Présentation : This course examines organizational and individual behaviours in organizations as well as management practices in business situations
involving cross-national/cross cultural relations. The objectives is to familiarize students with issues and reflexions on multinational/multicultural interactions
in the workplace. Based on a number of theories and cases, it is based on group discussion and work to raise students awareness and problem solving skills.
Duration: 20 hours
I - National cultures and management
The classical Hofstede' model
The Societal Analysis model
The renewal d'Iribarne Model
II - Issues/debates in cross-cultural management
Globalization and national cultures at work
Is there a cultural determination?
International business and ethics
The demise of the British Empire triggered a loosening of the traditional bonds between the founding nations of the Kingdom. This seminar will first examine such a process overall, before investigating the present dividing lines. This examination will start with the two Irelands: how what has become the present Republic of Ireland managed to severe all links with its neighbour, and how Northern Ireland became some entity of its own, whose displays of loyalism and unionism are first and foremost aimed at stabilizing a very un-British statu quo. Moving into Britain proper next, we shall investigate the present state of things for Scotland, whose wide-ranging devolution fails short of complete independence, then the bizarre hatred between the English and the Welsh. Last but not least, we will question the Great Divide between the tow Englands of the time.
After a first part which studies the British Isles from the angle of its geography, the second half of this seminar focuses on the politics of contemporary Britain. Two sessions are dedicated to a presentation of British political institutions (and the debates which they give rise to) and of British political parties and party systems. Questions such as the decline of the two-party system, the resilience of the monarchy or the debate over Lords reform are considered. The final three sessions examine the latest major political trends in the UK, such as the rise of Euroscepticism and the Scottish independence debate.
This course will give you an introduction to the both the history of revolution in Britain and some of the key debates which animated British political debate in the period from the Civil Wars of the Three Kingdoms to the European revolutions of 1848. By starting with the events surrounding the ‘revolution’ of 1649 and the republican moment in British history, we will examine one of the least acknowledged of the founding moments in Britain’s political and constitutional past, making sure to question the role of this conflict in the history of the British Isles as a whole, as well as Ireland. We will then move on to explore the events and debates surrounding the so-called ‘Glorious’ or ‘Bloodless’ Revolution of 1688-89, exploring whether it did indeed signal the securing of British liberty and the beginning of what some in the Whig school of thought have seen as Britain’s peculiarly moderate political tradition, based on gradualism, custom and the haphazard aggregation of historical precedents, or whether it is illegitimate to call it a revolution at all. We will wrap up this session by looking at what many consider to have been a constitutional revolution for Britain, the joining of England and Scotland under the Treaty of Union of 1707, and the responses to the settlement on either side of the border. The following part of the course will concentrate on Britain’s responses to the American and French Revolutions, with a particular emphasis on the way in which radical activists engaged with these two events to articulate a new discourse of reform and question whether such radicalism might have taken Britain to the verge of its own revolution. We will finish off this historical view with a brief dip into the nineteenth century, seeing how the radical tradition continued through the post-1815 years, culminating in the Chartist agitation of the 1830s and 1840s. This session will aim to show that, although Britain did indeed avoid a revolution in 1848, unlike most of Western and Central Europe, the country was far from immune to the issues which animated the pan-European resistance to established regimes.
After this panoramic sweep of Britain’s political, radical and constitutional history and its relationship with other nations undergoing political change, we will move on to focus on some key themes which have prompted debate across this period of British history, and up to the present day. Will a particular focus on the ‘Age of Revolutions’, from the 1770s to the 1840s, we will examine debates – on constitutions, republics and monarchy, citizenship, democracy and the government of the people - assessing the arguments advanced, exploring their origin in earlier history, charting their progress in the post-revolutionary period and, where relevant, trying to assess their influence today in the light of their historical roots. To give an example, in 1791 and 1792, British radical Thomas Paine, veteran of the American Revolution, published Rights of Man Parts One and Two, in which, amongst other arguments, he suggested that the British constitution did not exist, and that Britain still had a constitution to create. Over two hundred years later, some of Paine’s arguments are being re-employed by political activists from groups such as Constitution UK, to suggest that Britain once and for all should draft its own charter of principles – a constitution – rather than relying on unwritten rules and precedent. This course will also be an opportunity to gain an insight into some of the ways British history has been written and interpreted since the end of the 17th century, and so students should come away from the course with some historiographical tools which can be applied more universally in the study of history.
