During my research on the controversy surrounding the approval to build a mosque/Islamic cultural center/restaurant/swimming pool two blocks from Ground Zero, I happened upon a Facebook group with 60,000+ called "No to the Mosque at Ground Zero." You can find it here: http://www.facebook.com/no911mosque?ref=ts. I perused many of the posts on the site (you had to "like" the group to join, so I did... if only for a brief instant), and most were entirely
vicious, disrespectful, and downright racist. Some of the delightful tasties on there were:
"The British, Americans, Canadians, Aussies and every western country must stand up against this vile wicked cult they call a religion" (liked by 4 people)
"I believe every person who wants 2 come to the USA should have 2 completely renounce their Islam religion and everything to do with it. If they dont then they cant come in. Damned if I'm gonna open my home 2 someone wants 2 smash it down" (liked by 2 people)
"ANYONE who doesn't think this is BULLSHIT....Pack your crap and get the hell out of this country!" (liked by 11 people)
"Deport all of these scum bags" (liked by 5)
"HOW DARE OUR GOVERNMENT EVEN NEGOTIATE THIS......WHAT ASSHOLES!!!! IF THIS GOES THROUGH, THEY JUST GAVE THE OK FOR HOMEGROWN TERRORISM TO BLOW UP THE MOSQUE." (liked by 4)
"Buckets and buckets of pigs blood has to be poured onto the place they wish to build this....." (liked by 4 people)
and my personal favorite...
"FUCK THAT MOSQUE AMERICANS NEED TO WAKE THE FUCK UP AND STOP LETTING THESE FUCKING SAND NIGGERS RUN YOUR LIVES GROW SOME BALLS BACK STAND UP FOR AMERICA OR WE COULD ALWAYS BLOW THE DAM THING UP LIKE THEY DID TO US PAY BACK ITS A BITCH" (liked by 1)
But there were some nice ones too:
"Agree totally there should be no mosque there...but do not stand beside racist people either...this site should be left alone by any religious sect so that anyone of any race or religion can come and freely pay their respect to those who died...remember, there werent just white americans in that building on that day...no to the mosque" (liked by five)
"I'm happy to be a Fan of "No to the Mosque at Ground Zero" & not because of Hating anyone....But because they believe in Goodness and what's right. I just wanted to say..... Thanks for starting this page" (liked by 4)
"Its sad that so many people around the globe have died in the name of religion, the whole purpose of a higher power is to teach us how to live a good life and not to judge or condem others. MY god is a kind and loving God who does not condone murder or hate of any kind. How does your God( whatever you choose to call him) work for you???" (liked by 1)
So, I preceded to post the following on the wall, and within two minutes, I had three or four responses. Read the posts below.
Christopher Hook: Personally, I really respect the decision to build a mosque two blocks from the WTC. Though I also respect the emotions of those who lost loved ones in 9/11, putting our principles of tolerance and love ahead of our hate and fear is a true victory over Al-Qaeda, Bin Laden, and the terrorists who hate us.
J. Anderson: NOPE...WRONG.
Christopher Hook: why?
F. MetaMorphis: Have you gone sideways !!! this is the opening of Pandoras Box so to speak !
J. Anderson: THIS IS A WAR AGAINST ISLAM. YOU JUST HAVE ENTERED OUR BASE CAMP.
G. Vashdi: Christopher this is where it starts , this is their victory against the American people , this is where your muslim president let you down, wake up dude.
V. DeMarco: There's that fucking word again...." tolerance" Christopher....have you ever thought to yourself...where was their tolerance for the victims families of 9/11? After the outcry from the family members that did not want this built anywhere near Ground Zero.....where was the tolerance of the muslims?
Christopher Hook: I just want to know what about this is wrong... are our values not more important than our hate? If we use our hate, instead of our tolerance and respect, to fight this "war," are we not allowing them, the terrorists, to declare victory over our values? If we allow the terrorists to turn us into hateful people, what victory comes from that? I would like an answer to this, if you have one. I respect all thoughts.
Christopher Hook: Gali, though I definitely understand where you're coming from, our system of laws and institutions are so strong that we would never allow Sharia law or other Islamic ones to replace them. A mosque two blocks from ground zero, while certainly a bit distressing, is not the toppling domino to a countrywide takeover by Muslim extremists. My opinion, anyway.
G. Vashdi: it's not about being hatefull Christopher, with all due respect it's about common sense , when at war use your weapon not tolerance. this is a war against the west, i should know i'm dealing with these fuckers ever day in Israel. You don't wanna give them the upper hand.
