"Negen voor de professor"… (bis)

Three weeks ago I had to write an essay about multiculturalism in the Netherlands: has the country fully integrated immigrants, and have immigrants truly integrated the Netherlands? I think I gave an answer in the following essay. I didn't change anything except for punctuation.

Dutch Present-Day Society: home assignment

The Netherlands: A Multicultural Society?

Tolerance, in the sense of ‘peaceful coexistence’, often characterizes the Netherlands and automatically dubs it as ‘multicultural’. However, for some scholars that very idea is incorrect. Bax was among the firsts who noticed some failures of the (supposedly) multicultural society in which an underclass took shape with overrepresentation of migrants (1995: 21, 27). Besides, Paul Scheffer’s article gave momentum to the discussion about those failures, and so did the 9/11 attacks as well as Pim Fortuyn and his assassination (Bendrif & Haney [B&H] 2006: 3). Minorities-related problems were rarely debated due to a culture of tolerance (i.e. indifference). All this further hindered the migrants’ integration and alienated them from society, possibly leading to social unrest (Scheffer 2000: 9). In this essay I discuss how the Dutch society has failed in its multicultural orientation, but also show that, although the situation is far from being idyllic for the immigrants, positive developments are observed.

First, let us draw a terminological frame: what does ‘multiculturalism’ entail? Originally the authorities had a goal of peaceful coexistence of communities in mind. However, that is just the narrow sense of a multicultural society, namely a ‘multi-ethnic society’, i.e. ‘a society which encompasses different minority groups who are the result of individual and familial immigration, and distinguished by cultural differences related to language and national origin’ (Spiecker & Steutel [S&S] 2001: 296). True multiculturalism is actually about interacting, participating in and contributing to society, all that on the basis of equality for everyone and their right to follow own religious practices, as long as the latter do not interfere with the core values and laws of that society.

Second, let us have a look at the history of post-War migration in the Netherlands to see why so many ethnicities are present. A first factor was the establishment, but especially the decline of the Dutch colonial empire in the so-called West and East Indies: many people from the former colonies came to the Netherlands and assimilated to the population, like Indonesians (Shetter 2002: 151-155). A second factor, definitely more crucial, was the Dutch policy in the 1950s and 1960s consisting in ‘importing’ people mostly from Morocco and Turkey as ‘guest workers’ temporarily providing work force in the time of economic growth. However, when recession occurred the guest workers stayed since they were well settled in the Netherlands and benefited from the Dutch social care system (Shetter 2002: 156; Bax 1995: 13). Later, several other smaller groups immigrated to the Netherlands, such as Chinese and Pakistanis. A last (and recent) factor is political migration: as of the mid-1980s lots of people have sought asylum in the Netherlands; most of their applications are rejected, but the people stay as illegal immigrants, though (Besamusca 2008). According to the Central Bureau of Statistics, some 1.7 million migrants would live in the Netherlands today.

The Dutch society adopted bills to deal with minorities, supplying them with a status, rights and duties. Throughout the years the government policy concerning migrants changed from ‘indifference’ to ‘integration’. In the 1970s the Netherlands did not want to become home to migrants, which is why guest workers were helped maintain their home culture (Bax 1995: 13). The 1983 Minorities Policy strove for formal integration so as to allow for a permanent stay while preserving the home culture (B&H 2006: 2). The Integration Act of 1994 shifted the emphasis to the Dutch culture in order to enable migrants to fully participate in society (Besamusca 2008). Under the influence of Pim Fortuyn’s success (Driessen & Merry 2006: 214), more right-wing ideas recently resulted in laws expecting migrants to have a standard knowledge of Dutch language and culture (Dagevos & Gijsberts [D&G] 2007: 4). In the following paragraphs I discuss the formal (work, housing, education) and informal (cultural) aspects of integration.

