Agrégation
anglais, civilisation britannique, commentaire de texte, concours blanc. Le
Royaume-Uni à l’épreuve de la crise 1970-1979, Université de Rouen, décembre
2017.
Quite naturally,
students’ text commentaries, even at agrégation level, tend to display similar
weaknesses. This is why I am putting most of my comments into this collective
place. It would be good if you read them more than once!
First, here is
the passage you were working on, in case you don’t have it to hand
Write a text commentary in
English on the following extract. Be sure to analyze how the document works,
and its context and effectiveness in the history of 1970s Britain, making links
with previous and subsequent developments.
Britain faces its most dangerous crisis since the war. The Labour Party
makes no attempt to disguise this. On the contrary, at the time of the February
election, we took the British people into our confidence and shared the
realities of our daunting problems. We inherited a three-day week, unlit
streets, unheated homes and work-places. And worst of all, a wounded national
economy, made all the more serious by the socially divisive policies of the
previous Conservative Government, with its deliberate confrontation with the
organised working people of our country. The Conservatives created a society in
which people who made money were more honoured than men and women who earned
their wages.
This crisis for our country was all the more desperate because it was set
in the context of a continuing world upheaval. Most of the world is still
staggering from the enormous increases in the price of oil - the most important
basic commodity in modern industrial and agricultural society.
We come with confidence before the public to ask for a strong mandate for
the policies drawn from 'Labour's Programme for Britain' set out in our
February manifesto, some of which have been spelled out in greater detail in
White Papers published by the Government. No Government can get Britain moving
by itself. A democratic Government must reflect the views of the people. And
the people who vote for the Government must give their share of endeavour and
concern - as well as their votes. But a Government can only ask these efforts
from the men and women of this country if they can confidently see a vision of
a fair and just society. Why should a coal miner dig extra coal for a few
pounds more while he has seen property speculators grow wealthy looking at
empty office blocks? A strong new Labour Government, with the agreement and
co-operation of the British people, can make constructive, but not painless
progress towards building a fair society.
This election is inevitable since no clear majority emerged in February.
Despite its minority position the Labour Government have made a good start. Now
we ask for the return of a Labour Government, with a working majority, so that
we can continue to tackle the great problems facing Britain. We have to come to
the men and women of our country and ask for their mandate for industrial and
social reconstruction. We need national support for a steady will for a new
society. In fact we are asking your help to carry through policies which will
work for international peace and co-operation and at the same time create at
home effective measures of economic and social reconstruction.
It is only with a sense of unity that we shall win through. But we cannot
expect this from a Conservative Government - nor from any Conservative-Liberal
coalition. The Tory Party is, by its own statements, deeply divided about what
policies to put before the electorate. Neither the Tories nor a
Conservative-Liberal coalition can bring a united and decisive programme of
solution to contemporary problems.
Why can't we accept the idea of a coalition to meet the nation's crisis?
Because what our country needs in this crisis is a government with a clear-cut
understanding of the nation's problems and the ability to decide quickly and
effectively how to deal with them. A coalition government, by its very nature,
tends to trim its policies and fudge its decisions, and in present
circumstances that just won't do. If we believe, as we must, in our own
independent political philosophies, there is no meeting point between us and
those with quite different philosophies, and it would be a cruel farce to
suggest that the future of the country would be helped by shuffling,
compromising administration.
We want to be frank with you. The regeneration of our economy isn't going
to be easy, even with a Labour Government. The next two or three years are
going to be difficult for us all. There will be no easy times and no easy
pickings for anyone.
We put forward in this manifesto a list of improvements we want to make in
society. We put them forward in good faith; but many of them cost money, and we
understand perfectly well - and we believe you will, too - that the timing of
them will depend on how quickly and how completely we get on top of the
economic problems.
But Labour doesn't go along with the prophets of doom and gloom. We have
great confidence in the British people. If you give us your full backing over
the difficult two or three years ahead we shall weather the storm and get back
on the right course.
Promises and Priorities
The Labour Government has kept the promises made at the election in February.
