therefore generate meaning; how one communicates is as important as what one says. Thus it appears that a communicator who wishes to be effective in intercultural and/or multicultural transactions should adapt the message to the world view of the listener, accounting for the cultural differences in cognitive processes.
REFERENCES BARRILLON, Republique.
R. (1981, May 12). Une riche carritre
ministerielle
sous la IVe
Le Monde pp.4-5.
BESANCON, A. (1986, January 24). Le Prince president. COTTERET,
J. M., EMERI
L’Express, p. 15. J., MOREAU, R. (1976). Giscard convaincre. Paris: Presses Universitaires
C., GERSTLE,
d’Estaing-Mitterrand 54774 motspour
de France. Excerpts from interview with Francois Mitterrand. (1981, June 4). The New York Times, p. A14. GLENN, E. S. (1981). Man and mankind: Conflict and communication between cultures. NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. GROSSER, A. (1984, September 28). Mitterrand globe-trotter. L’Express, p. 15. L’Avenir de la securite europeene. (1983, January 22). Le Monde, pp. 1, 3. La visite due president de la republique en union sovietique. (1984, June 24). Le Monde, p. 3.
A Cultural Analysis
293
Les socialistes allemands se demarquent des theses de M. Mitterrand sur la securite. (1983, January 23). LeMonde, pp. 1, 3. Les tres nette victoire de M. Francois Mitterrand va au-de18 du rassemblement de toute la gauche et aggrave les divisions de la majorite sortante. (1981, May 12). Le Monde, pp. 1,48. MANCERON, C. (1966). Cent milles voixparjour. Paris: Robert Laffont. M. Mitterrand appelle les Francois a se rassembler ‘autour de la modernisation du pay.’ (1985, June 27). Le Monde, p. 10. M. Mitterrand devant le Parlement de Jerusalem. (1982, March 5). Le Monde, PP. 1,4. M. Mitterrand demande aux Algeriens d’accroitre leur participation a cette entreprise. (1954, October 21). Le Monde, p. 4. M. Mitterrand: les mesures militaires seront developpees, mais elles ne suffisent pas. (1954, November 14-15). Le Monde, p. 3. MITTERRAND, F. (1977). Politique. Paris: Artheme Fayard. MITTERRAND, F. (1981). Politique 2. Paris: Artheme Fayard. MITTERRAND, F. (1986). Reflexions sur la politique extt?rieure de la France. Paris: Artheme Fayard. NAY, C. (1984). Le noire et le rouge ou I’historie d’une ambition. Paris: Bernard Grosset. PAUTARD, A. (1984, October 26). Le miroir du president. L’Express, p. 22. RESTON, J. (1981, June 4). Mitterrand says West must step up efforts for world security. The New York Times, pp. 1, 14. ROCHE, J. (1971). Style de candidates ir I’a presidence de la rkpublique 1965-1969. Toulouse: Edouard Privat. WYLIE, L. (1974). Village in the tiucluse. (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
ABSTRACT
TRANSLATIONS
L’intention de 1’6tude etait d’analyser les discours et les allocutions (1952-1985) politiques de President Mitterrand comme les produits culturels pour dkterminer s’ comprenant ses concepts ils rkflectent son vision du monde, de mani&re de organizer l’information de valeurs. de temps, L’analyse demontre que le et le processus d’argument. processus de penser en termes de relations, characteristique de la culture franqaise, se reflkcte en sa forme et son style de communication et done son vision du monde et sa rhetorique se peuvent descrire comme (Author-supplied abstract) “frangaise. ” El propbsito de1 estudio fue analizar 10s discursos politicos y oratoria de1 Presidente Mitterrand (1952-19851 coma productos culturales para determinar si reflejan su incluyendo sus conceptos de1 tiempo, visi6n de1 mundo, valores, maneras de organizar information y procesos de El analisis demuestra que el proceso de argumentation. pensar en tdrminos relativisticos, caracteristica de la se refleja en su forma o estilo de cultura francesa, comunicacidn y por lo tanto su visibn de1 mundo y ret6rica se pueden describir coma “francesas.” (Author-supplied abstract 1
I I, pp.279-294,
1987 Copyrght
0
0147-176707 163.00 + .oO 1987 Pergamon Journals Ltd.
A CULTURAL ANALYSIS OF THE RHETORIC OF FRANCOIS MITTERRAND
BEATRICE
K. REYNOLDS
University of Houston- Victoria ABSTRACT The purpose of the study was to analyze President Mitterrand’s political discours and allocutions (19.52-1985) as cultural products in order to determine whether they reflect his world view, including his concepts of time, values, ways of organizing information, and argumentation process. The analysis shows that relational thinking, characteristic of the French culture, is reflected in his communication pattern or style and therefore his world view and rhetoric can be described as “French.”
