andrewducker | On muslims in France.

From a fantastic piece here on the journal of Momus.

A debate between London mayor Ken Livingstone and French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin about the french decision to ban the islamic hijab in schools made me think again about 'pretentious universalism'. It struck me as a debate between a pretentiously universalist liberalism (Livingstone) and a modestly situated illiberalism (Raffarin). Raffarin says that the french state is secular, and wants to outlaw all provocative and divisive religious affiliations in schools. Livingstone says that religion is an important part of cultural identity, and that the display of religious customs enhances tolerance and acceptance of other cultures.

Raffarin's position is a strong one to the extent that it acknowledges that the state is not neutral on religion: the state is secular in an intolerant way, suggesting that secularism is itself a sort of religion. This is an important step away from the pretension of universalism, which always tries to portray itself as neutral and global. Raffarin says 'Here, in a french school, we are french, and secular. If you come here, be as french and as secular as we are'. He knows that power abhors a vacuum. The choice for Islamic women is not between 'what France wants us to wear and what we want to wear', but between 'what France wants us to wear and what Islam wants us to wear.' Between two powerful particularities, in other words, with no neutral ground. And just as there is no neutral ground where a woman can be a women free of cultural constructions of her freedom or obligation, so there is no neutral place in french society where the foreigner can be 'other' in a simple and harmless way. In a country notably intolerant of difference, the only alternative to integration is mortal danger. I don't want to believe this view -- I very much want a society of co-existent differences, of pluralism -- but history teaches me that I cannot dismiss it. I cannot get complacent.

My reply reads:

Raffarin says that the hijab "reflects the lowly staus of women", but that's a purely secular perspective and one that ignores the way that the hijab is seen internally to Islam. He's behaving in the manner of one who sees no need to engage with his enemies, as they are obviously in the wrong. That's not generally the way to get what you want unless you have vastly more power than your opposition.

And while, yes, the west's liberal capitalism is definitely coloured (and textured and probably flavoured) it's a flavour that _in many ways_ respects the rights of people to be different. It doesn't (largely) see things in dichotomies, but in ranges and options. We're slowly becoming a postmodernist culture where everything is seen in terms of the small, local narrative and the appreciation that there is no overarching viewpoint. Which is, of course, another kind of overarching viewpoint, one in direct opposition to bloc-thought authoritarian ideals that tell people how to live.

There's a great schism in western society between those who believe that we are all free agents, able to make our own minds up and deal with the world in a cool, logical way and those who believe that we are culturally controlled, subject to the whims of those who control our environment. To the former all that is necessary for freedom is to remove authoritarian control over our lives (as Livingstone wants to do), to the latter the state is a necessary buffer, providing a safe haven and control over the negative influence of memes that would prevent our happiness and freedom ( as Raffarin does). Without overwhelming empirical evidence either way the approach of one group is always going to look like madness to the other.

Personally, I sit somewhere in the middle, tending towards freedom of speech, but aware that our environment definitely affects us and as such occasionally has to be controlled if it's not going to be used as a weapon against us. I'm just wary of the cure being worse than the disease - nobody, after all, wants _their_ speech controlled.

Jesus, you'd think I'd been up for more than half an hour. Oh, and you can tell I've been reading introductions to postmodernism recently, can't you? It's not sufficiently integrated into my thought patterns for it to come out as much more than repetition of the phrases in the book. Tends to happen to me when I've been reading something that made a strong impression. I've been re-reading LOTR recently and I keep finding myself thinking in Tolkein-esque english. Brrrrr.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I've read quite a lot about this recently. I recommend you find out about groups like Ni putes ni soumises (neither whores nor submissive).

Your comments presuppose that women in France have free choice when it comes to wearing the veil or not. However, there have been numerous high-profile cases of muslim women in the poor suburbs who did not wear the veil and lost their status as "good" women and were gang raped. The gender-politics in these areas are complex. It may not be possible to force liberation on these women (and keep them safe) or desirable to let the current situation continue.

Incidently, this law which will "liberate" Muslim girls will also "liberate" Sikh and Jewish boys.

Sorry, didn't mean it to come across that I thought thet they all had free choice. I know that they don't, and I've read some articles about the horrible way they can be treated.

I don't see much difference between being told what to wear and what not to wear. And are dreadlocks allowed in French schools? And how wide-ranging is this law? Does it affect private schools, or just state ones?

And the debate's a bit different down here at the other end of the world. (Otherwise known as Middle Earth;-)

My own feeling is we've got to learn to tolerate our differences if we're ever going to get along. And there's a whole heap of a difference between being allowed to show what religion you belong to and being taught a religion at school.

Now if they were suggesting the banning of team sports...

And there's way too may sentences began with and in this post...

On muslims in France.

Not so simple

Re: Not so simple

no subject