From the day we took office we acted. We increased pensions to £10 and £16. We
froze rents. We gave security to people who live in furnished tenancies. We
repealed the divisive Industrial Relations Act and we replaced confrontation by
conciliation. We restrained the rise in the cost of living by our subsidies on
essential foods and price controls. We gave loans to the building societies to
help house-buyers - who would otherwise have faced mortgage rates of 13%. We
allocated more money to local councils to build or buy homes.
The Government have published plans for the public ownership of development
land which will get rid of the major inflationary element in the cost of
building; for public control and participation in North Sea oil; for greater
accountability and the extension of public ownership in industry; for beginning
the redistribution of wealth by new taxation on the better-off - while at the
other end of the scale a million and a half people have been taken out of
liability to any income tax. We have published radical and detailed proposals
for pensions and for bringing help as of right to the disabled. New rights for
women and our determination to implement equal pay have been announced. And we
have begun in earnest the promised renegotiation of the Conservatives'
disadvantageous terms of entry to the Common Market.
As at the last election, we are not making any promises which we cannot
keep. We do not believe in electoral bribes - these are an insult to the
intelligence and realism of the public. The priorities we set out here are part
of a programme for a five-year term of office. Much of what we want to do will
take longer because of all the heavy spade-work which has to be done to create
the economic strength on which all else depends.
Extract from the Labour Party
manifesto for the general elections of October 1974
You will
notice that in the instructions I gave you some help: in the real exam, they
will not do this.
Language mistakes.
Language
questions
Very
careful re-reading is necessary. « Careless » mistakes are taken very
seriously. That is to say, the only grammar mistakes you should be making are
on grammar points which you have genuinely not understood.
1) Style of
language which you should use: absolutely no contractions, except when quoting.
2) Some got
confused between “divisive” and “divided”, which are completely different.
3) Note in the
following pairs, the first item is (practically always) correct. The second
item either does not exist or is so extremely rare that you can safely forget
it.
Strategic/ *strategical
Symbolic/
*symbolical
Utopian/
*utopist
Keynesian/
*Keynesianist
4) The
difference between “rhetoric” and “rhetorical” is that one is a noun and the
other is an adjective. The shorter one is a noun.
5) A very
frequent error indeed is to use “efficient” instead of “effective”. Here are
the dictionary definitions.
Although the two
of them are often translated by the same French word (efficace), they are quite
different. For a number of philosophical reasons, if you are writing about
politics and government and public debate, the word you want is almost always
“effective” (it successfully does what it was intended to do).
The example I
always give is that if you have a mouse in your kitchen, there are (at least) two
ways of getting rid of it. You could set a mouse trap.
Or you could
explode a nuclear bomb in your kitchen.
Both of these
may well be effective in getting rid of the mouse. The mouse trap option is,
however, considerably more efficient.
6) Many need to revise
the Saxon genitive: “l’enjeu de l’élection” can absolutely not be said as “the
election’s stake”.
7) Spelling:
Explicitly,
privileged,
General
considerations
To do a
« perfect » text commentary on this kind of document, there are
dozens of elements which could be included, so don’t worry if you missed a lot
of these elements: the point is to include as many as possible.
The main
dangers are the same as ever for commentaries in British civilization
a) paraphrase:
simply repeating some of the things the document says, using your own words.
b)
repeating what you learned in class about the events of 1974, without making
the link with specific sections of the document, or its intentions
(« récitation de cours »).
Context
In 1974
there are two general elections: an almost unheard-of situation, which
obviously indicates a profound political crisis. Having managed to form a
minority government in February, Wilson decides to call for another election in
October. This must be because he thinks he has a good chance of winning (and
indeed, he will win). Good commentaries would be able to give examples of what
the government had done between February and October to help gather public
support for a better vote in the October.
In the
election campaign, the Labour party is faced with its main opponent, the
Conservatives. The Conservatives are also distributing a manifesto. Good commentaries
would be able to say one or two things about the tone and content of the
Conservative manifesto of October 1974.