Christopher Hook: Victor, yes, I feel for the victim's families as much as you do... I promise. I watched the 9/11 footage on YouTube today, and had tears in my eyes. How horrible. That said, I still stand by my conviction that the triumph of our values (tolerance, equality, etc.) will be ten times the victory not allowing the mosque to be built would be. We are on the same side here... more or less.
G. Vashdi: look what happened in London! they have big plans, there is no room for "tolerance" there is no "equality"
Christopher Hook: Ok, I see your side Gail... I would perhaps add though that the "War against the West" is only being fought by a small small minority of Muslims... Muslims in the US, in France, in Morocco, in Indonesia... 99% across the world, do not follow Bin Laden's extremist ideology, and denounce the 9/11 attacks. I think one of the errors here is conflating mainstream Islam (and the parties building the mosque in NYC) with the 9/11 hijackers. I know people are gonna jump me on this one...but it's my belief, and i've studied islam for years.
P. Greenman: 1% times 1.5billion is how many exactly?
If you've studied the subject, you wikll be aware of what Dar al islam and Dar al harb are?..You will be aware of the eternal jihad? You will be aware of the koranic exhortations to fight kill and slay the unbelievers until there is only islam? Somehow, I think you talk out opf your arse when you say you've studied it for years. I've been at it for about ONE, and I know enough to be worried. Have you read of 'The Project'? No? Let me enlightne you...study this..
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/2671
S. Garrett: Christopher. You mentioned muslims in Indonesia do not follow extremist ideology. Tell that that to the families of the Sari Club bombings in Bali. Indonesia is rife. It targets Bali as Bali is not a muslim country. Also what about the Madrid bombings!
Christopher Hook: Hook Scott, my answer to you is exactly what I said before. MOST Muslims in Indonesia are not violent Muslims, and in fact reject the terrorist ideology. The goal of terrorism, in fact, is to make the institution they are attacking crumble... an...
Christopher Hook: Puck, it is surely less than 1%. I wasn't being exact, you are right. But I meant to emphasize that is a VERY TINY minority who embrace Bin Laden et al's ideology. For most Muslims, the Islam practiced by the radicals has no semblance to the Islam they practice at home and at the mosque. Yes, the Koran says some terrible things about killing "infidels" and whatnot, but most Muslims, like I said, choose to NOT follow these parts and focus on peace, the most important tenet of the Islamic faith. Just like our Bible has some pretty awful things to say (mostly in the Old Testament) about non-Christians, most mainstream Christians overlook these and instead concentrate on other aspects of the religion... the messages of peace, love, equality, family, etc. Christianity and Islam come from the same roots, both exalt many of the same values... admittedly, the Koran has more to say about infidels and Islamic empires and whatnot, but again, for most Muslims, these parts have no application in today's world. The Muslims I know, the Muslims I have met with and studied, are peaceful, democracy-loving, rational individuals.
It's the radicals, the idiots, the promotors of Islamic empire and violence and the oppression of women, that we really should concern ourselves with.
Let's stop spending our energy attacking the peace-loving Muslims, the one's who denounce 9/11, and attack the ones who really hate us and wish to see us and our way of life die. God Bless America.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
There the comments stopped. Guess I showed them? Probably not... But later on, I got an uplifting email from a Muslim in Indonesia who, similar to me, had seen the group, and was saddened by some of the comments going around. A lovely message, and his broken English indicates a sweet innocence. Uplifting :)
I.B. Asianmiller: Christopher, i saw your comments on "NO TO THE MOSQUE at GROUND ZERO"
and i'm proud of you, i think you are 1st person who understand that the group is only a a hater group, and not about religion. not all muslims is terrorist, they are not a nice muslims, their ways is wrong. even in my country: indonesia, we hunting terrorist. and i'm indonesian muslim, i hate terrorist because of them always mention my religion "islam" in their criminals. real muslim is not terrorist and love realitation, respect at all religions in the world with peace...
