Critical Reflection 2

Can French Republicanism be Hospitable to Ethnic Differences?

                                                 

            In Cécile Laborde’s article titled “The Culture(s) of the Republic,” the author reflects upon the relationship between nationalism and multiculturalism in French Republican Thought. Through the four Republican ideals of liberté, égalité, fraternité and laïcité, Laborde shows how liberalism’s moral universalism is opposed to multiculturalism (Laborde, 716). According to the author, “liberty for Republicans implies rational self-determination through the exercise of individual autonomy” (Laborde, 718). From this perspective, she addresses the issue of one way accommodation in state schools where the cultural and linguistic assimilation of bicultural students and their families is made at the expense of losing their ethnic, social and cultural identities.

            By distancing themselves from their original affiliations, the Republican notion of liberté functions to ensure that individuals are treated equally in the public sphere. Closely related to the notions of liberté and égalité is the Republican ideal of fraternité which envisions a community of “public similars” and “private others,” where citizens can promote a public national identity separate from their private interests and identities (Laborde, 719). French Republicans uphold this ideal of fraternité as it prevents the state’s national identity from being divided by individuals pursuing public awareness of their personal differences. Finally, laïcité refers to the separation between the state and church, bringing into practise the three above mentioned ideals. The French Republic achieves a secular state by applying general rules of justice that only recognize individuals, not communities, as bearers of rights (Laborde, 720).

            A current example of how the French Republic attempts to establish a secular state is through the controversial bill before the French parliament to ban all conspicuous religious symbols from public institutions in France. According to this bill, the display of all religious symbols is to be prohibited from the public sphere. (Ludford, 2010). However, the issue has been focused on the ban of Islamic headscarves as opposed to all religious symbols, including those belonging to the dominant Christian religion. Interestingly, this bill is closely related to Laborde’s reference to culture-blind universalism “as an ideological mystification that perpetuates existing structures of domination” (Laborde, 721). The contentious issue of France’s attempt to ban headscarves concentrates on, and has been consumed by the banning of headscarves and Islamic symbols because crosses and cathedrals are part of the dominant culture of France. From this view, the bill is hypocritical because Islam will be always be regarded as incompatible with the values of the dominant religion, class, gender and culture of France (Laborde, 721).

            Here, it can be argued that this bill is nothing more than a case of anti-Muslim legislation with no intentions of preserving French secularism. As an example of state control of multiculturalism and ethnicity, the bill was not drafted by Muslim women, but rather by members from outside the culture. However, despite the opinions of those who question the negative implications of this bill, it may be regarded as giving Muslim women the freedom of choice for those who do not want to wear it. This view is supported by feminist activists who understand that, for a majority of women the headscarf is an expression of the domination of women by men. In this case, the bill acts as a means for the articulation of a free belief; of protection against the pressure of males, and as an expression of identity and freedom against secular parents.

            As for my personal opinion, the key, it seems, is the fact that Muslims who do not want to wear a headscarf should be allowed to do so and their choice should be protected, even protected from pressure applied by other Muslims. By banning the headscarf, the state basically provides "cover" for those who don't want to wear it but, because of their age and social situation, find themselves unable to stand up to social pressure to conform. Instead of having to say "no, I do not want to," they can now simply point out that they are not allowed to, and they no longer have to take responsibility for this choice. So, while I believe that recommended for good reasons, the bill to ban all conspicuous religious symbols from public institutions in France fails to elaborate on the existence of bicultural identities. As Laborde points out, in the French republic it is hard to erase the contradiction that exists in the commitment of unity within and diversity among nations, but these people should be allowed to adapt to the host culture without having to give up their native culture or ethnic affiliation (Laborde, 731).

            During the first two minutes of the following performance, late comedian George Carlin outlines the fact that every religion has a different hat; some groups put them on and some groups take them off. For example, Carlin emphasizes how Jewish men have to cover their heads with a yarmulke in selective Jewish temples, but women are not allowed to cover their heads. Meanwhile, according to the Catholic church in order to honour the presence of God men must remover their hat, while women and girls have to do the exact opposite and cover their heads. And yet, even though the Bishop wears a "pointy hat" on one day and a "round hat" on another, and the Cardinal wears a "red hat," we remain fascinated with Islamic head gear because not only are Muslims highly targeted by different forms of discrimination, but we take it for granted that women who wear the veil give it various meanings and are motivated in contrasting ways. For different women the veil could mean submission, oppression, respectability, modesty, prudishness, and/or a way of affirming one's identity, autonomy, or feminism. However, we remain opposed to the veil because we see it as a denial of a woman's femininity, as a symbol of submission to men, and as a restrictive piece of clothing.

WARNING: The following video contains coarse language dealing with the sensitive subject of religion.  Statements made do not represent the view/bias of this blog, but are intended to present an example of an alternative humorous approach to the controversy surrounding the issues of religious head-wear.

So, now that you been given insight into the opinions of author Cécile Laborde, myself, and comedian George Carlin, my question to you is, is it possible to experience diversity AND
maintain unity at the same time?

Reference List

Laborde, Cecile. (2001). The culture(s) of the republic: nationalism and multiculturalism in

      French republican thought. Political Theory, 29(5), 716-35.

Ludford, S. (2010, October 4). France Must Avoid Human Rights Breaches. Religious

      Symbols Ban. Retrieved from http://sarahludfordmep.org/uk/new/000003/religious

      symbols_ban_france_must_avoid_human_rights_breaches.html In-text: (Ludford, 2010).