In spite of (or possibly, because of) a number of common characteristics (e.g. former colonial and world powers ; great immigration countries ;comparable populations etc. ) Britain and France come across as eternal 'friendly enemies' in Europe. They are commonly described as being at odds with each other in many ways, notably as regards their handling of social issues. Their approaches to migration and, above all, integration illustrate that apparent, blatant opposition. On the one hand, Universalism, which is in keeping with the spirit of the French Revolution seems- at least, superficially- to be at odds with British differentialism. The French Republic, which arose in 1792 following the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen in 1789 was built by the people, for the people. France's republican history is thereofre primarily a political construct of a community of citizens who are equal, regardless of their social, ethnic, religious or other backgrounds. During the French Revolution, Article I of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen targeted the division of the population into antagonistic social categories. So as to transcend those categories, the representatives of the French people decided to ignore specific affiliations in order to favour universal citizenship (Article 1 « Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good. » After several returns to monarchy and the shift to the Empire under Napoleon Ist and Napoleon IIIrd in the 19th century, universalism was revived under the Third Republic (from 1870 onward), an era of democratisation and progress .The same values were to prompt the adoption of the 1905 law on the Separation of the Churches and the State. Article I of the 1958 Constitution reasserts that universalism: France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs. » One may therefore easily understand the reluctance of France towards any form of quantitative ethnic monitoring (a reluctance compounded by the experience of Nazi occupation and of the Vichy Régime) or to put in place positive discrimination measures based on ethnic criteria (cf. Veil Committee's recommendation, December 2008) like those gradually introduced across the Channel from the mid 1960s onward.
The French Republic perceives itself as a universal model and proclaims that it is 'one and indivisible'. As a result, the national community is supposed to be made up of equal citizens, not separate communities, the only acceptable dichotomy being between nationals and non-nationals (i.e. citizens and non-citizens).
Differentialism, on the other hand, is an anthropological concept, whereby the existence of groups and the differences between them (whether gender, social, racial, ethnic or religious differences) are on the whole taken for granted and are not really questioned. A common characteristic of differentialism is that an individual's perceived belonging to a group tends to take precedence over his / her personal, objective characteristics .Differentialism proved a great influence in the colonial context. Indeed, the British saw themselves as fundamentally different from other nations, let alone other 'races', making assimilation pointless and useless. Unlike the French and the Spanish, the British focused on the mercantile motive and were hardly interested in converting 'pagans' to Christianity or in attempting to assimilate them along 'British lines'. This partly explains why they were so quick in conquering huge territories. Indeed religious officials in India e.g. did not perceive British colonisation as a threat, because of Britain's reliance on indirect rule, which proved terribly efficient and came in sharp contrast with the so-called direct rule system used by the French, notably in Algeria.
With the beginning of mass, post-war, non-European immigration, it became obvious that Britain's attitude to colonial immigrants and their descent was still influenced by differentialism, although there emerged a 'liberal' (i.e. progressive) form of differentialism in the 1960s, characterised by the adoption of a specific race relations legislation. New Commonwealth immigrants were no longer deemed inferior, but fundamentally different from the rest of the population, which explains why British integration policies were so different from French ones.
However, 'Liberal differentialism', to quote French historian and demographer Emmanuel Todd co-existed with its traditional colonial version, epitomised by Tory frontbencher Enoch Powell, whose notorious anti-immigration 'Rivers of Blood' speech (1968) - a strong indictment of New Commonwealth immigration and of anti-discriminatory legislation - gained him considerable public support, including among the traditionally Labour-voting working classes.
Although the opposition between both integration models is relevant to a vast extent, it can prove sterile and should certainly by nuanced, as will be shown in this course, which shall investigate immigration and integration policies in a trans-Channel perspective from 1930 to present. It shall be established that despite seemingly diverging routes the integration of 'minorities' or 'populations d'origine immigrée' - the use of different terms is by itself probably revealing and will have to be addressed - has produced rather similar results across the Channel, especially in recent decades.
The aim of this course is to provide students with knowledge and insight into the complex relationship between Britain and the European Union, generally portrayed as a “wait and see” attitude on the part of the UK. After a brief reminder of the history of the EU, the focus will be on the British position regarding European policies (CAP, Euro, expansion v. integration), on its legal system, and on its political landscape.
Introduction: A brief history of the institutions of the EU/ a brief history of the 1973 membership
- The changing attitudes of political parties regarding the EU
- Britain and the Common Agricultural Policy
- Britain and the Euro
- The impact of membership on the English legal system
- The impact of membership on governing the UK: parliament, regional government, local government.
Conclusion: The debate on intergovernmentalism and supranationalism . Is Britain still an “awkward” partner?
The official websites of the EU are to be visited, in particular europa.eu
The advantages of membership for the UK are described interactively on the website www.the-eu-and-me.org.uk/
A syllabus will be handed out on the first class.
The current political regime of France, the Fifth Republic, was established by the 1958 Constitution. After two centuries of political and constitutional instability, the Fifth Republic is often presented by its numerous supporters as the expression of a political maturity and equilibrium between the principles of liberty and authority. Even if this judgement has to be balanced, it is undeniable that the political regime of today’s France, which is neither a "presidential regime" like the USA nor a classic "parliamentary regime" following the Westminster model, is a quite original and peculiar combination of presidentialism, democracy and rule of law. Its various components and its balance of powers will be presented and discussed in this course
The course objectives in the English-speaking University Diploma are to pass along language tools that will allow students to communicate as quickly as possible in an everyday environment.
The course is in French-language medium using basic grammar as well as role-play for communicative competency, both of which are used in a progressive manner.
Diverse audio and visual aids will be used.