thank you for you'r understanding christopher, i'm proud of you. :)
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Related news articles:
National Identity and the Economy
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/business/global/01italy.html?ref=global-home
Fear of Extremism
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/31/world/europe/31muslim.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
Women
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/31/world/asia/31women.html?ref=global-home
Modern Islam/Evolution of Islam
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/world/asia/29imam.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
National Identity v. Other IDs
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/europe/26bullfighting.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
French Current Events:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sarkozy-under-fire-after-video-shows-brutal-treatment-of-immigrants-2041674.html
http://www.lejdd.fr/Societe/Actualite/Sarkozy-Une-loi-inapplicable-211397/
http://www.cfr.org/publication/21313/global_post.html
Mosque at Ground Zero (USA)
http://nomosquesatgroundzero.wordpress.com/
http://www.slate.com/id/2262495/
http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/05/10/right-wing-mosque-at-ground-zero-is-a-quot-slap-in-the-face-quot.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/02/AR2010080203721.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/03/adls-ground-zero-mosque-o_n_668861.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/20/eveningnews/main6696724.shtml
http://www.slate.com/id/2266701/
US Immigration/citizenship
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/no-citizenship-for-you-tpm-rounds-up-the-anti-immigration-gopers-targeting-birthright-citizenship.php
http://www.slate.com/id/2265951/
Europe and Islam
http://www.cfr.org/publication/20866/csm.html
http://www.cfr.org/publication/8252/europe.html
National Identity and the Economy
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/business/global/01italy.html?ref=global-home
Fear of Extremism
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/31/world/europe/31muslim.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
Women
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/31/world/asia/31women.html?ref=global-home
Modern Islam/Evolution of Islam
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/world/asia/29imam.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
National Identity v. Other IDs
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/europe/26bullfighting.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
French Current Events:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sarkozy-under-fire-after-video-shows-brutal-treatment-of-immigrants-2041674.html
http://www.lejdd.fr/Societe/Actualite/Sarkozy-Une-loi-inapplicable-211397/
http://www.cfr.org/publication/21313/global_post.html
Mosque at Ground Zero (USA)
http://nomosquesatgroundzero.wordpress.com/
http://www.slate.com/id/2262495/
http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/05/10/right-wing-mosque-at-ground-zero-is-a-quot-slap-in-the-face-quot.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/02/AR2010080203721.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/03/adls-ground-zero-mosque-o_n_668861.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/20/eveningnews/main6696724.shtml
http://www.slate.com/id/2266701/
US Immigration/citizenship
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/no-citizenship-for-you-tpm-rounds-up-the-anti-immigration-gopers-targeting-birthright-citizenship.php
http://www.slate.com/id/2265951/
Europe and Islam
http://www.cfr.org/publication/20866/csm.html
http://www.cfr.org/publication/8252/europe.html
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Post-National Assembly
WRITTEN ON JULY 8, AFTER MY EXPERIENCE OBSERVING THE BURQA BAN DEBATE AT THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Ah ha! What an experience! I feel like I actually DID something today, rather than just do things I could have done otherwise. I suppose I could have gotten the National Assembly transcripts, but actually going there, seeing the atmosphere, was amazing. "So what did you think?" would ask Dr. Robyn. "Well, many things," I would say with a snarky smile indicating I am smart and did take the whole experience in. Ok, I think: For one, this debate is NOT AT ALL about the veil itself. Since when are conservatives defending the rights of women to not be oppressed? Half of them probably hit their wives. This is about the preservation of society, of keeping the status quo, the "Frenchness" of France. They feel bombarded by new developments: the EU, the rise of Germany as an economic powerhouse, new population dynamics, the declining economy, loss of public confidence... they are turning to the basics, the fundamentals of society. Several times during the debate I thought: are we really arguing about a small piece of fabric across the face? I think even the representatives in the National Assembly would acknowledge this. But it does seem throughout the speeches and discourses of the politicians, that the entire country is at stake. This really is a "remaniement," or revision/evaluation, of the country's very core.
I can't count how many times these politicians, including those on the left, invoked "liberty, equality, fraternity" and "secularism." What is interesting is the usage of these terms, and how it differs from the US who holds these values just as close to its heart. In the US, politicians would never go out of their way to state that we are a secular nation, and they CERTAINLY wouldn't use it as a platform, ideologically-speaking, to pass one law or the other. The French Right (La Droite), however, are big fans of secularism, an ideal which is entrenched in the French tradition. Electors in France hardly ever use religion to make electoral decisions (while they certainly do in the US). I think conservatives in both countries are doing the same thing-- falling back on law, on established tradition, not upsetting the "natural order of things." Interesting approach for a country that was founded on just that principle. Someone's been reading Edmund Burke...
Another interesting thing is that French conservatives, along with defending secularism, are also using the oppression of women to justify support of the law. You'd probably never see Conservatives in the US do this. I think this goes back to religion. We are probably just as much a Christian nation as France is... but we choose to let it show.
Another difference is the status French politicians enjoy in France, which is very little. They are just not so public with their doings. Yes, if you misspend government cash, especially in the midst of an economic crisis, there will be an uproar... but for other situations that would be scandals in the US (marital affairs, or prostitute procurement) are "who the f***" cares in France... or at least there is less apathy for these stories in the US.
