ambidextrous

1: using both hands with equal ease

2: unusually skillful : versatile

3: characterized by duplicity : double-dealing

 

Thinking about a versatile and "double-dealing" life in France, I thought about the American ex-pats I met in France that seemed to be living 'ambidextrous' lives, staying American and marrying into French culture.

 

Through a few mutual friends, I met a young couple that had been married for about a year. He was American and she was French, and for the most part they spoke French together, since almost everyone else we knew was French. What was interesting, though, was when they disagreed on something or started to bicker, he would switch to English and she would speak French faster. They were both fluent in both languages, but I couldn't help but think that this was their way of "fighting dirty," pointing out something they did better than the other, and something they would always be the best at.

 

My American advisor met her husband when she was doing graduate work in France, and they married and had two children. Per our program rules, we were only supposed to speak French with her, but she did tell me that she tried to speak English at home with her children so they would grow up bilingual. They were about 10 and 14, and she said that they had suddenly become very disinterested in learning English. She would speak to them in English, and they would reply in French. When they brought friends home from school, they would beg her not to speak any English or would try to avoid her. She said she wasn't sure if it was just because she was their mom, because she was American, or some combination of both that made it too embarassing for them to try to explain to their friends.

 

Falling in love with France, my friends and I talked about how 'easy' it would be if we could just get married and stay there forever. It seemed like a nice thought (one I still think about, I admit), but I wonder how much harder it would be to marry someone with a different language and culture, even if I considered myself to be appreciative of the culture and proficient in the language. Would there always be barriers and differences? Could I ever completely absorb a new culture? Just like writing with my left hand, I imagine living in a new culture is something I could do, but it would always be a little wobbly and illegible.

pugilism

pu·gi·lism n. The skill, practice, and sport of fighting with the fists; boxing.

A few years ago, I won a contest on the radio and got tickets to an MMA tournament in Springdale, AR. For some reason I thought it would be funny, or seem fake enough to be funny, and at the very least I expected it to be a good opportunity for people watching. My friends and I lasted about an hour and a half, and we were barely halfway through the amateur division, where anyone who could sign up to fight. I had prepared myself to see some pretty extreme fighting, but usually someone just got punched or kicked down once before the ref called it. I expected a lot of cheering and screaming from the crowd, but most people were just sitting with their families, eating something from the concession stand.

It's hard to imagine the same scene happening in France. Though France does have its own similar fighting leagues, I can't picture the family coming together, enjoying some corn dogs, and watching some dude pound another dude. While Americans have the reputation for being terrible prudes when it comes to anything sexual (thanks, Puritans), we're notoriously lax about violence. I think films are a great way to learn about a particular culture, and when talking about violence, it's interesting to look at how two cultures deal with violent films. For example, American Beauty was rated R in the US, but was given a 'U' universal rating in France, but violent films are more likely to get a higher rating in France than in the US. Is it because France has seen so much battle on their home turf that violence hits too close home?

nomothetic

nomothetic : relating to, involving, or dealing with abstract, general, or universal statements or laws

First word! And of course it's a complicated one. We couldn't have "wine" or "family"?

When I first started thinking about the word "nomothetic," and the idea of trying to name or describe something in vague, universal terms, I thought about the existence of national identities, and how calling someone "French" or "American" can come with a lot of baggage. Is it possible to name all of the members of a society with one word? When you give a name to a group of people, are you helping to unite them, or is it an oversimplification that allows for too many generalities and prejudices?

Maybe I wouldn't have been better off with "wine" or "family." Calling a jug of fermented grapes "French wine" doesn't say anything about vinticulture, and how can you talk about American families when people like the Duggars or the Kardashians are the most famous families in America?

In any case, the word definitely set something off in me. How do I, as an "American," talk about the "French"?

Nomothetic is the opposite of idiothetic (or idiographic), which is studying or explaining individual events. If I were to make a general, universal statement about French and American identities (Hey! Nomothetic!), I'd say that metropolitan France favors nomothetic statements about national identity, while the United States favors idiographic statements. Being French means being like other French people, and being American is just geographic. In fact, if you ask most Americans where their family is "originally" from, they're proud to tell you every nationality of every ancestor. (Mine were Scottish, Austrian, and Russian, for the record.)

From what I have experienced, the French are proud of their French heritage and culture, and try to preserve their French identity through various means, such as trying to clean up modern French language and funding French artists. If you are an educated French speaker today, you won't have much of a problem reading a 500 year old essay, whereas most American college students need some help reading a work from the same period. As a country founded by immigrants, we value change, and are open to language evolution. The problem today is whether or not this nomothetic French identity will make it through globalization.

Immigration in France today is a loaded topic, and one that most Americans find hard to understand. In one French class I took, the American students had a hard time discussing immigration issues with our French professor. A few French articles we read said that many French people were worried that too many Muslim immigrants would change France into an Islamic state, and that teaching Arabic in schools would put the French language at risk. Arguments for immigration said that the idea of preserving the French identity meant protecting white, Catholic, native French people as the majority.

For American students who are here thanks to immigrants, it's hard to think of immigration ruining a country. We hear some arguments against immigrants in the U.S., but these people are easily written off as ignorant or racist. Being an American is inherently pluralistic, and preserving our American identities means encouraging many cultures to coexist. We suggested that French culture could live alongside new, immigrant cultures, and that laws banning veils in schools or limiting immigration numbers didn't make sense. Our professor said that we didn't understand. We thought that the "French" identity they were trying to protect was nomothetic, exclusionary and archaic, and that identities should be seen as pluralistic and inclusive.

Still not sure if any of us were right.