Francois Mitterrand made political history on May 10, 1981 when he became the first popularly elected Socialist president of France’ (“Les tres nette,” 1981, p. 1). He brings to the presidency an impressive political background, having had the longest and most varied parliamentary and political career of any French politician and President of the Fifth Republic-General Charles de Gaulle, Georges Pompidou, and Valery Giscard d’Estaing (Barrillon, 1981, pp. 4-5; Grosser, 1984). He also has distinguished himself as the only French politician and Chief of State to have made an official visit to Israel and to have publicly supported the Camp David accords; in addition, he was the first French politician to protest against the installation of the Soviet-22 missiles in Eastern Europe (Reston, 1981, p. A14). As the most famous man in France, he is portrayed as politically ambitious by French journalist Catherine Nay (1984) in Le Noire et le Rouge ou I’Histoire d’une ambition and as Gaullist in his political style by the French press2 (Besancon, 1986). To Americans in the
Requests Sciences,
for reprints should be sent to Dr. Beatrice K. Reynolds, University of Houston-Victoria, Victoria, TX 77901.
Division
of Arts and
The author appreciates the office of the Presidence de la Republique for having sent numerous copies of President Mitterrand’s speeches and interviews used in the study, and the Ambassade de France, Service de Presse dInformation, Washington, D.C. for their assistance. ‘Mitterrand defeated popular vote.
incumbent
President
Valery Giscard
d’Estaing
with 51.82%
of the
*Alain Besancon compares President Mitterrand with General de Gaulle and Louis-Napoleon. He says that both Napoleon III and Mitterrand think they derive their legitimacy of
280
Beatrice K. Reynolds
United States and to others, including the French, he remains an enigma, or as Pautard (1984) writes, President Mitterrand is the most famous unknown person in France (p. 22). As a minister, deputy, and currently President of the Fifth Republic, Mitterrand uses rhetoric or persuasive communication as a means of accomplishing his political or policy goals. Like other political leaders, he is frequently placed in intercultural and multicultural environments which have included state dinners, commemorative occasions, foreign parliaments, and congresses. Additionally, he periodically addresses the multicultural television audiences in France. International journalists who interpret his messages for public consumption in their own cultures add yet another dimension to the already complex rhetorical settings. Given the cultural diversity of the audiences, misunderstandings are bound to occur. Although the misunderstandings may be perceived as political in nature, Edmund S. Glenn (1981) hypothesizes in Man and mankind; Conflict and communication between cultures that misunderstandings occur because “different cultures organize information and develop world views in different ways” (book jacket). Only by understanding how people organize information, he says, can we “understand the product and make predictions about how an individual or a culture will react in situations” (p. 4). Thus, enhancing our knowledge of the relationship between culture and communication with the intent to alleviate intercultural misunderstandings is consequential. An analysis of President Mitterrand’s political discours and allocutions, or speeches and short addresses, as cultural products can contribute to that understanding and simultaneously provide insight into his views of the world and France’s place in it. Two questions posed here are: (a) In what ways do the speeches reflect Mitterrand’s world view, including his values, concepts of time, ways of thinking and organizing information; and (b) What, if anything, characterizes Mitterrand’s rhetoric as “French”? A cultural analysis of Mitterrand’s political rhetoric should yield data that can be used in the future for cross-cultural studies of communication patterns or styles of other prominent political figures and for determining potential areas of intercultural clash. METHOD Glenn’s paradigm, which enables one to compare and contrast different cultures and subcultures, their ways of processing information and power from history and a personal heritage. ism and the left from 1848, the Commune, was in charge of the cabinet for a year when Socialists, and Communists, was elected in the cabinet.
President Mitterrand, he says, inherited socialJaures, and Blum. Leon Blum, Socialist leader, the Front Populaire, a government of Radicals, 1936. However, in 1937, the Radicals overthrew
thinking, and their world views, has implications for interrelated disciplines such as linguistics, sociology, and politics, including the study of communication style. The paradigm will be used here to analyze President Mitterrand’s organization patterns and argumentation process, and hence his world view, as reflected in the speeches he gave from 1952 to 1985 while serving in various ministerial capacities, as deputy in the National Assembly and in the Senate, as a presidential candidate, and President of the Fifth Republic (Cotteret, Emeri, Gerstle, Moreau, 1976; Mitterrand, 1977, 1981, 1986; Roche, 1971). The speeches also will be analyzed thematically in order to determine his value orientations and concepts of time which constitute parts of his world view. Glenn’s triangular model has three polarities which describe the cognitive processes: subjectivity, co-subjectivity, and objectivity. Polarities of universalism-particularism and association-abstraction constitute the ways of thinking or ways in which information and knowledge can be organized or reorganized. Understanding these processes is crucial, for they account for the cultural differences in people’s world views. However, as Glenn notes, “all of the cognitive characteristics of the pure model are represented in every culture, but . . . in different proportions and different arrangements” (1981, p. 276). The subjective apex is dominated by an associative process of thinking in which experiences are arbitrarily tied together through space and time, and thus the organization of information is diffuse and the meanings are unclear. The communication style in this mode is characterized by an absence