General
summary of the immediate context:
The Labour
manifesto for the October election was published under the title Britain Will Win with Labour.[1]
It claimed that the Labour Party was
the party of social justice, whereas the Conservatives represented the party of
conflict. According to Labour, effort and sacrifices were necessary due to the
international economic crisis and the massive increase in the price of oil, but
such a programme could only be accepted if people in Britain felt that all were
being fairly treated. (“Why should a coal miner dig extra coal for a few pounds
more while he has seen property speculators grow wealthy looking at empty
office blocks?”)
The manifesto rejected the idea of
a coalition government as a “cruel farce” since different parties had different
philosophies. It defended Harold Wilson’s record, expressing pride at a list of
achievements made over the last six months – in particular the abolition of the
Industrial Relations Act, more taxation on the rich and less on working people,
more security of tenure for tenants and the beginnings of a renegotiation of
membership terms for the Common Market. It is also mentioned that VAT had been
cut from 10% to 8%, that subsidies had kept food prices from rising too
quickly, and that more money had been made available for teachers’ pay and for
student grants.
The manifesto insisted that a broadening
of public ownership was key to helping Britons prosper despite the
international crisis. Labour intended to extend public ownership by buying
shares in profitable manufacturing firms, with the aim of “protecting jobs” and
“encouraging investment”. Far from an unfortunate last resort (as Conservatives
would tend to think of it), nationalization was seen as a way of increasing
popular control over the economy. Similarly, their intention of holding a large
share in North Sea Oil projects was underlined, and their plan to increase
taxes on oil profits.
Plans were revealed to create new
rights for employees and their representative organizations. Joint control on
many issues was planned for industry. There would also be a new wealth tax
introduced on wealth over £100,000.
In public services, the most
notable proposals were the phasing out of private beds in NHS hospitals. The
existence of such private beds was denounced as “queue jumping”. Prescription
charges were also to be phased out. On housing, it was said that council
purchase of development land would be encouraged, and that the “disastrous fall
in house building” would be reversed. On education, it was announced that the
party had a long-term aim of eliminating fee paying in schools.
In other areas, the manifesto
underlined that the Labour government had appointed the first ever minister
responsible for the arts, and the first ever minister of sport.
On devolution, the promise was made
to set up autonomous assemblies in Scotland and in Wales. The British troops in
Northern Ireland would stay there for the time being, although in the long term
it was hoped they would be withdrawn. Labour were proud to be able to propose a
referendum on remaining in the Common Market, a consultation which they
presented as a triumph for democracy. Finally, on nuclear weapons, the
manifesto explained that the present nuclear weapons would stay but that there
would be no replacement of them by a new generation of long-range nuclear
weapons.
The
Conservative Party under the title Putting
Britain first published the opposing manifesto First. [2]
The Conservative manifesto criticized
trade unions for taking on an inappropriate role (“We shall not be dominated by
the trade unions. They are not the government of the country”). The situation
of the country is presented as a grave one indeed (“The dangers now facing
Britain are greater than any we have seen since the last war. These dangers are
both economic and political”). Implicitly, the Labour Party is presented as
wanting to destroy the existing system:
“We do not believe that the great
majority of people want revolutionary change in society, or for that matter
that the future happiness of our society depends on completely altering it.
There is no majority for a massive extension of nationalisation. There is no
majority for the continued harrying of private enterprise.”
The manifesto suggested that the
country’s main problem was that “We must stop paying ourselves more than we
produce” and promised that a Conservative government would “rigorously control
public spending”. Although the Conservatives admit that not much cutting of
taxes is feasible for the moment, they maintain that their general objective is
to reduce “the burden of taxation”.
The priorities of the manifesto
reflected the values of the party: it was planned to “develop forms of savings
which are protected against inflation”, which would help mostly middle-class
people who had seen the value of their savings fall quite sharply because of
inflation. Taxes on capital would be reviewed. Old Age Pensioners were also to
be, it was said, a priority of Conservative policy.
One chapter of the manifesto dealt
with the party’s attitudes to Trade Unions. A new Conservative government would
not reintroduce the Industrial Relations Act, it was stated, “in view of the
hostility which it aroused”. The party would like to see lower wage rises. A
voluntary pay policy, they said, would be tried, but, if it did not work, then
a statutory (i.e. obligatory) limit on wage rises would be put in place. As a
matter of principle, the possibility of the families of those on strike
receiving financial help from the government was to be reviewed. The right for
trade unions to hold meetings in workplaces would be instituted, and also,
trade unions who wished would be able to receive government funding to organize
postal ballots for electing union leaders.