The position of migrants on the job market is far from ideal. As mentioned above, Turk and Moroccan guest workers and their families became permanent residents. Economic recession, structural unemployment and marginalization of certain kinds of low-skilled labor contributed to the formation of an underclass with a ‘strong ethnic component’, meaning that socio-economic cleavages coincide with ethnic or cultural differences, hence discrimination (Bax 1995: 21-22, 27; Scheffer 2000: 1). The unemployment rate among migrants is higher than the Dutch average, especially among the young (S&S 2001: 299). Roelandt established that there is a ‘partial intergenerational reproduction of social inequality’ (1993: 263). The situation has improved, though: unemployment rates are ‘substantially lower’ among ethnic minorities than about ten years ago, which might be related to them starting businesses. Only better education and command of Dutch will improve the situation (D&G 2007: 6-7).

As far as housing is concerned an important fact is that the vast majority of migrants live in the Randstad, an area regrouping the four major Dutch cities. This reduces the chances of contact with the indigenous population. However, a ‘suburbanisation’ process takes place, with migrants moving to the suburbs. Migrants concentrate in cheaper ‘black’ neighborhoods where they feel less safe and complain about nuisance, although people living in new-build developments are more satisfied. Interaction will enhance contacts, hence quality of * (D&G 2007: 7-9).

As to education, dropout rates are much higher among minorities who also show lower levels of schooling, notably in the command of Dutch (S&S 2001: 299). Scheffer considers that resources should be spent on the perfect acquisition of the Dutch language instead of promoting ‘education in one’s own language and culture’ (2000: 7). Bax (1995: 26) argues that not only socio-economic discrimination but also language problems and a low level of education are factors contributing to the ethnic underclass formation. However, some report that the education level of migrants is slowly improving and the language gap is reducing, which allows more ethnic students to participate in society, including higher education (D&G 2007: 4-6). All that should increase opportunities to integrate in society and allow for more liberal conceptions of Islam (Entzinger, Phalet & Van Lotringen [EPVL] 2000: 3), even though Islamic schools (Driessen & Merry 2006: 212).

Culture as the informal aspect of integration is undoubtedly most at stake to find a place in society. Let us first discuss culture in general, and then particular issues regarding religion (being a component of culture). As Scheffer (2000: 3) points out that many thought ethnic minorities would go through a process of pillarization in order to emancipate and integrate the Dutch society. However, due to the lack of elites and of cohesion within the immigrants this proved unsuccessful. Spiecker & Steutel (2003: 301) argue that re-pillarizing the Dutch society in order to accommodate immigrants is not only unfeasible, but if most of the migrants could gathered to form a Muslim pillar, then it would be ‘incompatible with the demands of liberal civic education’. Apart from that, the absence of a definition for ‘Dutch culture’ is problematic: with no common background in history, language and legal culture, autochtonen and allochtonen just coexist but do not interact since they do not ‘share the same roof’ (Scheffer 2000: 5-6; S&S 2001: 296-297; B&F 2006: 2). Hence the importance of getting acquainted with Dutch language and culture, and especially abide by its societal and legal rules.

However, some migrant groups, most often tied by the Islamic religion, have shown reluctance to basic legal rights** like the separation of church and state, and to the equality principle between men and women (Scheffer 2000: 7) and brought with them other Islamic conceptions about marriage, family life and sexuality, for instance. Some argue that some cultural aspects of Islamic identity should be given up in order to diminish these inconsistencies between Islamic and Dutch culture, especially so as to maintain the fundamental idea of everyone being equal in this liberal democracy (S&S 2003: 297-301). The Dutch authorities adapted laws to pragmatically frame some Muslim practices like circumcision, all this stemming from the tradition of religious freedom and of equal treatment for all religious groups, as long as the practices do not ‘conflict with other constitutional rights and obligations’ (Landman 2001: 1,9). Nowadays the issue focuses on the disadvantaged position of Muslim women as to education, work and language due to traditional religious views (D&G 2007: 9). The headscarf symbolizes that oppression of women***, but this religious choice is unreasonably politicized to point at other Islam-related issues and to condemn its ‘backwardness’ and especially its difference (B&H 2006: 4-5, 7). Finally, a more individualized and pluralistic interpretation of Islam develops, especially among the higher educated (EPVL 2000: 1).