of definition of terms, “by appeals to feeling, by careless generalizations lacking a definitional basis, and by transduction. . . . It is neither deduction nor induction . . .” but irrational, and at times, antirational (1981, p_ 159). Associative subjectivism requires mutual understanding and an in-group sharing of experience among the communicants. The co-subjective apex suggests that meaning is created by “a broad sharing of symbols and meanings . . . ; it consists of sets of culture specific beliefs” such as myths (1981, p. 36). Terms are defined broadly and rationally; attempts may be made to validate the subjective beliefs through either presentation of logically constructed deductive arguments, or the beliefs may be demonstrated empirically. Co-subjectivity tends towards universalistic patterns of thought. Communication in this mode is characterized by generally shared premises or principles, by universal elements which include “appeals to rules, laws, codified duties, universal values, which transcend the particular situation at hand . . .” (1981, p. 159). The objective apex involves “particularistic” thought in which objects are classified or categorized and examined as components; it also involves abstractive thought, which is marked by definition of information relevant to the situation and the relationship between the informational units
282
Beatrice K. Reynolds
(1981, p. 39). Communication in this mode depends on the presentation of specific facts and induction. Glenn observes that “associative subjectivity” dominates the thinking and behaviors of European cultures (1981, p. 279). However, the French culture, he claims, achieves the “relational ideal”; the French deem equally important universals and particulars; they establish relations between the two. Universals are made to suit reality through the development and verification of them. Relational thinking, he says, insures “the participation in a common world view” and facilitates “verbal communication among the French” (1981, p. 302). Unlike the French, however, the Russians tend toward co-subjective universalism while the United States culture may be “viewed as being objectivistic, pragmatic, and neo-particularistic” in thinking; however, since President Wilson, American foreign policy is dominated by subjective-universalism (p. 3 12).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Themes A thematic analysis is important in any study such as this which treats rhetoric as a cultural artifact. The themes in Mitterrand’s speeches reflect the current conditions and the growing strength of the Socialist Party in France, and they often are interrelated with issues, principles, and values. When developed as ideas and arguments, they suggest his world view; they also give insight into the concerns of the French governments as well as Mitterrand’s own political stance, including that of the Socialist Party in France. Thus at one level, the development of the themes constitute the basis for political clash; yet at another level, they are potential areas for intercultural misunderstandings. President Mitterrand’s presidential rhetoric on foreign policy and defense focuses on five interrelated subjects: independence, balance of military power, construction of Europe, human rights, and the development of poor countries. Recurring themes which President Mitterrand developed in his presidential addresses and in previous speeches focus on the nation, human rights, and socialism. Included among these themes are peace, disarmament, liberty, cooperation, justice, fe bonheur,’ and the French and France’s place in the world. As a presidential candidate in 1965, 1974, and 1981, he espoused his 3.k bonheur is difficult to translate into English. Mktraux and Mead write that le bonheur “carries combined meanings of welfare, felicity, good fortune, etc.” Rhoda M&raux and Margaret Mead, Themes in French Culture A Preface to Study of a French Community, Hoover Institute Studies, No. 1. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, (1954) p. 27.
A Cultural Analysis
283
vision of France and the kind of Chief of State France should have in order to achieve that vision. In his campaign against General de Gaulle in 1965, he presented himself as the antithesis to de Gaulle, using as his campaign themes progress, solidarity, and being responsible. In a speech he gave December 3, 1965, which Manceron (1966, p. 242) considers one of Mitterrand’s best, Mitterrand asked the constituents to choose between an old candidate and a young one; a soldier who incarcerated the honor of France and a man from a generation who had accepted his duties to fight, who had been a prisoner of war and in the French Resistance; disorder and stability; the current regime or coalition of parties. The political choice he offered the citizens, he said, signified a new policy in government, a change of habits and will, of independence, of justice instead of arbitrariness, liberty for the trade unions instead of a return of privileges, a unified structure, and disarmament. He concluded his speech by saying that believing in justice and le bonheur was the message of the left (Mitterrand, 1977, p. 431; Roche, 1971, p. 260). In his campaign of 1974 against Valery Giscard d’Estaing, he asked the constituents to choose between the past and the bourgeois class, represented by Giscard d’Estaing, and the future and socialism, which he represented (Roche, 1971). Mitterrand developed his campaign around the broad theme of France and its place in the world while focusing specifically on peace, justice, equality, liberty, national independence and unity, the unification and construction of Europe. Essentially, he wanted a more just, free, and responsible society (Cotteret et al., 1976, pp. 70-78). As Cotteret writes, Mitterrand presented himself as the liberator of the French, the securer of harmony, and the agent of change (pp. 73, 78, 107); his campaign slogan could easily have been libertk, egalitk, fraternitt (p. 78). When Mitterrand campaigned against Giscard d’Estaing again in 198 1, he made socialism a key issue, and he continued to develop the related themes of justice, liberty, a world at peace, social harmony, peaceful coexistence, le bonheur, security, unemployment, and national solidarity.