This all leads me to make the statement that I felt like democracy was so much more REAL in that chamber than in ours, where everyone is a big celebrity who can't make an outrageous or even controversial statement without being hounded. I mean, yes, there was certainly a lot of rudeness in the French National Assembly debate session. Yelling straight at each other, cruelty... But this is their way. Governance should, perhaps, happen this way. Joe Wilson's outburst would have been NOTHING to the French here.
But I want to write about the veil.
Conservatives defended the ban this way:
-Burqa represents fundamental Islam
-Oppresses women (goes against the Rights of Man, a document similar to our Declaration of Independence that was written as a result of the French Revolution)
-Is against secularism, and other republican values of the state
-Creates a less secure atmosphere
One of the conservatives said, notably, when referring to the Founding Fathers of France, "nos saints Republicains"... roughly translated, this means "Our Republican saints." If my translation is correct, I find this a curious word choice for a platform that is so secular. Although perhaps not... though "saints" does have a Christian connotation, maybe the point is that the only religion we should have is the law, the state. This reminds me of Thomas Paine's essay on the American Revolution, where he said in America, "law is king." I think that was Paine.
Liberals attacked it this way:
-Proposed ban takes away women's right to make her own choices on dress. Is actually an assault on women.
-Will create more instability in society (protests, etc.)
-Not necessary... at maximum, only 2000 women in France wear burqas
-Law isn't well-written or effective
-Attacks Islam. State should do more to recognize the second-largest religion in the country
I think for the majority of these politicians, no matter what side of the aisle they chill on, they are positively entrenched in liberal thinking, if that makes sense... no, I think what I mean is that they are so satisfied with their original revolution, that other change is too radical. Isn't there a contradiction here? I have argued this in the US too... our founding fathers, liberal and progressive as they were, would have wanted us to undertake change in the country, even changing the Constitution, if deemed necessary. Why do we cling to our founding fathers ideas, when, great as they are, they lose all or even some value in our time today?
You know, despite France's ferocious intellectual beginnings and foundational intellectual contributions to Western thought, the French have, since the Revolution, produced some very pessimistic, albeit liberal, thinkers. Think Sartre, De Toqueville, Camus, the Impressionists, the "ex-pat" crowd, the Beat people.
Ok, last few ideas...
I guess I am a little confused how the burqa actually violates any commandments of republican ideals. I don't see how it is against secularism AT ALL... it is not violating the separation of the church and state... and it intrudes into society just like any other article of clothing... should we ban ANY clothing that looks different? I don't get it. Maybe I am missing something. If anything, a law making such a judgement on the very character and tradition of one religion is violating its own code of secularism. It's LESS OF A STRETCH to make this last argument than to say that 2000 women walking around France in large cloaks and masks somehow erodes the fabric of society. I agree that a state should preserve the right to help form religion to its laws, but how does the wearing of the burqa erode at all the nature of the state-society relationship? Can you answer this for me?
On another train of thought, although the left are in general agreement on the principles that compose their opposition to the burqa ban, there is no agreement from them on how to confront the passage of the bill. Some in the Chamber argued in favor of killing the bill, calling it "not necessary" or "anti-republican." Others believes that the law needs amending, to possibly incorporate some aspects that were not included or lacking. One woman mentioned education (although I couldn't pick up the context). Another mentioned the need to emphasize respect for the Islamic community. This is why, I think, Dr. Murphy or Professor Berrong at KSU have no hope for the Socialist Party-- it can't get any message aligned well-enough with all its diverse-thinking members. If only the party could get some minorities to vote... perhaps by motivating them by strongly decrying passage of this statute??? I don't understand Socialist Party, do something, go out, be angry, voice your opionion... Sadly, I think their NOT DOING THIS reflects the general attitudes of those in elected office. When even the Socialist Party is touched by conservatism (to not do anything), you get the feeling they understand and really take in how much the country drifts right in times of economic crisis. It's hard on them, they have no culprit for the economic crisis except poor management by the European Union (who they are famous for supporting more than any other party in France).
FIN.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Ah ha! What an experience! I feel like I actually DID something today, rather than just do things I could have done otherwise. I suppose I could have gotten the National Assembly transcripts, but actually going there, seeing the atmosphere, was amazing. "So what did you think?" would ask Dr. Robyn. "Well, many things," I would say with a snarky smile indicating I am smart and did take the whole experience in. Ok, I think: For one, this debate is NOT AT ALL about the veil itself. Since when are conservatives defending the rights of women to not be oppressed? Half of them probably hit their wives. This is about the preservation of society, of keeping the status quo, the "Frenchness" of France. They feel bombarded by new developments: the EU, the rise of Germany as an economic powerhouse, new population dynamics, the declining economy, loss of public confidence... they are turning to the basics, the fundamentals of society. Several times during the debate I thought: are we really arguing about a small piece of fabric across the face? I think even the representatives in the National Assembly would acknowledge this. But it does seem throughout the speeches and discourses of the politicians, that the entire country is at stake. This really is a "remaniement," or revision/evaluation, of the country's very core.