All in all, multiculturalism in Dutch society (as defined earlier) has shown some failures. Indeed, as Shetter writes: ‘Ethnic minorities entered a society that was not prepared to become multi-cultural and multi-racial at quite the pace that events have required of it’ (2002: 157). Insufficient political attention to the migrants, thinking they would adapt smoothly while preserving their identity, triggered problems like criminality, lack of participation in society and conflicts opposing ethnic cultures to the rather liberal Dutch culture (S&S 2001: 297-298). While ‘equality’ and ‘tolerance’ famously characterized the Netherlands, negative feelings about migrants and discrimination appeared (D&G 2007: 10), bearing the germs of a potential radicalization of minorities if stuck in the economic underclass (Bax 1995: 28, S&S 2001: 298). Pointing at the problems contributed to start debating migrants-related issues and to adjust policies. Improvements are slowly but surely taking place, for instance on the job market, education level and Dutch proficiency; integration takes time, certainly more than a single generation (D&G 2007: 1, 4-6). Some successful examples are worth mentioning: the second generation of Antilleans (D&G 2007: 3), Ahmed Aboutaleb, recently elected mayor of Rotterdam (Wanders 2008), and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who chose enlightened thinking to give an insider’s critical look at Islamic cultural practices and works to improve women’s situation by calling them to emancipate from oppression (Caldwell 2005: 6-7; Hirsi Ali 2008). The cultural side of integration is most essential (Scheffer 2000: 4) but also very difficult to apply, but with time and especially education it will lead to more interactions between migrants and the Dutch, as well as a full assimilation in the long term (EPVL 2000: 3). Mutual understanding, respect, acceptance and cooperation will make of the Netherlands a truly multicultural society in a near future.

Sources

• BAX, E.H. (1995). Cleavage in Dutch Society: Changing Patterns of Social and Economic Discrimination. Paper presented at the Conference on Political, Economic and Social Racism, Thessaloniki, Macedonia, Greece, May 14-18, 1995, pp. 1-12.
• BENDRIF, A. & M. HANEY. The politicization of the headscarf in the Netherlands. Downloaded on [http://www.mijknsluierenik.nl/essaybendrif.html] on 30 March 2006.
• BESAMUSCA, E. (2008). A Multicultural Society? Dutch Present-Day Society lecture, Utrecht, Netherlands, 10 October 2008.
• DAGEVOS, J. & M. GIJSBERTS (ed.) (2007). SCP Integration Report 2007. Summary.
• DRIESSEN, G. & M.S. MERRY (2006). ‘Islamic schools in the Netherlands: expansion or marginalization?’ In Interchange, vol. 37, n°3 (2006), pp. 201-223.
• ENTZINGER, H., PHALET, K. & C. VAN LOTRINGEN (2000). ‘Summary of the report Islam in the multicultural society: The view of young people in Rotterdam’. Utrecht/Rotterdam.
• HIRSI ALI, A. (2008). Blind faiths. Downloaded on [http://www.aei.org] on 10 September 2008.
• LANDMAN, N. (2001). Dutch responses to Muslim religious practices. Utrecht. Dowloaded on [http://euro-islam.info/pages/landmandutch.html].
• ROELANDT, T.J.A. (1994). ‘Verscheidenheid in ongelijkheid. Een studie naar ethnische stratificatie en onderklasse-vorming in de Nederlandse samenleving’. In BAX, E.H. (1995). Cleavage in Dutch Society: Changing Patterns of Social and Economic Discrimination. Paper presented at the Conference on Political, Economic and Social Racism, Thessaloniki, Macedonia, Greece, May 14-18, 1995, pp. 1-12.
• SCHEFFER, P. (2000). ‘The Multicultural Drama’. In: NRC Handelsblad, 29 January 2000.
• SHETTER, W.J. (2002). The Netherlands in Perspective. Utrecht. Chapter 15, pp. 151-161.
• SPIECKER, B. & J. STEUTEL (2001). ‘Multiculturalism, pillarisation and liberal civic education in the Netherlands’. In: International Journal of Educational Research, n°35 (2001), pp. 292-304.
• WANDERS, J. (2008). Aboutaleb burgemeester Rotterdam. NRC Handelsblad, 17 October 2008. Downloaded from [http://www.nrc.nl/binnenland/article2027934.ece] on 20 October 2008.