Values Once developed as ideas and arguments, the themes suggest President Mitterrand’s value orientations, his concepts of time, and ultimately his world view as well as his visions for France and Europe. His societal orientation and political bent are indicated by various values which dominate his discourse: social harmony, peace, le bonheur, social justice, solidarity in Europe, brotherhood, friendship, cooperation, and national security. Not only do these values show him to be a socialist, which is to be expected, but his emphasis on such values as liberty, self-determination, and human rights demonstrate that he is humanitarian. That he is a
Beatrice K. Reynolds
284
nationalist is evidenced by the dominant values specifically identified with the nation such as will, unity, recognition, and independence. Mitterrand’s value orientations are conceptualized in his view of a French society which is just, free from people’s exploitation of each other, and one that guarantees personal and collective liberties. Social harmony and fraternitk, which he sees as integrated with le bonheur, exist in the society. For the French to have ie bonheur as well as freedoms, they must be employed. Thus liberty, le bonheur, and employment are interrelated. Individuals have responsibilities to themselves and to others, as do the politicians, the President of the Republic, and the Prime Minister. The roles and functions of the Chief of State, the regimes, and the Constitutions all are important, and Mitterrand’s development of them suggests that he values legalistic mechanisms that enable the government to be faithful to the will of the people, which he also values. Mitterrand’s concept of France is located in I’mit&, la nation, and la patrie, or unity, the nation, and the fatherland (Cotteret et al., 1976, p. 78). Mitterrand is very proud of France, its accomplishments, and its people. He values national unity, for it is through unification that national strength is derived and social harmony is more likely to be achieved. National recognition and economic independence also are valued, for without them, France will be unable to recapture the grandeur it once had, and it will be unable to reestablish its position in the world and in Europe. The grandeur of France is contingent on a world at peace and its friendship with European nations, especially with its neighbor, West Germany. In essence, France can once again be the model nation of fruternitri: egalitk, and libert& and one worthy of being emulated, as it was in the past. In his televised speech in Moscow, June 22, 1984 (%a visite du president,” 1984, p. 3), Mitterrand succinctly summarized some of these values when he told the Russians that both Russia and France have written remarkable pages in European history. When he spoke about France, he called it a land of culture, a refuge, a cradle of humanistic and revolutionary rights, a country of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, and of liberties. President Mitterrand is proud to be French; he also is proud to be European. As a presidential candidate, he had a vision of France; as president, he has a “global vision of Europe,” of its grandeur, and its place in the world. To him, geography, history, time, and space bind together Europeans as a community and make it possible for Europe to strive toward achieving the vision. Concepts
of
Time
Mitterrand’s perceptions of the past, present, and future are important rhetorically and interculturally. The past as conceptualized and realized
A Cultural Analysis
285
in l’histoire provides the cultural basis for traditions and culturally shared beliefs or universals from which Mitterrand reasons, and a context from which the French, if not others, can learn valuable lessons. Of major importance to Mitterrand and the French is the eighteenth-century French Revolution, from which the seeds of democracy and socialism were sown. He frequently alludes to the Revolution and other significant historical periods, citing events to support his claims and reminding the audience of its rich cultural heritage, to be borne in the present. In addition, he alludes to the great literary and political geniuses of France who exemplify French cultural history and whose thoughts still have a place in contemporary France: Gambetta, Clemenceau, Louis Blanc, Pascal, Voltaire, Corneille, Racine, and Victor Hugo, to name a few. The present is uncertain; its roots lay in the past, which is revered. The past is knowable, immutable, certain; it is valued even more so, for the grandeur of France was part of the past. Thus the past links and binds the present to it; similarly, the past links the French and France to other European countries. Their mutual historical past becomes common ground and one which President Mitterrand uses effectively. For example, when President Mitterrand spoke of past France-German relations, as he did to the Bundestag in Bonn, West Germany, January 20, 1983, (Mitterrand, 1986, pp. 183-209), he emphasized the positive aspects of European history shared by both countries. He said that their past relations were strained, yet France and Germany also shared “prodigious series of inventions and cultural, literary, artistic, philosophical, economical, and technological research. The centuries have witnessed and beamed with joy at leaving Europe an immense civilization, ours, with its own genius” (p. 186).
C’est tome une histoire, celle de Europe, qui accompagne les tourments des relations franco-allemandes avec prodigieux, cortege d’inventions et des recherches culturelles, litteraires, spirituelles, artistiques, philosophiques, economiques, technologiques. Les siecles ont vu naitre et rayonner a partir a 1’Europe une immense civilization, la notre, avec son propre genie. (p. 186)
At the Kremlin, June 21, 1984, Mitterrand (1986, pp. 161-170) told the Russians that France and Russia are among those nations whose roots are the oldest and the deepest. However, history intervened to prevent the countries from fighting one another. Rares ont et&les moments au tours des siecles ou nous nous sommes affront&, et lorsque ces affrontements se sont produits, le mouvement nature1 de 1’Histoire les a aussitot surmontes, effaces, avant de nous reunir jusques et y compris dans la fraternite d’armes. (p. 162) (Rare are the moments in the course of centuries when we confronted one another and when these confrontations occurred, the natural course of history immediately surmounted them, unobtrusive, up to and including in the fellowship of arms.)
