France’s Secularism

I’ve always had a problem with the French notion of laicite (secularism). Understood from a historical period of war between the church and the state—the notion of laicite is purely conceptualised within its 1905 context. The current republican model of laicite harks back to this historical division of state and church. What many French and their supporters of this model fail to understand is historical events are contextual and premised on certain realities.

So when I heard about a Muslim woman who wore the burqa being rejected as a French citizen because the burqa is incompatible with French citizenship– this raised the issue of historical context. The 1905 law was premised on a homogeneous France, but since the 1970s, France has become increasingly heterogeneous, the old France of 1905 no longer exists. The prevailing understanding of laicite can longer be implemented in a transformed France. France currently has a population of 5 million Muslims. Majority of these Muslims come from the Maghreb (Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria) which are former colonies. This colonial connection has ensured France has an intimate relationship with Muslim immigrants for decades now. These Muslims have a different world view that goes beyond laicite and this is something France needs to come to grips with. It does not mean these Muslims do not value laicite—on the contrary, there is a deep respect for the egalitarian spirit of French laicite. It is the current narrow interpretation that Muslims have a problem with.

This narrow interpretation I will write about in another post, however, right now, i’d like to focus on this woman who has been rejected for expressing a cultural and religious belief. I’d like to point out that I’m not much of a supporter of the burqa, because it is not sanctioned in Islam and women who do wear it do so unnecessarily. However I do support a woman’s right to wear one–whether for cultural or religious reasons. An article in the Guardian was problematic on a number of things: One, there was a colonialist assumption that the burqa meant subordination and oppression. Second, there was no evidence provided of this subordination other than a vague reference to “social services” saying she was, and third, we are led to believe that the husband forced her to wear it. Talk about a typical oriental tale of the Muslim experience. There was no cultural or religious explanation as to what the burqa means other than what has been historically regurgitated to a Western audience of how it is oppressive, a symbol of the Muslim woman’s subordination and broadly Islam’s misogyny. There was no factoring in the role of identity for many marginalised minorities in France, and how this plays a significant role in how they see their culture and religion. There was no mention of how many women who wear the burqa or the hijab for that matter are educated, intelligent and politically informed women who choose to wear it for reasons that vary by individual and context. Instead, France subjected us to yet another reductive orientalist narrative of the “French liberator of the oppressed Muslim woman”, and of course, “France: The eraser of difference”.

This, all in the name of preserving France’s secular face. As I pointed out earlier, the notion of laicite, which this ruling was premised on, cannot apply in equal fashion to all citizens of France today because there are many who belong to the Islamic faith, who wear burqas, hijabs, turbans, yalmulkes etc, who have different cultural practices that cannot only be expressed in private (which is how the French understand religion to be). So what we’re seeing is a clash of values, a France imposing its normative understandings of equality and justice on individuals who see it nothing more than an unjust coercive act of the state.

- Sahar