Picture by Evan Boulogne
Pierre’s investigates into American fakeness and French arrogance — which he explains through the distinction between “vous” and “tu” in French, and the lack of it in English.
One sometimes wonders what causes the differences in relationships between cultures. That is, why one nationality will interact differently than another nationality. If one focuses on the differences between francophones and anglophones, especially North Americans, we can see clearly the differences in social exchanges.
For instance, it is well known that France is an excessively hierarchized country with strict and formal codes which can, for example, create impassable barriers between colleagues at work. In France there are clear top-down structures, with a distinct authority at the top and the workers below. This contrasts greatly with the United States.
According to Brian Hogan, “French communication is often indirect and nuanced in the name of subtlety or diplomacy, contrary to the American one which is more frank and direct”.
As a matter of fact, for Americans, overly indirect communication is interpreted as indecisiveness or the desire to conceal something. On the other hand, being straightforward is not seen as abrupt or brittle. Although being abrupt would offend Americans and guarantee an incredibly negative reputation for the speaker. American workers try to avoid conflict while the French see debate and confrontation as a positive phenomenon, allowing for progress in the workplace.
Interactions in the two regions differ at the personal level, too. Emma Seppala and Erin Meyer, French and American respectively, moved to each other’s countries for professional reasons and have extensively studied the cultural differences both inside and outside of work. A key remark they make is that Americans and the English have difficulty detaching from work, even around their friends. To demonstrate, one of the first things an adult will say about themselves in public will be their profession, thus designating a sign that anglophones will base their identity through their work. This is completely the opposite in France where it is perceived as impolite to ask about someone’s profession in public without approval.
In the light of this, one could wonder why such differences exist. Is it due to a tremendous difference in culture and practices? Yes, surely. Then again, a peculiarity in the French language which does not exist in English could provide a non negligible explanation: the separation between “vous” and as “tu”. The formal and informal “you”. The possibility of using the two appellations, according to their definitions, would also classify and isolate different types of relationships in people’s minds.
In the middle of the XVIth century, Charles V, Emperor of Spain and the Holy Roman Emperor, gave a famous speech saying: “I speak Spanish to God, Italian to Women, French to men and German to my horse”. This stylistically suggests that certain languages are more suitable for particular tasks and activities. Of course, there is extensive research demonstrating the effect speaking a certain language has on individual personalities. For example, in German, words are strung together in order to create new, more precise terms which can more accurately describe an emotion. This, in turn, permits German-speakers to be more in touch with their feelings.
Equally, the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure argued that, “language exists in the form of a sum of impressions deposited in the brain of each member of a community, almost like a dictionary of which identical copies have been distributed to each individual”. This suggests that the language we speak affects the way we think about the world. Assuming this is true, it would only highlight that differentiating formal and informal relations in speech would increasingly differentiate them in thought too, while not doing so would blur the lines between them.
This, I argue, is why relationships in North America can appear superficial from the perspective of a French immigrant. The difference lies in the lack of distinction between informal and formal interactions in North America. In effect, the relationship one has with a friend could resemble one at work. On the flipside, the English language allows for relationships to be much more open and relaxed in the general public sphere, with the absence of formalities. As stated earlier, this also provides for a more easygoing atmosphere at work, which could help reduce stress that is ever so present in the French workplace.
In addition, it is fascinating to note that couples in North America often form after a series of very formal events, as one must first go out on a date to familiarize, then have a discussion to clarify that the “going out” is exclusive, and finally have a last exchange to officialize the romantic relationship. Such official codes of conduct would only be seen at work in France, not in romance. Even more interestingly, Quebec, which has almost completely abandoned the use of “vous” has relationships comparable to the rest of anglophone Canada rather than with France. Despite the will of those in Quebec to stand out from English-speaking Canadians, it is possible that their use of “tu” is the defining factor of their social relationships.
Can one assert that a system is better? Objectively not at all, as there are clear advantages and disadvantages with having very defined relationships using “vous” and “tu” or not having that distinction at all. Nevertheless, regardless of what one subjectively thinks, this perspective does offer much to think about as it shines new light on how our language influences the way we interact.
Pierre Sarlieve is a second-year Euram student writing chronicles for the Opinion section of the Sundial Press. Born in France, raised in Canada, he sometimes questions where in the world his heart remains. Qualified as overly-serious, he spends much of his time reading and criticizing opinions he judges excessively firm, although sometimes he is guilty of the same deed.
Are you angry? Do you disagree? Write a response column by first contacting the editor, and we’ll publish your dissenting opinion.