For President Mitterrand, l’histoire is an important force and its impact
286
Beatrice K. Reynolds
is consequential. Speaking at the p/ace Carnot in Carcasonne, June 25, 1985 (“M. Mitterrand appelle,” 1985, p. lo), he told an audience of 3,000 that he was faithful to his convictions and his concept of society, and said that he felt the burden of a great history. The future is not arguable, since it is tenuous and unpredictable, yet one should know what it ought to be in order to prepare for it. Envisioning the future is possible, as is the possibility of changing its course. Le destin and I’avenir, or destiny and the future, are associated with social and political progress. Only the left can direct and structure the future; the left also can create a society which is orderly and just, and one in which individual and collective rights can be exercised responsibly, and people can achieve a happy life. Speaking to the National Assembly on May 22, 1968, Mitterrand (19’77, pp. 488-492) evoked the past in an effort to instill hope in a future that present-day ills would be corrected. He reminded the deputies that a new alliance of socialism and liberty was brought about by the heirs of 1789, the bloody battles of the nineteenth and first part of the twentieth century. “But in the name of Liberty,” he asked, “what are we doing?” (p. 490). He responded by saying that through the democratization of education each child will be given a chance in life, the right of information will be written into the Constitution, individual liberties will be protected, and there will be a balance of power which the people have not experienced in ten years. He concluded by telling the deputies that the new majority, the left, is capable of returning confidence and hope to those who doubt and to those who are suffering (p. 490).
Organization of Information
and Argumentation
Process
Mitterrand’s themes, values, and concepts of time derive their persuasive power through the overall structure of the message, and the reasoning process. Mitterrand’s rhetorical methodology, reminiscent of the 18th century French revolutionary orator Pierre Vergniaud, is clearly neoclassical and reflects aspects of the French culture. His speeches, which he wrote himself,” can be described as elegant literary compositions, formalistic and doctrinaire, depending on the exigencies of the moment. His modus u~e~~~di may be explained by considering specific aspects of the French educational system and his educational training. Glenn (198 1) notes that the French educational system neglects “neither universals nor particulars,” for the French children are taught “universal concepts” as models or paradigms and principles, which they personalize in their usage (p. 305). Wylie’s (1974) description of a young French student being
4President Mitterrand’s press attach&e President writes his own speeches.
wrote
the researcher,
February
4, 1986, that
the
A Cultural Analysis
287
taught literature also is helpful here, for it attempts to explain how the child is taught to analyze in detail the text in order to comprehend the relationship of the parts to the whole, or the relational way of thinking, which Glenn says characterizes the French culture’s way of thinking and organizing information. Such training in contextual analysis and thought patterns are evident in Mitterrand’s speeches. The text is first broken down into its logical divisions, and the author’s purpose in each division is explained. Difficult or obscure words and expressions are explained. Only when each of the component parts of a passage is understood and when the relationship of each part to the whole is made clear is the passage put back together again. (p. 74)
Mitterrand’s academic interests and educational background undoubtedly influenced his rhetorical methodology as well. Educated at the College Saint-Paul in Angoul&me, he did extremely well in political science and economics (Nay, 1984, p. 60). He told journalist Paul Gi!bert in an interview that he likes what is written: language, philology, grammar (Mitterrand, 1981, p. 14). He thinks true literature is the exact correspondence of the word to the thing, and he prefers the writer who knows how to say what he sees. He attributed his attitude to having been educated in the classical school where French essays and recitations in Latin taught him rhetorical figures, which he said, influenced his style. His country and his boyhood background were additional influences, he said, which produced other writers who adopted the same language and style. Literature and political science continued to interest him as a young university student of law at the Sorbonne and Sciences-PO in Paris. Hence, that Mitterrand clearly states his opening remarks, gives force to his ideas and arguments through his use of rhetorical questions, rhetorical figures such as anaphora, asyndeton, antithesis, balanced sentences, and rhetorical techniques such as enumeration and repetition is not unique, since effective communicators in Western Civilization with a neo-classical educational background can be expected to do likewise. What is of interest from a cultural perspective are the ways in which he organizes his ideas and arguments. Characteristic of Mitterrand’s deliberative rhetoric especially, which is formal in style, is his use of rhetorical questions and/or the enumeration of them as a means of separating a speech into distinct parts, suggestive of the partes system taught in Roman rhetoric. These divisions permit Mitterrand to categorize and clarify information relative to the major issues he develops, thus enabling the auditors to follow his reasoning more efficaciously. Culturally, the organization pattern reflects the manner in which the French are taught to analyze and organize information units and the influence of his classical education. The system of classification also is at the core of France’s legal system (Glenn, 1981, p. 306).
