I think it’s easier to start with the most relatable, which is the intense drive to identify/inspire a specific national identity after losing the Franco-Prussian war. I believe we’re seeing a similar trend in modern American politics, given that America has had a rocky history with its own war efforts (ranging from a clear loss in Vietnam to a confusing “whodunnit” situation in the middle east, I see many direct parallels between both nation’s wartime efforts and the motivation for rediscovering national identity). I think one of the best ways of comparing our struggle to theirs is that no one knows exactly how to go about cultivating a new national identity, and much of the debate falls between older and younger generations. As we noted in The Cock and the Harlequin, Cocteau saw a particular racial element in what constituted French and not-French culture. Given the fact that his “roots” reference is indicative of both cultural and racial components, we can safely assert that Cocteau would’ve been a proponent of using racial identity as a means to justifying his definition of “French culture”. On the flipside of this, however, we have other artists who disagree. While Cocteau and Ravel both agreed on stripping music down to its simpler elements, Ravel did not agree on the notion of racial identity. As we read in his speech given at the Rice Institute, while Ravel was a proponent of using 18th Century classical French music as his inspiration for French nationalism, he was not afraid to admit strong influence by Stravinsky and other foreign artists. On top of this, even Debussy professed a developmental debt to Wagner and did not see this as a piece of contention. To further obfuscate any clear delineation between one side and the other, people pointed out that Debussy was the older generation, and thus “outdated”. Soon after his demise, however, Ravel was seen as outdated, and the cycle seemingly continued without end as more people eventually became the outdated elder whose opinions were ultimately negated simply by virtue of the age of the progenitor. Ultimately what I’m getting at with bringing this up is I see a similar situation in modern American politics. We also seem to be in an unstable climate (both politically and socially) and as a result, many people are grappling with what “American identity” looks like. Some people want to go back to “making America great again” (whenever ‘again’ refers to?) while others want to push for more progressive policies that would radicalize the nation and paint it in a new light it’s never seen before (i.e. socialized healthcare, higher taxes for the rich, increased budget spending on public programs, etc). We even have our own version of hating on the older generations, “OK Boomer” (I’m excited to see what the next generation has for us, “OK Zoomer”?)
I genuinely struggled to find a foreign aspect, given that much of the debate took place barely over 100 years ago, and is still very relevant to our struggles in 2020. Having said this, however, I think the thing I struggle with most is understanding the specific significance of certain pieces, and why they matter. For example, Eric Satie’s Parade is confusing because I understand it was a supergroup coming together to create one piece of art, but from what I’ve understood so far, it sounds like people were mostly stumped by it. Was it significant because of its cultural impact, or purely because it was a moment a legendary composer, painter, and choreographer came together to push the limits of art? In relation to Jon Cocteau and all the other music critics (including Debussy), were their criticisms a large part in the social echelon, or perceived more as petty squabbles published in newspapers? These could be secondary, and as I said, I recognize many of these similarities. I think the stakes are just not as clearly identifiable for me, and as a result, I’m left a little confused about how to piece everything together (I’m sure a little bit more research will alleviate many of these issues).