BRITISH AND FRENCH

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1012, 1 July 1930, Page 16

BRITISH AND FRENCH

A SPANIARD’S ESTIMATE _ CONFLICTS OF OPINION It happens frequently that when there Is a conflict of opinion between the British and French delegates attending an international conference it is attrTbuted to the psychological differences between the two races. Professor Madariaga, who is professor of Spanish studies at Oxford and a member of the Permanent Mandates Commission at Geneva, in an article in the “Spectator,” attributes the divergencies not to a different perspective, but to the different nature of the eve that observes. “England,” writes Professor Madariaga, "brings to Geneva her empirical habits of mind. This means that England nearly always advocates the minimum of pre-established agreements to meet future contingencies. The empirical mind stretches thus as little as possible along the line of time. But it limits itself also in that mental dimension of the present which we call breadth. It shrinks from generalisations. Narrow and short - ; sighted, the Englishman remains firmly attached to the earth of realities and goes forth like a blind man striking the ground with his stick before he takes a step forward. The Frenchman, on the contrary, comes to Geneva with a mind which Nature and training have made an aim in itself. He approaches questions as problems, and while the Englishman is feeling a way out he has already thought out a solution. ... It would be grotesque to simplify the contrast by saying that the Englishman is a will and the Frenchman a mind. Nor, tempting as it is, would it be correct to describe the Englishman as a will using a mind and the Frenchman as a mind using a will. The interplay of the two faculties is more subtle than that. It might perhaps be put In this way: mind and will are used by the Englishman with the tempo and characteristics of will; by the Frenchman with the tempo and characteristics of mind. This would explain the blunt, concrete, and slowmoving character of English mental contributions to the League; aud also the pertinacious, methodical, and logical developments of the French will in Geneva. The parallel is striking, whatever the subject of the political dialogue which may be chosen to illustrate it. “Furthermore, these profound differences of the English and the French characters as they manifest themselves outward are enriched by their very effects on the inner man. ’ For it is obvious that the Englishman’s picture of the Englishman and the Frenchman’s picture of the Frenchman are bound to differ perhaps more profoundly still than their respective views of the outside world. The Englishman does not know himself at all. He is too well bred to be inquisitive. He feels himself and is quite satisfied that he is 'all right,’ as every man with his record—public school, and so on—is bound to be. Whatever his empirical mind brings forth is therefore all right also, and this assurance enables him to come forth before the world with the most naively egotistical proposals presented with an impassive, earnest and sincere face as universal boons. The Frenchman smiles and exclaims: ‘Ah! ces Anglais!' Yet his way does not lead to much greater concordance between professions and intentions. His mind is too active and clear not to kuow the inner man well. While the Englishman sees his intentions as nebulae seen in a foggy sky, the Frenchman sees his as clear stars marking the cou’-se of his action and thought. It follows that the Frenchman has all the qualities of the general staff of a good army. He plans in advance, calculates his marches, counter-marches and strongholds. He defines his aims accurately and proceeds toward them skilfully. "The result is curiously alike in both cases. The Englishman is always advocating England's interests as if the world were sure to die but for them, and the Frenchman is always proving a 3 mathematical truth tiie particular principle which happens to fit at the time Marianne’s little finger. But the Englishman gives the impression that he lias more faith in his position, since he seems less able to invent his arguments, while the Frenchman at times argues so perfectly that it seems unnecessary to assume that he needs truth to be ou his side.”