288
Beatrice K. ~ey~otds
According to Glenn’s (198 1) model, the polarities of universalism-particularism and association-abstraction are ways of thinking and organizing information which account for cultural differences in world views. The French culture, he claims, achieves the “relational ideal” because it falls between the two apexes: universalism and neoparticularism, which is “the focusing on particulars joined with an awareness of categories and of the logic of classes” (p. 39). An excerpt from a speech which Mitterrand (1977, pp. 99-loo), then Minister of Interior, gave to the Algerian Assembly in Algiers, October 19, 1954, demonstrates his relational reasoning process in which he integrates his values: democracy, the greatest happiness for the greatest number, duty, national unity. Speaking on decolonization, a subject which dominated the debates in the mid-1950s, Mitterrand, prudently a liberal and a reformist on Black Africa and Algeria at the time (Nay, 1984, p. 212), defended the government’s enforcement of the statute of 1947 in North Africa and proclaimed the rights to a decent life, education, professional development, trade, exercise of liberties, and responsibilities of men (“M. Mitterrand demande,” 1954, p. 4). A definition of what constituted the French Republic was crucial to his defense of the government’s policy in Algeria. His case rested on that definition, from which he argued deductively and for which he used the Constitution as proof. The law itself was applied specifically to Algeria. “What is the French Republic?” he asked rhetorically. According to the Constitution, he said, the territory of the metropole (mother country), which consists of the departements of Algeria and the dkpartements and territories of France d’outre-Mer . . . (p. 100). Then he asked about the French citizen who did not find exciting the task of participating in the future of Algeria. Democracy, Mitterrand said, must assure more joy, more happiness, and more will to participate in common ownership to a greater number of people, without which nothing has meaning. He concluded by assuring them that human hope in “our name” was a sacred, fundamental right of all French. By November 1, 1954, the Algerians were openly revolting against France. Mitterrand delivered another important speech on decolonization of North Africa and Algeria to the National Assembly on November 12, 1954 (Mitterrand, 1977, pp. 101-109; “M. Mitterand: les measures,” 1954, pp. 14-15) in which he again clarified France’s policy. He first stated that this intent was “le deroulement des faits” or the unraveling the facts-a way of categorizing his information; he then proceeded to discuss the events that had occurred from the night of October 31 to November 1, 1954: sabotage of the channels of communication, fires, bombings, deaths, all of which he termed terrorist action, crystallized a most serious situation. Morocco and Tunisia experienced terrorism in the same way, he said. Using the same method of reasoning as in his speech of
A Cultural
Analysis
289
October 19, he argued that “. . . Algeria is French because the dkpartements of Algeria are the dkpartements of the French Republic” (p. 103). Although French laws are applied differently from Flanders to the Congo, nonetheless, he said, the law is French; it is what the people voted for, because there is only one Parlement and one nation of territories of the Outre’Mer as with the dkpartements of Algeria (p. 103). Not only is it the rule of France, he said, but it is imposed by the French in the Constitution, which conforms to their will. It is “our truth, the basis of our policy” (p. 104). Likewise, the relational pattern of thinking dominates President Mitterrand’s (1986) speeches on foreign policy and defense in which he argues predominately from principles or rules including France’s independence from its allies; the people’s right to choose their own destiny, to remain independent, to exist and have the means for their existence; noninterference of one country in another, except where human rights are concerned.’ These principles are the bases for France’s foreign policy, which he says inspires “a global vision of Europe.” The universals are truths, at least to the French, and are presented as such. They are developed and validated through historical events and facts, the last two World Wars, as well as aspects of the historical past which bind together the Europeans as a community. For example, on September 28, 1983, he told the United Nations of France’s intention to use its nuclear weapons to insure its own defense, “nothing more, nothing less” (p. 222). He supported the principle of non-interference as part of France’s defense policy by saying that the events of World War II necessitated its application. His argumentation process can be demonstrated further by the following four examples. President Mitterrand (1986) explained the principles of non-interference and the right of each nation and State to make its own decisions as basic to French foreign policy when he spoke to the Popular National Algerian Assembly in Algiers, December 1, 1981 (pp. 321-334). He told the Assembly that “French foreign policy . . . rests on the simple idea that each people and state can and must freely choose its system of social justice, leaders, alliances, and system without outside interference” (p. 326). Mitterrand discussed France’s policy in accordance with these principles which he applied to Chad, South Africa, and western Sahara, repeating that “Chaque peuple a le droit de se determiner lui-mCme,” or that every nation has the right to make up its own mind itself (p. 330). Mitterrand then applied the principle of the right to exist and the security and means of existence to the Arab-Israeli conflict. SPresident Mitterrand’s press attachee wrote the researcher, February 4, 1986, that his most important speeches were published in his recent book, Rkf/exions SW tupotifique exrhkwre de la France.