Turning then to public services: on
the question of housing, the main priority of the Conservatives was to increase
the percentage of people owning their own home. To encourage this, they
intended to cap mortgage rates, and to provide grants for first time buyers who
were saving for a deposit on a house. The party also committed itself to obliging
local councils to sell council houses to the people who lived in them at one
third below the market price of the house.
On health, the party opposed the
abolition of all charges in the health service, which Labour was proposing. On
education, the manifesto insisted that the Conservative Party was not opposed
to comprehensive schooling in general, but that they defended the right of
local councils to refuse comprehensive schooling if they wished, based on the
preferences of parents in the area.
Audience of the document etc.
Good
commentaries would be able to say something about the nature of a party
manifesto, and who it is aimed at. It aims at motivating party activists, and
persuading the people who are not sure who to vote for. It is not addressed to
the section of the population who always vote Conservative and are not open to
discussion. Remember what happens to the manifesto: copies of it are the basis
for doorstep discussions, as Labour party canvassers knock on every door in the
country asking « Can we count on your vote? » (Other party activists
canvass too, though no doubt a little less).
Remember what
a manifesto is: a document of twenty or thirty pages, of which you have been
given an extract. You need to remember it is an extract. So, do not write « the
manifesto does not make any mention of subject X » unless you are
sure that this is the case in the rest of the manifesto!
Authorship of the document
The
manifesto is put forward by the leadership, but, since it aims at mobilizing
the activists, must take into account the different debates within the party.
Good commentaries will show understanding that the Labour Party, particularly
in the 1970s, is not a monolithic bloc, and is the site of a permanent debate
about how much nationalization is realistic or appropriate, to what extent
class struggle is central to society, how much of a redistributive tax policy
is possible or appropriate, and so on. The Conservative party is similarly
locked in debate between the wing which will soon be called the Thatcherite
wing and the « one nation Tories » (to simplify the conflict
somewhat). But our subject today is the Labour party manifesto, so only a
passing reference to ideological debate within the Conservative party is
appropriate.
A few
students denounced the Labour Party for being divided. A democratic political
party is a mass organization developing detailed policy around agreed general
principles. Politics being an extremely complex business, permanent debate and
disagreement are absolutely inevitable. The only parties which are not divided
are undemocratic ones!
Various
comments on contents
Quite a number
of students showed good knowledge of the period, and long sections of
paraphrase or repeating the lesson without reference to the document were not
generally present.
a) Wider contexts:
Almost everybody said nothing at all about anything which happened before 1974
or after 1979. This is a real pity, since the document brought up questions
(coalitions, nationalization, strike waves) which would have been more easily
explained with reference to their place in wider UK history.
For example: the
question of the coalition. It would have been good to explain that because of
the first pas the post voting system which made life very hard for small parties,
coalitions are extremely rare in UK history since 1945. Indeed, there was the
wartime coalition, and then there was the coalition between David Cameron and
the Liberal Democrats in 2010. You should have noted that the Lib-Lab pact was
not a coalition, since the Liberals were not given ministerial posts.
The Lib-Lab pact involved an agreement by
Liberal MPs not to vote against the government on key issues, in return for the
right to be consulted on laws before they were presented to the Commons.
Nationalization.
The document speaks positively of nationalization. Nationalization is a key
political controversy and economic policy in the UK. A variety of industries –
coal, telecommunications, electricity and so on – were nationalized by the
Labour government immediately after the war. The 1970s Labour governments
nationalized little, although the Left of the party around Tony Benn would have
liked to see much more nationalization. Almost all the nationalized industries were privatized
either by Margaret Thatcher’s governments or by Tony Blair’s. Nationalization
is on the agenda again in Britain in 2018, since Jeremy Corbyn’s proposal to
renationalize the railways is very popular, and today’s news about the
bankruptcy of Carillion, a private company entrusted with public services infrastructure
has stirred up the debate again.
b) Examples:
frequently a document to be analyzed will give a few examples of a particular
argument or phenomenon. You should always add an additional example or
additional information about one or more of the examples given. If you do not,
the reader will understand that you don’t know anything about it.