* ? --> A word was missing; I guess it was 'living', simply.
** principles
*** at least, to many westerners

--> Final comment by Mrs Besamusca: "Well argued, presenting a broad range of evidence in different domains to support the argumentation"

Result: 9

My critical view: I didn't have much time to re-read all the articles addressing the issue of multiculturalism, and I focused on several articles more than others. Besides, I didn't pay a lot of attention to the wording, which explains why the abundance of passive forms… Moreover, paragraphs are of unequal length and I don't think that the use of tenses is any good, for I use present forms, then past, then present, etc. Okay, the goal was not to write perfectly but to make a well-argued statement… Anyway, a nine is nothing to sneeze at.

"Negen voor de professor"…

As you already know, I'm taking a course on the Dutch present-day society. Each week we discuss a particular theme, ranging from 'monarchy' to 'tolerance' to 'immigration' to 'drugs policy', etc. We have to read a (quite considerable) amount of articles by scholars and prepare questions and so on. Last week we had to hand in an essay on pillarization in the Netherlands and I decided to feature it here because now I got feedback about it. I give you the original version, except that I added missing spaces three times.

Dutch Present-Day Society: second assignment

Pillarization and depillarization in the Netherlands

A key concept in the development of the Dutch society in the 20th century is the so-called ‘pillarization’ (or ‘verzuiling’ in Dutch), i.e. a ‘phenomenon of social and political organization around an ideology within the nation state’ (Bax 1995: 7). However, this system gradually declined, leading to ‘depillarization’ from the end of the 1970s onwards, although some of its effects are still visible, e.g. in the education system (Besamusca 2008). In order to get a better insight of the Dutch present-day society we will notably discuss the phenomenon (its development and the various scholarly approaches), and evaluate its positive and negative aspects.
Lijphart made one of the earliest attempts to show evidence of that phenomenon. He describes pillars as ‘subcultural social groups’ based on religious affiliation and/or ideology (Catholics, Calvinists or seculars, the latter consisting of Socialists and Liberals) (Lijphart 1968: 16-17). Each pillar (or ‘bloc’) had its own political parties, interest groups, as well as infrastructures in domains such as the media, health care and leisure and education, among others (Bardoel 2003: 81). Moreover, each of these organized social subcultures interfered in numerous aspects of people’s lives, the Catholic pillar having the most comprehensive infrastructure (Andeweg & Irwin 2002: 23). Moreover, these structures aim for ‘autarchy or self-sufficiency’ and thus they integrate people on a vertical basis, rather than horizontally as social classes do (Dobbelaere 2000: 181-182). Bax (1995: 8) also argued that all this was made possible for each pillar thanks to a shared ideology to compete but also cooperate with other groups, thanks to the mediation of the elites.
The exact number of pillars is subject to much discussion. Lijphart identifies different numbers of blocs, depending on the criteria. Indeed, as mentioned above he distinguishes a basic fourfold division from which we can highlight five political parties (1968: 24), but only three labor union federations (1968: 36); he considers these dimensions to be less relevant than the religious-ideological one. Andeweg & Irwin also support a fourfold division, but do not regroup the Socialists and the Liberals under ‘seculars’, because the liberals ‘form[ed] a pillar only by default’ (2002: 25). Finally, Van Holstein and Irwin argue that religion and social class ‘produced five groups in society’ because they attribute a pillar to both the Dutch Reformed and the Calvinists, as well as to the Catholics, Socialists and Liberals (2003: 48).
