Don’t worry, this is not going to be a xenophobic rant. I had supper with a German friend at the weekend, who has lived in France for many years, and has just spent a few weeks in London improving her English.
We got onto the difference between the French and the English, and it was interesting having her fairly objective viewpoint as someone who has lived in both countries as an outsider.
She said that the French, in the way they think and argue, are more abstract. They start with first principles and work outwards to the nitty-gritty of reality. The English are more concrete, more empirical. They start with things, stuff, examples, case-studies, and only then try to draw some more general conclusions from the specific instances.
She also put the same point in another way: that the French work by deduction, and the English by induction.
It struck me that this, if it’s true, is exemplified by our measuring systems, metric and imperial. A metre length is just an idea. It’s not based on anything ordinary or everyday or natural. Yes, there is a bar of platinum-iridium in a vault in Paris that used to be the standard measure of a metre, for reference (although this system has been surpassed now). But the bar, the metre, was created by the French mind – a mind imposing order on the world.
The imperial system – take the foot as an example – is based on (wait for it…) the foot! The whole system of measurement is based on the length of a man’s foot (a man’s and not a woman’s…). You see the world, and measure it, and understand it, in terms of something concrete; you see and understand one aspect of reality in the perspective of another aspect of reality. In the imperial system, man is – literally – the measure of all things; not a metal bar in Paris.
It sounds like I am defending the English way. Not really. There are advantages to each way; and the abstraction certainly appeals to me. And anyway, the French won! The metre rules the world. I’m just noticing the philosophical differences in world-view that are embodied in something as benign as a unit of measure; and how that connects with a German’s perception of English-French differences.
[Update: I received some good criticism in the comments, which I wanted to copy here, about my failure to mention the origin of the metre. E.g. this from Roger: ‘Sorry, Fr Stephen, as a physicist I can’t let you get away with that one – the metre was originally intended to be one ten-millionth of the distance from the Earth’s equator to the North Pole. If it’s “just an idea” it’s a very practical one!’ To which I replied: ‘Thanks Roger. OK – the metre, like the foot, starts in the concrete world. I’d still say the way it was arrived at reflects a different mentality, a more abstract kind of reasoning (taking a distance that can only be established by careful scientific investigation and then dividing it by ten million to establish a length that is more connected with everyday human life) – that reflects something about the difference between a more deductive mindset and a more empirical one.’ The metre, despite the geographical origin, is definitely ‘a product of the mind’; the foot is ‘a product of experience’ – I think.]
Interesting to see your comment about the French ‘working outwards.’ This can be seen in the initials of organisations where we in England start with the particular and end with the general whereas the French start with the general and finish with the particular. NATO to the French is OTAN and the UNO is l’ONU etc. I actually think that starting off with the general is more logical.
Perhaps another parallel could be drawn in the two countries’ respective legal systems? The French system is a civil law system which is codified – the code lays down (from above, so to speak) what the law is, and then a particular case is determined by reference to the code and the principles therein. The English system is a common law system. It operates through precedent – the law develops organically (from below) through individual decisions which seek to deal in a pragmatic yet “just” way with particular situations. These decisions establish norms and principles, which are then applied in later cases.
I don’t have a strong view on which is better, except to speculate that it could be the common law system because the principles on which the precedential decisions are made (equity, etc.) essentially have their origin in Christian morality, and therefore perhaps the common law is more apt to conform to natural law.
Just a thing : if you refer to the metre in the end as a metal bar in Paris, you don’t reach the deductive starting point . A metal bar in Paris is like a man’s foot, but the meter is an abstract idea .
This is an interesting one that has made me think. The national developments of the two nations has been so different. The French, with the Revolution sought, perhaps, to influence the world in a different way with the metric system. Their philosophers have also influenced world thinking and were, I think, great contributors to the Enlightenment. Also, the metric system has influenced science and enabled people to measure far more accurately than in the imperial system. Britain is not without its achievements, though, in these and other fields!
Perhaps the greatest thing is that, in the 21st Century, we can now work together rather thatn fight each other about our differences.
I gather that the metre was supposed to be one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole- very scientific-but unfortunately they got it wrong! (Not that I can judge either way- I just accept the tyranny of the experts!)
Origin of metre…
Originally intended to be one ten-millionth of the distance from the Earth’s equator to the North Pole (at sea level), its definition has been periodically refined to reflect growing knowledge of metrology. Since 1983, it is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum in 1 ⁄ 299,792,458 of a second.[1]
Thanks!
Sorry, Fr Stephen, as a physicist I can’t let you get away with that one – the metre was originally intended to be one ten-millionth of the distance from the Earth’s equator to the North Pole. If it’s “just an idea” it’s a very practical one!
Thanks Roger. OK – the metre, like the foot, starts in the concrete world. I’d still say the way it was arrived at reflects a different mentality, a more abstract kind of reasoning (taking a distance that can only be established by careful scientific investigation and then dividing it by ten million to establish a length that is more connected with everyday human life) – that reflects something about the difference between a more deductive mindset and a more empirical one.
[…] Wang, blogger at Bridges and Tangents posted a blog about the difference between the English and the French back in January, noting how the two seem to communicate from an outsider’s perspective, the […]
This is something I have been thinking about for years. I first moved to France in 1982 and the difference between us left me completely baffled for a long time. I have reached the same conclusion as St John Smythe, that the difference is down to our different legal systems. The legal system is the framework in which we live and inevitably has an enormous impact on the way we think and behave. It also explains admirably the observation of your German friend with which I wholy agree. Our politicians (all of them on both sides of the channel) need to grasp this and, within the context of the EU, stop trying to make Englishmen think like Frenchmen and vice versa. The union would benefit enormously if they were able to do this, but I am not going to hold my breadth in expectation.
I am extremely happy that I came across this site as I have been struggling with the same issue and especially most recently when I went to France for an International advertising conference and I learnt that the French are in a world of their own. No wonder their brands do not do really well in the Anglo Saxon markets. I work on a French brand in an Anglo Saxon market and it is not working here! People just won’t accept it. They find it too sophisticated and too detached and too perfect. And the worst thing is, the French would like people to be like them!!! They will not bother speaking in English. Then they make such stupid decisions as far as marketing here is concerned to a point that I am always buffled and amazed! They act like cartoons here!
seriously ? knowing that French companies are the first investor in UK, EDF/GDF means Electricite de France and Gaz de France, the bills shall ring some bells, even the famous red buses are tagged with the RATP logo Regie Autonome des Transports Parisiens the profile is an abstract representation of the Seine, …. Bouygues and Vinci are the biggest constructors in Europe and quite strong in UK, no need to talk about nuclear industry, space research and communication systems. London counts more French than any other capital in the world, probably because of the dynamism of the French Companies in the country.
Ok I’m French, and I speak/write English. Just get tired with easy stereotypes, we’re annoying, rude, selfish, covered with garlic and drinking red wine for breakfast with croissant et baguette . Well I know infinitesimal percentage of English people does that kind of shortcut, but still
If you want to hate French do it with the English sense of humor
The main goal for the new revolutionnary system was to get a new start with a unified measure. We were using feet and so on. But, a feet in Paris was not the same then in Marseille. The same for weights and volumes. One nation, one system.
Then, the second point was to establish some decimal system… 100 cm, 10 dm for 1 meter, and so on. Instead of having 6 feet for a “toise” etc…
The meter is not abstract. It was the claculation of 1/40.000th of a meridian.