Yes, of course Jeanneney is concerned about the losing his language's literary heritage. It's been a hot-button topic of France for well over 50 years. Hence Le Francophonie.
The point is, at no point did Google say that they were selecting against foreign books in the collections of the libraries that opened their doors. Jeanneney could have just as easily implored Google to make sure that a polyethnic and polylingual selection of the the university's collection is digitized. But he didn't. Instead, he immediately advocated a competing French system to act as a "balance". Like it's a competition, right? Game of life, and the strongest culture wins.
But gosh, Theolein, can you imagine if Jeanneny had implored a cooperative measure, encouraged the Sorbonne to add its library, on the condition that Google co-managed the project with the French government, and promoted an international effort to refine a translation filter to translate the English works into other languages? Wouldn't that have been grand?
Actually, Theolein, the sentence is repeated later in the article. I'm guessing that it was the editorial staff at Le Monde that chose it as the article description, since it is the most aggressive statement in the article.
Some interesting points, marred unfortunately by a little too much of the ol' cussing. Shame, shame.
Since/. threads the day after are dead, dead, dead, I'm going to limit my comments to one. If this was about language and not nationalism then why did the author allege "American" domination in lieu of "English language" domination in the the sentence I quoted? He's pushing buttons, friend. I just wish he wouldn't.
Here we go, the debate is joined. I'm certainly willing to concede that the epithet used in Le Monde to deride American geopolitical influence is hyperpuissance, not hyper-pouvoir. You're aware that the word carries a negative connotation, correct?
Moreover, you're absolutely correct that Jeanneney describes the Google initiative, praises it (as Messianic if I recall correctly -- there's your baroque expression), and encourages France, and all of Europe, to do the same.
Where we differ is how we perceive the manner in which he presented that message. I don't think, sans rose-tinted glasses, you can read the editorial and not see that the author is threatening the French people with an American stranglehold on the world of ideas. Moreover, irote, since you appear to be aware that a school called the ENA (l'école national d'administration) has produced somewhere between 25 and 50 percent of French senior government ministers over the past 20 years, I assume that you are also aware that almost 5 years ago, a farmer named José Bové destroyed a McDonalds (which, by the way, is an American company!), and became a national hero. Moroever, that the USA is right now engaged in a war in Iraq that France opposes strongly. So when a relatively high-level public minister publishes an editorial in France's leading daily damning one of the most significant developments in the world of ideas with faint praise, and suggesting that a parallel system be established to act as a counterweight, I start looking for subtext among the artifacts of French literary style.
The author is not merely saying that English is the lingua franca of academic and web discourse. As you point out, that's pretty obvious. He is saying that Google's initiative will warp French ideas to the American context. Reread this section:
Il eût été délétère et détestable pour l'équilibre de la nation, pour l'image et la connaissance qu'elle avait d'elle-même, de son passé, des événements, lumineux ou sombres, qu'il nous revenait de commémorer, d'aller chercher dans les seules bases de données anglaises ou américaines un récit et une interprétation qui y étaient biaisés de multiples façons : Le Mouron rouge écrasant Quatre-vingt-treize, les vaillants aristocrates britanniques triomphant des jacobins sanguinaires, la guillotine occultant les droits de l'homme et les intuitions fulgurantes de la Convention. Cet exemple est instructif, et il nous met en garde.
The author is alleging something stronger than an "Anglo-Saxon" discourse. He alleges a displacement of history and historical works from French culture by an American initiative to digitize American and English works. Presumably when Google gets to Madame Bovary (in the public domain, in the holdings of Harvard, etc.) they will translate the Baz Luhrmann version, and in Jean-Noël Jeanneney's mind, the French world of ideas will suffer a mortal blow.
Can you not see the absurdity in this situation? Google is digitizing books, and instead of suggesting the merest facade of an attempt at a cooperative measure, Jeanneney hopped on the "American domination" bandwagon. That may be the quickest way to get results in French politics, but I continue to find it contemptible. No matter how hard I try, I can't construe Jeanneney's remarks in a positive light.
I've seen two types of apologist posts supporting this article, no doubt seeking to mine that tendency on/. that rewards contrarian posts with karma points.
The first type of post argues that the author is just trying to motivate the French government to launch a digitization effort for French books. That's all fine and dandy folks, but this article is being, and should be, judged on the basis of its text, not the golden intent behind it. The author alleges, and this is almost a perfect translation, the threat of an American stranglehold on the world of ideas. The "money-shot" here is when the author wrote: "Voici que s'affirme le risque d'une domination écrasante de l'Amérique dans la définition de l'idée que les prochaines générations se feront du monde." I don't care what he is trying to accomplish -- that is anti-americanism, pure and simple.
The second type of posts have argued that the author did not attack Google's initiative at all. Bullshit. The people espousing this point of view either didn't read the original editorial, or can't understand French as well as they think. The author followed a very popular line of argument among the French chattering classes: that the U.S.A. has grown TOO powerful, and that English is a lever by which they jiggle the world. (In this analogy, business would be the fulcrum). "Hyper-pouvoir" is the word practically coined in Le Monde, France's leading daily periodical for the grad degree plus set, and the anti-American editorials have flown fast and furious for at least the last 20 years. How French intellectuals manage to avoid noticing that English is actually spoken in other parts of the world boggles the imagination. Of course, talk to the average French teen who doesn't belong to the radical left, and they have no idea what the fuss is about. Unfortunately, it's the intellectuals that govern, not the teens.