According to Lijphart (1968: 17) pillarization finds its roots in the 16th century during the Catholic-Protestant conflict with Spain, but the three main blocs appeared later and organized their network, and the secular pillar was split by class differences (1968: 23). He also maintains that pillarization increased after 1917 (Andeweg & Irwin 2003: 32). Bax does not deny early roots of pillarization during the war against Spain with the creation of a culture of ‘Living-Apart-Together’ (LAT). However, he sees the real beginning of pillarization in the birth of new ideologies in the late 19th century, resulting in an institutionalization of pluralism in order to manage minorities, although the degree and tempo of pillarization varied (1995: 2-6, 36). Dobbelaere (2000: 182) presents three scholars’ theories that could explain the advent of pillarization: the emancipation, political mobilization and preservation hypotheses. While each of them do not help explain everything, they illustrate the fact that there were different reasons for creating pillars and not just one (Besamusca 2008).
Although there was a willingness to renew Dutch politics after the Second World War, changes only took place from the second half of the 1960s onwards (Andeweg & Irwin 2003: 26, 34-36): depillarization started, diminishing the role of ideology and the pillar cohesiveness, and making different groups merge (Spiecker & Steutel 2001: 295). The ‘spirit of the 60s’ (e.g. hippies and other politico-social movements) and the decline of ideologies accelerated the process (Besamusca 2008). However, depillarization did not have the same extent in all domains. For instance, the original pillar-rooted channels still exist, but individualism has overthrown collectivism, hence the search for a general ‘media culture’ as a debate place (Bardoel 2003: 84). Bax also considers the 1960s as the beginning of depillarization, with an exceptional level of economic growth that strengthened the welfare state. As people less relied on other institutions, it led the ‘Dutch consensus society into the direction of a class society’ (1995: 3, 12).
Some apparently negative aspects of pillarization were that it could cause ‘exclusiveness and an in-group mentality’ (Dobbelaere 2000: 182) and was a tool of minority management to keep control over the plural society (Bax 1995: 3, 8), thus a combination of autonomy of the different social groups and their integration in the state framework. However, while pillarization could be seen as a threat to stable government, it is actually a factor of ‘consociational democracy’: Lijphart argues that there is competition between the elites of the different pillars, but they cooperate by respecting four basic principles thanks to which standstills on (polemical) issues could be avoided, in the frame of ‘politics of accommodation’ — which are still continued today, since majority cannot be reached by a single party (Andeweg & Irwin 2003: 27-29, 42). Besides, voters have become more volatile, which notably caused the Christians’ defeat in 1994, resulting in a ‘purple’ coalition that made considerable advances in controversial issues such as euthanasia (Besamusca 2008). Moreover, pillarization enabled group emancipation and prevented class cleavages because the vertical, ideological dimension was dominant. The LAT-culture was another factor to promote cohabitation between minorities (Bax 1995: 10). Finally, Spiecker & Steutel (2001: 292) argued that the Dutch society changed into a multi-ethnic state. The crucial question now is whether the new minorities (such as Muslims) will aim for emancipation through a process of re-pillarization.

Sources

• ANDEWEG, R. B. & G.A. IRWIN (2002). Governance and politics of the Netherlands. Basingstroke. Chapter 2, pp. 17-42.
• BARDOEL, J. (2003). ‘Back to the public? Accessing public broadcasting in the Netherlands.’ In: The Public, vol. 10 (2003), no. 3, pp. 81-96.
• BAX, E.H. (1995). Cleavage in Dutch Society: Changing Patterns of Social and Economic Discrimination, pp. 1-12. Paper presented at the Conference on Political, Economic and Social Racism, Thessaloniki, Macedonia, Greece, May 14-18, 1995.
• BESAMUSCA, E. (2008). Pillarization and De-pillarization: an overview of the 20th century. Dutch Present-Day Society lecture, Utrecht, Netherlands, September 26, 2008.
• DOBBELAERE, K. (2000). ‘The Rationale of Pillarization: The Case of Minority Movements’. In: Journal of Contemporary Religion, vol. 15, no. 2, 2000, pp. 181-183.
• HOLSTEYN, J.J.M. VAN & G.A. IRWIN (2003). ‘Never a Dull Moment: Pim Fortuyn and the Dutch Parliamentary Election of 2002’. In: West European Politics, vol. 26, no. 2 (April 2003), pp. 41-66.
• LIJPHART, A. (1968). The politics of accommodation. Pluralism and democracy in the Netherlands. Berkeley etc. Chapter 2, pp. 16-58.
• SPIECKER B. & J. STEUTEL (2001). ‘Multiculturalism, pillarization and liberal civic education in the Netherlands.’ In: International Journal of Educational Research, no. 35 (2001), pp. 292-295.