290
Beatrice K. Reynolds
Et cela suppose aussi qu’aucun peuple ne soit exclu d’une patrie; et quand on a une patrie, on y choisit ce que l’on veut, c’est-a-dire I’on y b&tit des structures institutionnelles de son choix . . . que le droit mutuel soit reconnu, que les peupies vivent et qu’ils se determinent . (p. 33 1) (And that assumes also that any people cannot be excluded from a country; and when one has a country, one chooses there what one wants, meaning that one builds there the institutional structures of one’s choice . . . that the mutual right is recognized, that the people live and they make up their own minds.) However, when he told the Israeli parliament in Jerusalem, March 4, I982, that the Arab-Israeli conflict could be resolved, were the Arab
countries to recognize Israel’s right to exist and the means for its security and were Israel to recognize that the Palestinians should have a homeland, Prime Minister Begin considered Mitterrand’s position on the Palestinian state a principal obstacle in friendship in the future with France (“M. Mitterand devant le Parlement,” 1982, p_ 1). President Mitterrand (1986, pp. 313-321) addressed the principles of human rights also in his speech in Mexico at the Monument of the Revolution, October 21, 1981; he inspired the peoples in the Third World and, especially, Latin America, by offering hope and support to those fighting to regain their national dignity and freedom. His two messages were: there can be no political stability without social justice, and there can be no real economic growth without preservation of national dignity, of cultural origin (p. 316). He argued for the application of the same rule, the same right of non-interference, free determination of the people, peaceful solutions for conflicts, and a new international order (pp. 317-318). Then he expressed a moral principle which is codified in France. Not helping someone in danger is a serious offense in France, he said, but not yet the case of international law. “But it is a moral and political mistake which already has cost too many dead and too much sorrow to too many abandoned people. . . .” (pp. 317-3 18). Addressing the Bundestag in Bonn, January 20, 1983, on the 20th anniversary of the France-German Treaty, President Mitterrand reaffirmed France’s desire for peace in Europe, defined a strategy for Western security, and criticized the Russians for having installed the 35-20 medium range missiles in Eastern Europe. He told the parliamentarians that France’s principle of independence was essential to its sovereignty, which was why France could not participate in the discussions on nuclear weapons in Geneva. He said that peace was possible only through negotiation. He then discussed the European community, saying that it rested on two principles, from which he reasoned deductively: “internal unity and common identity vis-a-vis the other countries” for without unity of Europe, the States will only be isolated. Without an identity outside Europe, we would disappear into a vague zone of free exchange” (1986, p. 199). He proposed and defined four principles which, when applied, would be the
A Cultural Analysis
291
basis for Europe’s success: “‘unity of the market, community preference, development of common policies, solidarity” (p. 200). German Chancellor Helmut Kohn expressed satisfaction with President Mitterand’s conditions for peace, but German socialists thought the French President was too militaristic (“L’Avenir de la securitt,” 1983, p. 1; “Les socialistes,” 1983, p. 1). In a banquet speech at the Kremlim, June 21, 1984, President Mitterrand spoke frankly about France’s defense policy, outlining the conditions of peace. He reiterated France’s commitment to democracy and principles involving human rights, about which he spoke strongly, and of the exiled dissident, Andrei D. Sakharov. France, a democracy, guarantees the rights of each person, and it believes in its principles and thinks they constitute the strongest guarantee of peace, justice, and liberty, he said (Mitterrand, 1986, p. 164). He also criticized Soviet policy in Afghanistan, Poland, and Cambodia. Pravda censored these comments and the reference to Sakharov (“La visite du president,” 1984, p. 3).
CONCLUSIONS President Mitterrand’s world view is French; his relational mode of thinking is reflected in his discours and allocutions, 1952-1985, by his systematic analysis and categorization of information and his argumentation process. Universals and particulars are equally important; they are related, and he treats them as such, developing and verifying the universals or principles from which he reasons, thus suiting them to reality. His world view undoubtedly influenced his perceptions of France and Europe and himself as an agent of change, as demonstrated by the thematic analysis. France is shown in conflict, along with its struggles and aspirations, as it strives as a nation to cling to its colonial posts while also striving to achieve a more democratic Republic and a just, free, harmonious, fraternal, and responsible society. Values also are in conflict; they are debated at the tribune and during the presidential campaigns; framed as principles, they constitute the national bases for France’s current position on defense and foreign policy. However, President Mitterrand’s relational mode of thinking is evidenced even more fully in France’s defense and foreign policies. Mitterrand sees France as a nation independent, autonomous, and free from outside interference in its decision-making process. Thus France chooses to make its own decisions without succumbing to pressures. Yet, France is geographically and historically a part of the European community, as are the other European states. France’s survival depends on its relations within that community, and therefore it seeks the ways and means to maintain its ties of friendship. A world at peace is certainly a most important goal
Beatrice K. Reynolds
292
of France, if not of Europe and the world, as it is the chief means of preserving life everywhere. In sum, in President Mitterrand’s world view, France is both separate and a part of the greater whole-Europe and the European community. Relations exist between the two; they are rationalized and realized in his discours and allocutions and in France’s policies and actions. Within this broad context, President Mitterrand as a political rhetor, is shaping France’s future. Bourgeois-born and socialist, President Mitterrand symbolizes what is France and French-its culture, traditions, neoclassical rhetorical and literary eloquence, regality, the lofty ideals and principles for which French revolutionaries fought and died. In essence, President Mitterrand is France incarnate, emerging as a new voice of France, if not of Europe-a voice of libertk, egalitk, fraterniti, - bringing hope to the French and other Europeans for a better and happier life and visions which include the restoration of France and Europe to the grandeur they once had, making France respected again as a nation, so it can become an important force in Europe and the world, and Europe, a respected community of nations. As a political rhetor, President Mitterrand’s world view, like that of other political leaders, needs to be understood from a cultural perspective, if intercultural misunderstandings are to be avoided or minimized. Communication patterns are learned in a cultural context and therefore generate meaning; how one communicates is as important as what one says. Thus it appears that a communicator who wishes to be effective in intercultural and/or multicultural transactions should adapt the message to the world view of the listener, accounting for the cultural differences in cognitive processes.