So, for example,
in an attempt to show that they are the best party for government, the Labour
Party mention in this extract a few things they have done since February. A
good commentary will be able to add one or two more.
What did the
Labour government do between February and October?
It solved the miners’
strike. It abolished the Industrial Relations Court which trade unions had so
much objected to. It passed a major piece of legislation: the Health and Safety
at Work Act.
It increased
security of tenure for tenants. It cut indirect taxation (the taxes which hit
less well-off people most).
c) objectivity. It’s
not a good idea to criticize a manifesto for “not being objective”. It sounds
excessively naïve. If you imagine your job was to analyze advertising and you
complained that “this advertisement seems to be trying to get viewers to buy
their product”.
Questions
of style and rhetoric
It was a good
idea to spend a couple of paragraphs on rhetoric and style. The use of a “neighbourly
tone” which sounds as if it comes from someone who shares people’s preoccupations
is an important rhetorical tactic. They do not use an intellectual tone with
lots of statistics and graphs or appeals to experts. However, you need to speak
about this rhetorical choice without sounding naïve (“The Labour Party are
showing their honesty”) and without being cynical (“they would like people to
believe they are honest”)
Partisan
approaches
If you
think some of the arguments presented by the Labour Party here are rather weak,
you can say this provided you put it into historical context. “Labour’s
opponents would be more likely to blame trade unions’ wage claims for inflation”
is a perfectly acceptable sentence. “The Labour Party forgets to mention that
trade unions are to blame for inflation” is not good. Indeed, there is no
expert consensus on the causes of inflation…( see Kaldor, Nicholas. “Inflation and Recession in
the World Economy.” The Economic Journal, vol. 86, no. 344, 1976, pp.
703–714. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2231447.
)
General
questions of methodology
Here are some
general points on writing a text commentary in civilization, which is completely different from in literature.
Many thanks to the teachers from the University of Paris 7 : this section
is made up of extracts from their document, which I have slightly adapted.
(Their document
is online here https://fr.scribd.com/document/362914625/Brochure-Externe-2016-17-Site-Ufr-2 )
Objective of the
commentary
In a text
commentary, your role is to determine the historical significance of the text.
In order to do so, you must discuss the perspective given by the author on the
historical issues presented in the text.
You must determine what his objectives are and how / to what extent he or she achieves
them. This implies that there needs to be 2 levels to your analysis:
Level 1: define,
explain, highlight the events, developments etc mentioned in the text,
using your knowledge of the period; demonstrate that you know your history,
understand what the author refers to, and are able to make the text
comprehensible to people who do not know the period or have not read the text.
Level 2: comment
on the intentions of the author, on how they present the issues at stake, and
why.
Preliminary work
on the text
1. Look at the
“margins” of the text: title, source, date (situate it within your
period), author (see whether it’s anonymous / anybody famous; if the author is
known to you, gather in your mind the elements you know about him/her)
2.
Read the text
carefully, at least 3 times. When you read the text for the first time, do not
make any notes or write on the text; do not make assumptions and keep a clear
and open mind until you have read the last word of the text: texts can be
deceptive and the key to the interpretation may be at the end of the passage
– it’s always difficult to get rid of wrong assumptions.
3.
Once you have
perceived the general idea of the text, look closely at the following elements:
a.
nature of the
text (official report / letter / petition / speech). The specificity of the
text will have to be taken into account in your analysis.
b.
period
analysed in the text + date when the text was written. They may be the same or
they may be different, in the case of memoirs for instance - the retrospective
aspect of a document should never be ignored. Place the date(s) within your
period + is it immediately before/after a major historical event, reform etc.