I can't count how many times these politicians, including those on the left, invoked "liberty, equality, fraternity" and "secularism." What is interesting is the usage of these terms, and how it differs from the US who holds these values just as close to its heart. In the US, politicians would never go out of their way to state that we are a secular nation, and they CERTAINLY wouldn't use it as a platform, ideologically-speaking, to pass one law or the other. The French Right (La Droite), however, are big fans of secularism, an ideal which is entrenched in the French tradition. Electors in France hardly ever use religion to make electoral decisions (while they certainly do in the US). I think conservatives in both countries are doing the same thing-- falling back on law, on established tradition, not upsetting the "natural order of things." Interesting approach for a country that was founded on just that principle. Someone's been reading Edmund Burke...
Another interesting thing is that French conservatives, along with defending secularism, are also using the oppression of women to justify support of the law. You'd probably never see Conservatives in the US do this. I think this goes back to religion. We are probably just as much a Christian nation as France is... but we choose to let it show.
Another difference is the status French politicians enjoy in France, which is very little. They are just not so public with their doings. Yes, if you misspend government cash, especially in the midst of an economic crisis, there will be an uproar... but for other situations that would be scandals in the US (marital affairs, or prostitute procurement) are "who the f***" cares in France... or at least there is less apathy for these stories in the US.
This all leads me to make the statement that I felt like democracy was so much more REAL in that chamber than in ours, where everyone is a big celebrity who can't make an outrageous or even controversial statement without being hounded. I mean, yes, there was certainly a lot of rudeness in the French National Assembly debate session. Yelling straight at each other, cruelty... But this is their way. Governance should, perhaps, happen this way. Joe Wilson's outburst would have been NOTHING to the French here.
But I want to write about the veil.
Conservatives defended the ban this way:
-Burqa represents fundamental Islam
-Oppresses women (goes against the Rights of Man, a document similar to our Declaration of Independence that was written as a result of the French Revolution)
-Is against secularism, and other republican values of the state
-Creates a less secure atmosphere
One of the conservatives said, notably, when referring to the Founding Fathers of France, "nos saints Republicains"... roughly translated, this means "Our Republican saints." If my translation is correct, I find this a curious word choice for a platform that is so secular. Although perhaps not... though "saints" does have a Christian connotation, maybe the point is that the only religion we should have is the law, the state. This reminds me of Thomas Paine's essay on the American Revolution, where he said in America, "law is king." I think that was Paine.
Liberals attacked it this way:
-Proposed ban takes away women's right to make her own choices on dress. Is actually an assault on women.
-Will create more instability in society (protests, etc.)
-Not necessary... at maximum, only 2000 women in France wear burqas
-Law isn't well-written or effective
-Attacks Islam. State should do more to recognize the second-largest religion in the country
I think for the majority of these politicians, no matter what side of the aisle they chill on, they are positively entrenched in liberal thinking, if that makes sense... no, I think what I mean is that they are so satisfied with their original revolution, that other change is too radical. Isn't there a contradiction here? I have argued this in the US too... our founding fathers, liberal and progressive as they were, would have wanted us to undertake change in the country, even changing the Constitution, if deemed necessary. Why do we cling to our founding fathers ideas, when, great as they are, they lose all or even some value in our time today?
You know, despite France's ferocious intellectual beginnings and foundational intellectual contributions to Western thought, the French have, since the Revolution, produced some very pessimistic, albeit liberal, thinkers. Think Sartre, De Toqueville, Camus, the Impressionists, the "ex-pat" crowd, the Beat people.
Ok, last few ideas...
I guess I am a little confused how the burqa actually violates any commandments of republican ideals. I don't see how it is against secularism AT ALL... it is not violating the separation of the church and state... and it intrudes into society just like any other article of clothing... should we ban ANY clothing that looks different? I don't get it. Maybe I am missing something. If anything, a law making such a judgement on the very character and tradition of one religion is violating its own code of secularism. It's LESS OF A STRETCH to make this last argument than to say that 2000 women walking around France in large cloaks and masks somehow erodes the fabric of society. I agree that a state should preserve the right to help form religion to its laws, but how does the wearing of the burqa erode at all the nature of the state-society relationship? Can you answer this for me?
