"Que sont les «factieux» dénoncés par Emmanuel Macron?"
I've chosen to analyze a timely article on Macron's use of two specific French words he used in a recent interview when discussing the retirement reform in France.
What is the global/historical focus of this artifact? This artifact aims to find out what Macron meant when he referred to French protestors as “factieux” or “factions” during an interview he participated in on 22 March 2023.
How is violence conveyed in this message? The article states that Macron said “We cannot accept neither the “factieux” or “factions” in regards to observed violence in the streets of France.
What is the counter story? Whose history is intentionally left out of the message or undermined by the current message? Who benefits from the historical perspective? Who loses? The counter story is that Macron had his prime minister push the law through using what they refer to as “the nuclear option”, because they KNEW the bill wouldn’t pass if it were voted on. They were well aware of the strikes and protests when they used the 49-3 law. The French people weren’t allowed a say in the matter at all, so they were rightfully upset. They took to the streets to show their unhappiness. The article doesn’t mention any of this in their message, which makes it seem like their actions have zero merit. While their methods might not be ideal, this was all completely avoidable if Macron had listened to his citizens.
Who is potentially harmed by this message? The people protesting the retirement reform are potentially harmed by this message, because it seems to lump them in with the January 6 insurgents as well as the Brazilian citizens who invaded their Parliament after the election of Lula. Macron could also potentially be harmed by the message, because it implies that his word choice was too harsh.
Is this message trying to sell a product, an idea, or value? No, this message is meant to discuss Macron’s choice of the words “factieux” and “factions” when referring to the protestors against his retirement reform law. Previously, these words were used for seditious persons.
Final Thoughts: I can definitely use these questions (and even intend on using this article) in my French 4 class. The information contained within is relevant to French culture, and opens a discussion on vocabulary. The questions I chose to respond to are perfect for having the students do a little more deeper thinking about how the information is relayed to the public.