After that Mrs Besamusca added: 'Very good' and a 9. She told us earlier about the Dutch grading system:

• Grades range from 1 to 10.
• 1 is the lowest
• 10 is the highest
• 1 "voor de moeite" / for the effort --> When you just show up at an exam and sign
• 9 "voor de professor" / for the professor
  
• 10 "voor God" / for the Lord
• 2, 3 and 9 are seldom given
• an 8 would automatically translate into an A in America [and into 18/20 in Namur, I guess]

In conclusion I was really pleased with this result, especially since I wrote the essay in less than one day… But I worked really hard, even up to a point I thought my text was rubbish when I handed in…

Impressions on my exams: second and last part

As I promised, here follows the rest of my glimpse on my January exams.

My third exam was Grammaire normative néerlandaise, that is to say an exam on the whole book De regels van het Nederlands that we had been working on for a year and a half. This exam took place on Saturday 12 January, on the really same day as the first year students. (In fact, since I was in charge of establishing the timetables for the exams, I thought it would be more convenient for Mrs Hendrix to come just once for both years. Moreover, it was most suitable for us as to the sequence and spacing of of exams.) Second-year students were asked to enter the lecture room in the first place — one of the few advantages of being older — and then the first-year students. Once everyone was seated, we could stard. First, there was a series of fill-in questions that were quite easy, even if I had second thoughts about it after the exam. Second, twenty MCQs, some of which were written in a sadistic manner. I was confident about 75% of the answers, though. After the exam, while I was discussing my answers with fellow students, I realized that I had made big mistakes, but not too much. On the whole, I thought I would get 15.

As a special treat, Mrs Hendrix told me via e-mail that I got 16/20 for this exam. Quite rejoicing!

Two days and a half later (or three, for some people who had chosen to take the exam on Wednesday), it was time to go and see Mrs Leijnse to be tested orally on the course Histoire de la littérature néerlandaise II. Like in June, I was wearing my black suit, with a black shirt and a black tie. Just two students preceeded me that day, but there was already a ten-minute delay… Anyway, the moment finally came when I received three sheets with a question each of them. I went to the English literature seminar in order to write down the outline of the answer I would give once I would be in front of her. Normally, I should have had just 20 minutes to prepare that, but since Anne-Sophie (who was just before me) was apparently talking and talking, in the end I got more than 25 minutes — which allowed me to write detailed answers, and even to get bored because I didn't know what to write.

Mrs Leijnse eventually came to ask me to go to her office. I sat down and I started answering my questions:

1. [On the basis of a fragment from the epistolary novel Julia by Reijnvis Feith] Who wrote this text? What are the features? To which kind of writings does this belong?
   
2. [On the basis of a sheet with three poems by Van Schaick] Who wrote those poems? Who influenced him? What are the features of his style and the genre of poetry he wrote? What does it tell us about colonialism?
   
3. [On the basis of a poem by Guido Gezelle] Who wrote this poem? What are the characteristics of this poem? // Make a short survey of the "taalkwestie" in Belgium at the beginning of the 19th century.
   

I answered all the questions, making parallels with the other works I knew, their characteristics, the stories, the historical events, and so on. On the whole, I thought I did that exam very well. In fact, I had a better feeling about it than last year: when I took the exam, I was totally exhausted due to the fact that I had been studying philosophy for a week, and that after that I hadn't slept much, resulting in a poor pronunciation… But still, my answers were good, for I got 18 that time. And I also got 18 this time.