On another train of thought, although the left are in general agreement on the principles that compose their opposition to the burqa ban, there is no agreement from them on how to confront the passage of the bill. Some in the Chamber argued in favor of killing the bill, calling it "not necessary" or "anti-republican." Others believes that the law needs amending, to possibly incorporate some aspects that were not included or lacking. One woman mentioned education (although I couldn't pick up the context). Another mentioned the need to emphasize respect for the Islamic community. This is why, I think, Dr. Murphy or Professor Berrong at KSU have no hope for the Socialist Party-- it can't get any message aligned well-enough with all its diverse-thinking members. If only the party could get some minorities to vote... perhaps by motivating them by strongly decrying passage of this statute??? I don't understand Socialist Party, do something, go out, be angry, voice your opionion... Sadly, I think their NOT DOING THIS reflects the general attitudes of those in elected office. When even the Socialist Party is touched by conservatism (to not do anything), you get the feeling they understand and really take in how much the country drifts right in times of economic crisis. It's hard on them, they have no culprit for the economic crisis except poor management by the European Union (who they are famous for supporting more than any other party in France).
FIN.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Literature Review #1
Title: Social Identity
Author: Richard Jenkins
Year: 2008
Publisher: Routledge
Pages: 246
In this mostly survey review of how and why people identify themselves socially, the author makes the statement that identity is not just one static aspect of a person's life, but rather, a process this person is always going through, making sense of his world as he lives in it. To Jenkins, we make sense of our world by creating classifications (ethnic, religious, national, etc.) of ourselves, but more importantly, of others. Identification can be seen as a natural cognitive process of making sense of what we know and what we are trying to find out. "Identity is the human (and not animal) capacity to know 'who's who, and hence, what's what.'" Identity is not science-imposed nor God-imposed; we learn it to survive and to succeed. In this case, it is a rational process, designed to provide some sense to the world... if we did not identify ourselves and others, we would not be human. That is simply put. But as identity is simply a man and not animal process, and as it is a survival mechanism, identity is not real. Americans and Brits, or Punjabs and Bengali... identity is "a self unstably patched together through shards of discourse and contingently activated in differing contexts." Your claim that you are Irish, and thus you "should" go out on St. Patrick's Day and drink several shots in a row as a claim to your ethnicity holds no water when this claim is pushed further. Though you may have had descendants in Ireland for "as long as anyone can remember," your claim of complete Irishness begins to crumble as you trace your family tree back further. As science has (I think) clearly demonstrated, our ancestors were bacteria, then small single-celled organisms, and then more and more and more advanced creatures (through evolution)... in fact, the only true identity is the one we share: our former animal selves. Who knows, maybe someday we'll have a "Ape Appreciation Month" and a "Ardipithecus" parade through downtown Manhatten, or fireworks commemorating our 6 billionth year on the planet... But these all seemed so far-fetched.
So what stops us from embracing this identity, the only "true" classification, and denouncing all others as man-made? For one, our ignorance. To accept these claims, you'd have to be willing to denounce your own ethnicity, nationality, whatever; not denounce, rather, but stop using these claims as motives for activity. The Irish individual I talked about before would be compelled to find another reason to go out and drink heavily, a more genuine reason that does not rely on manmade constructs of identity and instead relies on rationality. Though the distinguished Irish scientist believes one hundred percent in evolution, he may still enjoy the company of his friends at the Irish Pub down the street or eat cabbage and black-eyed beans at New Years with his family. We see here identity as a survival mechanism, once again. Being surrounded by loved ones, embracing the company of others, eating and drinking and laughing with people, these are all moments of joy in life, and of richness. Although science says his identity and his family's identity is absolutely meaningless, he consciously or more often than not subconsciously decides to embrace his Irishness. At some point, it doesn't matter whether the modes and motions of his identity are constructed... people have to live, and as I stated above, living as humans is necessarily correlated with identity construction.
Reader questions:
Hello, Chris. I’m one of the new academic advisors here in the Honors College, and Dean Williams was kind enough to send along a link to your blog. As you seem dedicated to doing the best Honors Thesis you possibly can, I wonder if I might ask a couple of questions—perhaps mostly theory based.