Long story short, an editorial that talks about Google's initiative as enhancing the U.S. "domination ecrasante" (sorry about the lack of accents) over ideas is an attack on the initiative, not "yellow journalism" as one poster put it. The motivation may be noble, but it comes off as bigotry, and it's dead wrong. Knowledge isn't a zero-sum game.
Regards,
Astolpho
P.S. The most popular historical figure in France is Napolean. Now how could that possibly be?
Slashdot Mirror
The point is, at no point did Google say that they were selecting against foreign books in the collections of the libraries that opened their doors. Jeanneney could have just as easily implored Google to make sure that a polyethnic and polylingual selection of the the university's collection is digitized. But he didn't. Instead, he immediately advocated a competing French system to act as a "balance". Like it's a competition, right? Game of life, and the strongest culture wins.
But gosh, Theolein, can you imagine if Jeanneny had implored a cooperative measure, encouraged the Sorbonne to add its library, on the condition that Google co-managed the project with the French government, and promoted an international effort to refine a translation filter to translate the English works into other languages? Wouldn't that have been grand?
Regards,
Astolpho
Regards,
Astolpho
Since /. threads the day after are dead, dead, dead, I'm going to limit my comments to one. If this was about language and not nationalism then why did the author allege "American" domination in lieu of "English language" domination in the the sentence I quoted? He's pushing buttons, friend. I just wish he wouldn't.
Regards,
Astolpho
Moreover, you're absolutely correct that Jeanneney describes the Google initiative, praises it (as Messianic if I recall correctly -- there's your baroque expression), and encourages France, and all of Europe, to do the same.
Where we differ is how we perceive the manner in which he presented that message. I don't think, sans rose-tinted glasses, you can read the editorial and not see that the author is threatening the French people with an American stranglehold on the world of ideas. Moreover, irote, since you appear to be aware that a school called the ENA (l'école national d'administration) has produced somewhere between 25 and 50 percent of French senior government ministers over the past 20 years, I assume that you are also aware that almost 5 years ago, a farmer named José Bové destroyed a McDonalds (which, by the way, is an American company!), and became a national hero. Moroever, that the USA is right now engaged in a war in Iraq that France opposes strongly. So when a relatively high-level public minister publishes an editorial in France's leading daily damning one of the most significant developments in the world of ideas with faint praise, and suggesting that a parallel system be established to act as a counterweight, I start looking for subtext among the artifacts of French literary style.
The author is not merely saying that English is the lingua franca of academic and web discourse. As you point out, that's pretty obvious. He is saying that Google's initiative will warp French ideas to the American context. Reread this section:
Il eût été délétère et détestable pour l'équilibre de la nation, pour l'image et la connaissance qu'elle avait d'elle-même, de son passé, des événements, lumineux ou sombres, qu'il nous revenait de commémorer, d'aller chercher dans les seules bases de données anglaises ou américaines un récit et une interprétation qui y étaient biaisés de multiples façons : Le Mouron rouge écrasant Quatre-vingt-treize, les vaillants aristocrates britanniques triomphant des jacobins sanguinaires, la guillotine occultant les droits de l'homme et les intuitions fulgurantes de la Convention. Cet exemple est instructif, et il nous met en garde.
The author is alleging something stronger than an "Anglo-Saxon" discourse. He alleges a displacement of history and historical works from French culture by an American initiative to digitize American and English works. Presumably when Google gets to Madame Bovary (in the public domain, in the holdings of Harvard, etc.) they will translate the Baz Luhrmann version, and in Jean-Noël Jeanneney's mind, the French world of ideas will suffer a mortal blow.
Can you not see the absurdity in this situation? Google is digitizing books, and instead of suggesting the merest facade of an attempt at a cooperative measure, Jeanneney hopped on the "American domination" bandwagon. That may be the quickest way to get results in French politics, but I continue to find it contemptible. No matter how hard I try, I can't construe Jeanneney's remarks in a positive light.
Regards,
Astolpho
The first type of post argues that the author is just trying to motivate the French government to launch a digitization effort for French books. That's all fine and dandy folks, but this article is being, and should be, judged on the basis of its text, not the golden intent behind it. The author alleges, and this is almost a perfect translation, the threat of an American stranglehold on the world of ideas. The "money-shot" here is when the author wrote: "Voici que s'affirme le risque d'une domination écrasante de l'Amérique dans la définition de l'idée que les prochaines générations se feront du monde." I don't care what he is trying to accomplish -- that is anti-americanism, pure and simple.
The second type of posts have argued that the author did not attack Google's initiative at all. Bullshit. The people espousing this point of view either didn't read the original editorial, or can't understand French as well as they think. The author followed a very popular line of argument among the French chattering classes: that the U.S.A. has grown TOO powerful, and that English is a lever by which they jiggle the world. (In this analogy, business would be the fulcrum). "Hyper-pouvoir" is the word practically coined in Le Monde, France's leading daily periodical for the grad degree plus set, and the anti-American editorials have flown fast and furious for at least the last 20 years. How French intellectuals manage to avoid noticing that English is actually spoken in other parts of the world boggles the imagination. Of course, talk to the average French teen who doesn't belong to the radical left, and they have no idea what the fuss is about. Unfortunately, it's the intellectuals that govern, not the teens.
Long story short, an editorial that talks about Google's initiative as enhancing the U.S. "domination ecrasante" (sorry about the lack of accents) over ideas is an attack on the initiative, not "yellow journalism" as one poster put it. The motivation may be noble, but it comes off as bigotry, and it's dead wrong. Knowledge isn't a zero-sum game.
Regards,
Astolpho
P.S. The most popular historical figure in France is Napolean. Now how could that possibly be?