The last exam was a written one. It was to last for 5 hours! In fact, it was a twofold exam, the first part being a one-hour closed book exam on Charles Barber's book The History of the English language (very interesting by the way) which we were assigned to read and understand thouroughly in order to answer relatively short questions about it. (We had received a sheet with a list of questions, some of which would be asked at the exam, in order to have guidelines in our reading.) The second part was a four-hour open book exam on Pr. Vandelanotte's course notes about clause complex vs. clause simplex, STR (speech or thought representation, his area of expertise and PhD thesis subject – or I should say: "free indirect speech or thought representation"), and verbal processes.

I had to study the course in less than three days, which was quite a kerfuffle. Understanding the theory about chapters 1 and 3 was quite easy, since I had already go the idea behind the theory during the lectures. But as to chapter 2, I have to admit that I had hardly understood anything when Pr. Vandelanotte discussed it in class. At that time, I was more concerned about the fact that one can be so fascinated by such an abstract matter… But I guess it must be like that for any academic study. (You tell me, Professor.)

I worked very hard on that chapter and I managed to get the point of the four false assumptions about STR, even though I had difficulty finding good criteria to make the difference between free indirect speech (FIST) and distancing indirect speech (DIST). Basically, it had something to do with the degree of intervention of the narrator and the use of pronouns, but I didn't know how I'd explain that on my exam sheets… But since it was an open-book exam, I felt a little bit more comfortable and confident.

The exam took place and the first part was really easy: I had read the book two times in detail, making notes and studying them. After that, we had one hour for lunch (a good sandwich filled with a thick layer of "filet américain" is the best way to feed me in such circumstances). After that, we started what appeared to me to be the most difficult exam of my life. It would be too long to tell everything in detail, so I give you now just a couple of impressions. The first question was outrageously more simple than I thought: there were many clauses simplex (hence no need for analysis) and the few in the category "clause complex" were not as complicated as in the syllabus, except for one that was outrageously difficult, with a lot of subordinated clauses and everything. I read the second question, but my brain sent me a signal like those "ERROR 404" messages… I moved on to the last question. I filled boxes with the appropriate verbal processes and participants plus circumstances (if any) quite quickly, then I wrote a short text about the conclusions I could draw from such an analysis of verbal processes. That done, I had about two hours left to answer the second question, consisting in making the difference between types of reported speech in two given excerpts. However, I can't tell you a lot, for it's like a giant black hole in my memory. On the moment, I managed to fetch several arguments in the syllabus in favour of my analysis, but I don't know how I managed to do it right…

I was quite disappointed after my exam: I felt that my answers weren't really good and lacked precision… Nevertheless, I got 18 out of 20 for this exam. And I don't know how such a thing is possible. I'm looking forward to seeing my exam!



In conclusion, these two weeks (and a half) of exams was really exhausting, but my efforts were rewarded. Let's hope I can still work like that in June!

"The Force is strong with you, young Skywalker. But you aren't a Jedi yet." (Darth Vader, Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back

Today we got our results for the January exams, and as it is customary for me to reveal them once and for all (it's more economical than repeating them all the time), here they are:

• Linguistique anglaise II………………………………………………………………… 18
• Histoire des littératures et des civilisations anglophones II…………….. 16
• Histoire des littératures et des civilisations néerlandophones II……… 18

Note that I'm still waiting for another two marks (Dutch normative grammar and a German test).

This means that I got rid of three courses. There are no less than 8 other courses to take an exam for at the end of the year. That'll be a right kerfuffle.

Now some comments about those exams, as I promised three weeks ago. Today I deal with the first two, and the other three will be discussed tomorrow.

First of all, we had to take a kind of intermediate test in German, consisting of a conversation with our teacher, Mr Bertrand. During the test, we had to provide good forms of declined adjectives, plural of nouns, their genders, forms of verbs, etc. We also had to answer basic questions and tell something about a topic discussed in the workbook. All this was supposed to take just 20 minutes, just like a regular oral exam, but Mr Bertrand was so enthousiastic about talking with me that I talked with him during 35 minutes more or less.

