‘Latin Logic’ vs. ‘Anglo-Saxon Pragmatism’? Colonial language, pedagogy and diplomatic culture
Francophone and Anglophone African diplomats confer before a UN Special Committee (LtR) W.W.K. Vanderpuye (Ghana), P. Engo (Cameroon), K. Mameri (Algeria) and B.C. Odogwu (Nigeria) (Source: UN Photo/Teddy Chen)
Upon decolonisation, the vast majority of African diplomats were trained in either ‘anglophone’ or ‘francophone’ groups, including through international programs such as those of the Carnegie Endowment or UNITAR. These were often formative groupings for the diplomats’ subsequent careers, providing them with common experiences and interpersonal networks that were vital for work in multilateral fora such as the UN. However, as pictured above, in the course of their careers African diplomats also needed to be able to communicate and cooperate across the linguistic divide in order to achieve common regional goals. In 1963 J.R. Symonds of the UN Technical Assistance Board wondered
“whether there may be a particular field of cooperation in the training of diplomats … The desirable thing seems that the English-speaking ones should imbibe something of the French approach (not just language) and vice versa. … The divergence between ex French and ex British practice is striking … much more needs to be done to familiarise Nigerians and Ghanaians etc. with Latin logic, and Ivoirians and Senegalese with Anglo-Saxon pragmatism.”
The different ‘approaches’ beyond language alluded to by Symonds relate to a certain pedagogy and diplomatic culture, the articulations of which our bilingual, comparative study is able to shed light on.
Symond’s note was prompted by a visit of Professor Luchaire of the Paris Institut des Hautes Etudes d’Outre-Mer (IHEOM) to various English institutions providing training in law, governance, administration and diplomacy for foreign nationals of former colonies. As the director of a school specialising in exactly this kind of training, which was well-resourced and closely connected to the French state, Luchaire was in England to assess his school’s competitors, as well as to look at possibilities for cooperation. His report on his visit painted a picture of general disorganisation, where no one knew exactly how many students were in the UK or what they were studying, recruitment was arbitrary and courses tended to be undersubscribed. In Luchaire’s assessment, British courses offered: “neither precise professional training nor even a broad general culture, but only what will allow the individual to have a 'convenient way of life'”.[1]
Later the same year, a UK government commission on “Training in Public Administration for Overseas Countries” chaired by Lord Bridges published its report (for more on this read ‘The British End of the British Empire’). A note drafted for the Bridges committee looked across the channel to the IHEOM, so apparently successful in providing specialised training for such a large number of civil servants of former colonies. However, citing fundamental differences in French and British modes of training, governance, and law, its author concluded that “it is doubtful whether we could copy the IHEOM here, even if we wished to do so”.[2] The sense of a unified, codified French system, where a common language was not just linguistic but cultural, political and legal, stood in contrast to the ‘pragmatic’ approach taken by the British. Each side appeared to have seen the other’s approach as irreconcilably different from their own.
At the core of the juxtaposition of ‘Latin Logic’ and ‘Anglo-Saxon pragmatism’ were opposing pedagogical styles: broadly didactic, teacher-led learning in the French system, versus broadly critical, student-led learning in the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ system. The IHEOM - and the IIAP that succeeded it - primarily taught diplomats through formal lectures. Students had to pass competitive entrance exams, and were subject to summative written assessments throughout the course. If their average grade fell below the cut-off mark, they would fail the course. This training also involved extensive use of practical placements of around four months in French consulates and embassies, where students learned the job by observing and imitating French diplomatic staff. In comparison, courses in England tended to be far more academic and research-focused. They had more flexible admissions policies, and placed emphasis on formative assessment and continuous feedback. Students needed to be active participants in seminars, simulations and excursions, to gain what Oxford’s Ralph Feltham called ‘the intangibles of diplomacy’, namely: intellectual curiosity, political awareness and personability.
When in 1971 the Institut des Relations International du Cameroun (IRIC) became Africa’s first bilingual regional diplomatic training school, it inherited many of its course materials, pedagogical approaches and even lecturers themselves from the IUHEI in Geneva. However, its director had trained in Paris, and it primarily recruited students trained in the “French” system, through for example its parent institution, the Université de Yaoundé. Recalling his time as a student there in 1974, Ambroise Behalal described differences in pedagogy being as significant as cultural or linguistic difference in the bilingual school. Having studied for his first degree at the Université de Yaoundé, he recalls being introduced to what he called 'Anglo-Saxon’ pedagogy for the first time at IRIC, characterising it as a “certain development of personality facilitating a plasticity of spirit and a facility of adaptation in the face of changing circumstances”[3], rather than delivering raw information as had been the case for his first degree.
The language of instruction clearly played a geopolitical role, aligned with attempts to protect of British and French postcolonial spheres of influence. Mono-linguistic training may have been most often chosen for practical reasons, however the pedagogical choices that often resulted further bifurcated African diplomats’ experiences of training in the years following independence. When IRIC opened the first bilingual, regional training programme for African diplomats, it pioneered a blended pedagogical and curricular offer, one which explicitly sought to reflect African diplomacy.
These emerging findings underline the need for bilingual and cultural comparative approaches in our project. Analysis of trainee networks has also been vital for highlighting cases where individual diplomats participated in multiple training programmes, crossing between Anglo- and Franco-centric spheres in the early years of independence. Such cases might be able to further articulate how African diplomacy evolved through the contested processes of training.
[1] Archives Nationales de France 20050323/16: Note relative à la formation en angleterre des cadres des pays sous-dévéloppés, April 1963
[2] University of London ICS85 D: The Institut des Hautes Etudes d’Outre-Mer in Paris: Memorandum from Dr. R.E. Robinson, 24th May 1962
[3] Behalal, A. 2022 En guise de souvenirs de ma vie d’étudiant à l’IRIC (1974-76), paper presented at the 50th Anniversary of IRIC, 2nd July 2022