REFERENCES BARRILLON, Republique.
R. (1981, May 12). Une riche carritre
ministerielle
sous la IVe
Le Monde pp.4-5.
BESANCON, A. (1986, January 24). Le Prince president. COTTERET,
J. M., EMERI
L’Express, p. 15. J., MOREAU, R. (1976). Giscard convaincre. Paris: Presses Universitaires
C., GERSTLE,
d’Estaing-Mitterrand 54774 motspour
de France. Excerpts from interview with Francois Mitterrand. (1981, June 4). The New York Times, p. A14. GLENN, E. S. (1981). Man and mankind: Conflict and communication between cultures. NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. GROSSER, A. (1984, September 28). Mitterrand globe-trotter. L’Express, p. 15. L’Avenir de la securite europeene. (1983, January 22). Le Monde, pp. 1, 3. La visite due president de la republique en union sovietique. (1984, June 24). Le Monde, p. 3.
A Cultural Analysis
293
Les socialistes allemands se demarquent des theses de M. Mitterrand sur la securite. (1983, January 23). LeMonde, pp. 1, 3. Les tres nette victoire de M. Francois Mitterrand va au-de18 du rassemblement de toute la gauche et aggrave les divisions de la majorite sortante. (1981, May 12). Le Monde, pp. 1,48. MANCERON, C. (1966). Cent milles voixparjour. Paris: Robert Laffont. M. Mitterrand appelle les Francois a se rassembler ‘autour de la modernisation du pay.’ (1985, June 27). Le Monde, p. 10. M. Mitterrand devant le Parlement de Jerusalem. (1982, March 5). Le Monde, PP. 1,4. M. Mitterrand demande aux Algeriens d’accroitre leur participation a cette entreprise. (1954, October 21). Le Monde, p. 4. M. Mitterrand: les mesures militaires seront developpees, mais elles ne suffisent pas. (1954, November 14-15). Le Monde, p. 3. MITTERRAND, F. (1977). Politique. Paris: Artheme Fayard. MITTERRAND, F. (1981). Politique 2. Paris: Artheme Fayard. MITTERRAND, F. (1986). Reflexions sur la politique extt?rieure de la France. Paris: Artheme Fayard. NAY, C. (1984). Le noire et le rouge ou I’historie d’une ambition. Paris: Bernard Grosset. PAUTARD, A. (1984, October 26). Le miroir du president. L’Express, p. 22. RESTON, J. (1981, June 4). Mitterrand says West must step up efforts for world security. The New York Times, pp. 1, 14. ROCHE, J. (1971). Style de candidates ir I’a presidence de la rkpublique 1965-1969. Toulouse: Edouard Privat. WYLIE, L. (1974). Village in the tiucluse. (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
ABSTRACT
TRANSLATIONS
L’intention de 1’6tude etait d’analyser les discours et les allocutions (1952-1985) politiques de President Mitterrand comme les produits culturels pour dkterminer s’ comprenant ses concepts ils rkflectent son vision du monde, de mani&re de organizer l’information de valeurs. de temps, L’analyse demontre que le et le processus d’argument. processus de penser en termes de relations, characteristique de la culture franqaise, se reflkcte en sa forme et son style de communication et done son vision du monde et sa rhetorique se peuvent descrire comme (Author-supplied abstract) “frangaise. ” El propbsito de1 estudio fue analizar 10s discursos politicos y oratoria de1 Presidente Mitterrand (1952-19851 coma productos culturales para determinar si reflejan su incluyendo sus conceptos de1 tiempo, visi6n de1 mundo, valores, maneras de organizar information y procesos de El analisis demuestra que el proceso de argumentation. pensar en tdrminos relativisticos, caracteristica de la se refleja en su forma o estilo de cultura francesa, comunicacidn y por lo tanto su visibn de1 mundo y ret6rica se pueden describir coma “francesas.” (Author-supplied abstract 1