Monday, October 15, 2012

The culture in Proust

When people read Proust in English, or when English-speaking people read him in French, one of the reasons they do so is an admiration for some quality they see in French culture. It because of a sense, as the New Yorker's Adam Gopnik once put it, that France produced the greatest common place culture ever.

This is probably less true today but if you went to France sometime in the last five decades you could see something most countries don't have today: a culture that runs deep. Everything—from the food people ate and the clothes they wore to the politics and history they argued about—drew from a shared culture that everyone participated in in a deep way.

A friend of mine and I saw a fascinating example of this in the late 1980s when we too some visitors from France to a restaurant in Chinatown. He took them there to give them an experience they couldn't have at home. He told them, what is quite true, that you simply cannot find the kinds of restaurant you can find in a North American Chinatown anywhere in Paris. And they loved the idea. They were looking forward to a new experience.

But the second they picked up the menus, they unconsciously set about transforming the meal into a French meal. They ordered not spring rolls but hors d'œuvres and they insisted on discussing and picking a wine that went with the main course. They were not disappointed but pitying when they learned that the restaurant had no cheese course to offer and stunned when they learned that coffee was unavailable said, with a tone of charity, "Oh well, we can have coffee elsewhere".

My friend was offended but I loved it. They weren't imperialistic about it. They didn't see themselves as imposing any judgments on anyone. They simply had this whole rich culture to draw on so they drew on it.

And the thing is they weren't cultured types. They were computer geeks here to talk about microchips. Think of it this way, you wouldn't be surprised if you met a computer geek from Cupertino who could was deeply interested in New Orleans cuisine but you'd treat him as unusual just as you would treat a computer geek who was deeply interested in new Orleans jazz. If, however, you found yourself treating a group of computer geeks at a conference who were a only together because they all happened to come from the United States, you'd be more than a little shock if they all shared the same deep interest and knowledge of a particular cuisine.

That is what France has that most other countries don't. And even other countries that have it, say Ireland, for example, don't have the depth and richness that France has.

That is a big part of the reason people from outside France read Proust. You get a detailed look at French culture at two levels. You get to see the aristocracy who were living their last gasp and you get a detailed look of the rising middle class who were seeking something like what the aristocracy had but also managing to create something new in the process.

You see this last in two women—Mme Verdurin and Odette de Crecy. The first is a member of the upper middle class, possessed of as much wealth but not the status of the aristocracy, who maintains a salon. Odette, on the other hand, is a courtesan who aspires to join the same social class as her lovers. And both largely succeed in their ambitions. (One of the biggest mistakes you can make in reading Proust is to disdain or hate particular characters, you must love them all to get this work.)

In order to show us their lives and their rise correctly, Proust must, and does, give us a highly detailed picture of their culture. As I've said before, it's a huge mistake to read Proust for his psychology. It has its moments to be sure, but, to paraphrase what Rossini said about Wagner, Proust's explorations of psychology does have some wonderful moments but it also has some terrible half hours. No, it is the outside account, the la belle epoque as you will find it nowhere else, that is the primary reason for reading this.

6 comments:

  1. Absolutely. I'm beginning to think this is the reason the US is increasingly not working and everyone is at each others' throats. We don't have a shared culture here, or even a shared world view, and the opposites are so extreme. At best there are regional cultures, even that's a stretch and not the same as a common shared culture like the French. I wonder how much of it has to do with the occupation during WWII?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My point wasn't about what works or what doesn't. France's culture fascinates us because it is so different but I'm not sure what is better. And whatever is culturally better, no reasonable person would say that France is a political success story.

      Delete
  2. Maybe not, and I understand this wasn't your point, but I don't think France is as acrimonious and polarized as the US has gotten, but maybe I'm wrong. At least they have a common denominator, a shared culture and heritage which unites them in spite of their differences, and that is lacking in the US. We're an immigrant nation, and the idea was that people would leave their old culture behind, but I don't think many people ever really did because there was nothing to replace it and they needed something to hang on to. So the differences between people became even more pronounced, the "melting pot" worked only to a point.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't know, I think France and the US are broadly comparable in their interpretation of the "nation" as a civic body and their tendency to aim towards assimilation (at least in comparison to more ethnic versions of the nation). There might be something to the idea that France has a more robust culture for people to assimilate into. But on the other hand, France has had its own very serious domestic polarization, especially during the 19th century and I guess up through Vichy, between clerical/anticlerical, monarchist/republican, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Absolutely true, but as you point out this polarization exists within the context of a common robust culture, which is missing in the US. The US divides along ethnic, racial, religious, regional lines, but has no uniquely American culture as yet. I realize this wasn't Jules' point in his comments about Proust, but they almost invited this discussion.

    ReplyDelete