The following exam, Histoire des littératures et des civilisations anglophones was to take place on 8 January, that's to say three days later. (Exceptionally, our German test had to take place on 4 January or 21 January due to schedule problems.) Before I started studying my course notes, during the two weeks of "holiday", I had already leart and worked on the paraphrases that we came across with Pr. Delabastita. It took me a considerable amount of time to type everything, but in that way I had already made a first approach to the fragments. So I read, re-read, re-re-read the course notes: that's my way of studying. At the same time, I made an outline of the authors and their works, plus their dates of birth and death. After three day's study, I started becoming crazy: I wanted to stop studying, but I couldn't: I felt the urge to study, even if I couldn't assimilate more.

That's maybe why I appeared in front of Pr. Delabastita in a less relaxed state than usual. He asked me: "How are you Simon?" and I answered: "Of course I am", because what I heard was: "Are you Simon?". I admit I have some audition problems when I'm anxious. I picked one of the many exam sheets and I prepared my answers in the nearby classroom. My questions were:

1. Identify this fragment and discuss it. [Fowles, The French Lieutenant's Woman, beginning of chapter 55.]
   
2. What are the origins, characteristics, most important authors, etc. of the gothic genre.
   

So when Benjamin, who preceeded me, had finished his exam, it was my turn to be judged. So I talked about the fragment, situating it, talking about the book, about metafiction, etc. Pr. Delabastita asked me a couple of questions to make my answers more precise or to reframe them — as usual. Then we moved on to the second question. I talked about The Castle of Otranto, Anna Radcliff's The Monk, Dickens, the Brontë sisters, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, Dracula. But at that moment, I felt that my answers were not as satisfying as what I'm used to: I lacked precision, curiously. At the end, he asked me which link there was between Jane Austen and the gothic novel. I had absolutely no idea of such a thing: probably he had told it as a footnote during the class, but the fact was that I didn't remember. (Note that's the first time I couldn't find an answer, even a hypothesis.) This wouldn't affect my marks seriously, but I was sure I wouldn't get 18 like last year. Nevertheless, I was quite confident about a 15 or a 16, and the results prove I was right.

Tomorrow, I'll talk about Dutch normative grammar, Dutch history and literature, and English linguistics.



A rejoicing announcement: the Star Wars exhibition will come to Tour & Taxis, in Brussels, between 16 February and 1 June 2008. This exciting exhibition was first held in London, then in other famous places such as New York (Brooklin), Lisbon and Paris. I certainly will go and see it — and that will be the third time: I first saw it in London in 2001, then in Paris in 2005. Fortunately, the layout and the artifacts from the saga were quite different in both exhibitions, and we can expect it will again be the case in Brussels. Anyway, I envoy seeing those splendid costumes and miniature spacecraft and other silly things that only Star Wars freaks would worship.

May the Force be with you!

Today's Uncyclopedia featured article: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

"You did well, Anakin…"

I know this blog has suffered some delay due to the exams, but I've been slowly filling the gaps for a week. Unfortunately, I'm going on holyday tomorrow, so I won't be able to post any message on this blog until 15 July.

By the way, we got the results of our exams. Here's what the "official" (i.e. a simple black and white A4-sheet) document states:
– Histoire du Moyen Âge : 16/20
– Introduction générale à la philosophie : 18/20
– Sciences religieuses : 14/20
– Stylistique et maîtrise de la langue anglaise : 18/20
– Stylistique et maîtrise de la langue néerlandaise : 15/20
– Linguistique anglaise : 17/20
– Linguistique néerlandaise : 15/20
– Histoire des littératures et des civilisations anglophones : 18/20
– Histoire des littératures et des civilisations néerlandophones : 18/20
– Analyse de textes anglophones : 17/20
– Analyse de textes néerlandophones : 17/20
Résultat : la Plus Grande Distinction
Moyenne : 16,64/20

Yeah! With the greatest fulfilment! That's SO rare to get that! Needless to say that I'm extremely happy!