First, having no advance knowledge of your background/major/focus, I’m wondering from what sort of academic background are you approaching this topic? And, more directly, I’m wondering about the following quote from your blog (which, if I’m reading correctly) is your response to Social Identity by Jenkins. There are some interesting implications which might come out of this type of an examination. “…if we did not identify ourselves and others, we would not be human. That is simply put. But as identity is simply a man and not animal process, and as it is a survival mechanism, identity is not real.” A couple of questions come to mind:
1. Is the claim that the only ‘true’ identity is that we all share a history of animal evolution? What I’m hunting for here is a closer definition of “identity”—what Philosophers might term essential properties. So, being Irish is a constructed identity that some use as an impetus for action (agreed and good point)—but, are there no other “true” classifications? Being male, perhaps, or having green eyes? Both of which, it might be argued have been helpful to survival of certain groups….
2. If a given human lacks the capacity to understand/identify himself and others does it make the being in question non-human? Are we scientifically sure that animals don’t have a similar mechanism in place? Might a tiger born in captivity, and dropped into the wild have some system by which to judge/be judged; identify as same/different?
My response:
Wayne, thanks for the comments! I was in fact not prepared for people to read the blog quite yet... especially that last blog, I am still mulling over some of the things I said, including some of the things you questioned me on. But your comments are timely, in that it gives me an impetus to actually cement my views in writing to you (and forgive me if I post your message and my response on the blog). And yes, I definitely want to make this the best thesis I can... So, I'll start with your first question?
1. I am a French and International relations major. My interests are all over the place, but European identity issues have really been one of my principle ones for a while. I took a course on French Contemporary Culture last semester, and spent the spring 2009 semester in Geneva, Switzerland doing an internship with a global health group and also taking classes. I got to learn about Europe a lot over there. In addition, many of my classes in the French department have informed my body of knowledge of French history and culture, so I consider myself a reasonable authority on that subject. My dad is the chair of the Political Science Department at KSU, and he led me to approach this topic initially using theory. Getting a base of knowledge with social identity and constructivist theories, and then growing more and more specific with my research to form a well-researched conclusion and thesis. I am approaching this topic that way.
2. We have to differentiate between phenotype and identity... green eyes can be a physical descriptor, but not necessary an identity. We use these physical differences as means to separate each other into groups, to form identities. So if you don't have blue eyes or blonde or brown hair, please go into this line to be sent to Auschwitz. More clearly, I mean that scientifically, an individual with blue eyes is more or less (with small genetic exceptions) the same as the person with green. Male is same as female. Sure, these classifications might have helped as indicators of virility or fertility when life was so survival-oriented. But we've advanced... and the use of these classifications today, though extremely important for those who classify themselves, seem to make no sense. . The only remnant from that survival-oriented premodern culture is our need to find companionship and friendship... but as multicultural societies across the world are showing, we have much more in common than we thought... and we're getting to a place where we're not as often using our identities against each other so much. But it's difficult, because identities are so crucial to people. I suspect it's because I have no real background that I can say these things. The definition of identity is tricky... I would go with how we figure out "who's who, and what's what." This definition implies that we use our identity and the identity of others to make judgments on the world.
I think I need to differentiate between a science-based ID, and a culture-imposed one. Identity isn't even a scientific concept... perhaps what I mean is classification. There are obviously classifications that allow us to form our identities... groups of green-eyed people perhaps. But no ID is ever forced upon on us just by our being born. ID is what we learn as we get older... it's easier and more efficient and natural for us to embrace an identity out of our childhood. The process of puberty can be seen as a struggle for identity... we reject that of our parents because finally we can, we embrace that of our pop idols, we begin to wear clothing that conflicts with the norms (which are imposed rules of identity)... you could argue this process never stops, and that identification (as a process, not a thing) in itself becomes the norm.
I hope that answers your question... I have lots more thinking on this to do.
3. I don't think there exists a human who lacks this capacity... perhaps some of us are better wired than others to make these classifications, but I think it is a unique element of our humanness that we do this. And in response to your second statement, yes, I think animals do this too, to a certain extent... it seems to be a function of a creature's intelligence to be able to figure out "who's who, and what's what." I think humans have a much greater capacity than all other animals, so much that we have created extremely advanced civilizations and societies and cultures... animals and humans classify in order to survive, but the latter does it on a much more primeval level. As I said previously, we've taken our capacity to self-identify and identify others to a place that is past survival.
Thanks for your questions. And I would love to hear your response.
His response:
Thanks for the quick response! My BA is in International Studies with a concentration on the Middle East, and having done a study abroad program in Israel, I can certainly relate to the value added from on-the-ground fact gathering and interacting in a culture/arena that are different than where one was born and raised.
I agree—making a clear distinction between phenotype and identity is certainly an important factor. Your point is well taken; most green-eyed people don’t consider their green eyes to be an essential part of their identity.