Before you start your analysis, you must be clear on the
context in which the text
was written or the speech delivered
c.
author (or
multiple authors); if you know who they are, determine whether they are likely
to have a particular perspective / events they describe and why.
d.
readership / audience: this is essential to help you analyse the objectives
of the author, who they
intend to convince and what means they will use to do so.
e.
tone/
literary qualities… because they are markers of subjectivity and will help
you determine the intentions, means and perspective of the author.
f.
structure of the text: uncover the internal logic of the text, the argumentative dynamic of the
author’s demonstration, looking closely at repetitions/progression…
Detailed
analysis of the text
One of the main
challenges here is to distinguish the main arguments from the more minor
points. This does not mean of course that details are to be overlooked: but
they shouldn’t obscure the central dynamic of the text, which should be at the
heart of your commentary. A linear analysis
of the text will first enable you to choose the terms, dates, concepts, events,
etc that need to be defined, explained and commented on. Select the quotes
that you will include in your commentary. But the objective of your analysis
should be to go towards the most problematic elements, towards what is
implicit, what is left unsaid, what is hidden (consciously or unconsciously) by
the author.
You should
uncover whether the author is being influenced (and by whom or what), to what
extent he is biased, and to what extent he himself tries to influence his
readership/audience. It is on these points that your commentary should provide
a critical (which of course means constructive assessment) perspective on the
text. Compare the way the author presents
events to what you know of these same historical events, to ultimately
determine why the author writes as he does, what his motives are and what,
therefore, is the historical interest of the text. Once you have completed this
detailed analysis, you will be able to organise the main themes of the text
into a logical, detailed outline and determine a problématique. Remember that this is not an essay and that the problématique should
be based on the historical interest of the text and the intentions of the
author, not on the topic in general.
Introduction
1.
Begin with the
context: select relevant historical developments that will lead to the issues
at stake in the text.
Select the context critically: the historical
long-term perspective is only interesting if relevant: avoid equally
superficial and naïve comments, such as “England has always been/ For centuries…”
The introduction
should remain dense, concise, to the point: it is not the place to cram in
knowledge, so do not give a vast panorama of events on the subject at stake in
the text.
2.
Present the main
idea/theme of the text (brief but to the point), the objective of the author,
the date, the readership; show that you have understood the context in which
the text was written or the speech delivered and that you will reflect on its
significance.
3.
Introduce a
clear problématique, focused on the text (not simply on the general topic
of the text) and on its interpretation. Once again, the essential elements in a
commentary are the interpretation that the author gives of the period concerned,
and your own informed interpretation of the author’s perspective. You need to
reflect on how the text should be read in order to be properly understood, in
its explicit and implicit elements.
Development:
argumentation
Do not hesitate
to draw comparisons between the document you are asked to study and other
documents you have read that would highlight the interest of the text and help
you build a critical analysis. Interpretations are central in history and the
quality of your analysis will be improved if you can use briefly and
selectively other documents that may be relevant to fully understand the
significance of the text you are to study. Similarly, do not hesitate to use
the historiography on the period to support your analysis. Referring to books
and/or articles by historians of the period will give weight to your own
analysis and demonstrate that you have a broad and informed perspective on
events.
Conclusion
It should not be
a summary (neither of your development nor of the text itself). You must
reflect on what you have demonstrated and pull together the threads from your
main arguments, conclude on the historical interest/significance of the text,
the objectives of the author and his/her degree of subjectivity. Needless to
say, you must provide an answer to the
problématique given
in the introduction. Include your reflection in a broader historical context
(without giving the impression that it’s a mere “what happened next”.
To be avoided at
all costs
1. Paraphrase
and reformulation: this will be avoided if you remember the 2 levels that your
commentary must include (cf above). 2.
Essay rather
than commentary: (cf above: never provide an analysis that is not closely
linked to the text and its specificity; this should also enable you to avoid
any
placage de
cours).
3.
Literary
commentary: style, rhetorical devices etc are only useful if they support your
analysis of history; if not, they are irrelevant.
[If you want to
talk about lexical fields, anaphores and cataphores, you should probably wait
until you are working on a literary document].
4.
Judgment on the
author, pseudo-psychology on his/her feelings and intentions. Bold statements
(particularly if unfounded): valuable comments generally come from the
confrontation between several interpretations of the same event/process.
[e.g. Do not write “The author’s presentation does not fit with the
facts.” Write instead: “Other commentators such as X have seen these events in
quite a different way, claiming that ….”.]
No comments:
Post a Comment