And we’re in agreement that the genetic difference between those with green and those with blue eyes is very slight—scientifically almost non-relevant. So, I’m with you on the idea that our construction of identity is far more often based on our cultural surroundings (society, family, friends, and schools) and our interactions within these groups than neat genetic classifications. I think an examination of our reasoning and an exploration of how and why we shape and reshape the many layers of our identity is quite worthy of study, and I’m interested to see where this research takes you.
I would venture to say that in addition to seeking companionship and friendship (as a remnant from our survival instinct) is our drive to identify (potential) enemies (real or imagined). These two innate drives, I think, are sides of the same coin…I imagine that our genetic predisposition for survival is double edged—we seek some people out for companionship, and avoid/have conflict with others.
Maybe, just a hypothesis, we’re hard wired this way: we need (seek, desire, thrive best with) companionship and friendship—and to forge these bonds we create an Other to rally against. In some sense, Achilles needs Hector to cement his friendship with Patroclus, nes pas?
I’m not clear on your statement that we’re not “using our identities against each other as much”. How might this be measured? Number of armed conflicts? Percentage of the world’s population impacted by ethnic strife? The rights granted (or denied) to certain sub-groups in any given Post-Modern society? (Say, for example, the right of a woman to wear a niqab on a Parisian bus, perhaps?)
As to the idea that no ID is thrust upon us at birth, perhaps we’re just speaking past each other. One might not be able to verbalize, act against, or rebel against one’s cultural (social, religious, familial) identity until one has acquired a sufficient vocabulary and set of actions, but might you agree that there are some identities bestowed/presumed/forged at birth? Say, for example, one is born as the first male child of the Prince and Princess of Wales. I can imagine that there are a whole boat load of identity preconceptions that are visited upon this person—that he’s genetically male (and that he will identify as part of the male gender, that he’s straight), that he’ll grow up to be a good Anglican Christian, that he’ll marry a woman of similar caste, that he’ll be an active member of society, that he’ll take his turn on the throne etc... His struggle to form his identity will emerge (or struggle to emerge) most likely during his maturation from child to adult. This being said, most of these identities can be overcome/challenged/changed (he could, should he choose, have a sex change, convert to a different religion, marry a working-class woman, sit around and drink all day, renounce his birthright…) but what about his identities that are non-alterable—ones that might be considered essential to the unique individual’s identity? What if he were born profoundly deaf? Seems like eye color is a definite phenotype (and one that most people wouldn’t claim as an essential part of their identity) but it strikes me that being born deaf (or not-straight) are more than phenotypes. People do, I think, consider their deafness and/or sexuality as key parts of their identity solidified at birth and non-alterable.
At any rate, I think you’ve got a wonderful thesis idea, and you certainly are tackling challenging and multi-faceted aspects of modern civilization to task. I hope you don’t think I’m trying to split hairs or nitpick—the truth is that I’m fascinated by issues and examinations of gender, class, ethnicity, and geography (just to name a few)… So, when I read your blog post it piqued my curiosity—and I figured you might appreciate an outsider’s perspective. I’ve found that engaging in thoughtful discussions has taken me to some interesting places….and led me to read some texts that I otherwise would have put away long ago. (Judith Butler most prominently springs to mind….)
My response:
Yeah, I would agree that part of identification is deciding who is and isn't the enemy. It's a little difficult to decide how to apply this to our "post-modern" existences. We've certainly moved beyond simple friend-enemy distinctions... perhaps class distinctions have replaced this due to our immersion in a materialist-capitalist society? Or perhaps each of us makes many of these distinctions, some more important than others... For example, I have a hard time not identifying people as conservative or liberal and then making this one of the more important distinctions I go by to determine compatibility. I can't help it... I also tend to mistrust people who are strongly religious, who pay close attention to reality tv shows, who flaunt their wealth... I make these distinctions. I think we all do though, and it's a rather personal choice. Perhaps I've revealed too much by saying all of this, but I think it's important as an author to acknowledge my own biases on this research in order to be as objective as possible. Do you agree? Do you think that friend-enemy distinctions are important to people today?
What I mean by "using our identities against each other" is kind of the Huntingtonian "clash of civilizations" idea... that the "battles" of the 21st century will no longer be realpolitik battles between nations, but will feature conflicts between identity groups... shiite v. sunni, or maoist v. democratics (india), or perhaps the most obvious example, a battle of fundamentalism (and its friends... extremist religion, conservatism, authoritarianism, the "east") v. liberalism (democracy, the "west," reason, etc.). The French example can be perceived in this light, although I won't pretend to be able to navigate my way around Huntington's work (perhaps this should be my next venture?). I think that Sarkozy, his political party, and French upper society have made their case against Muslim immigrants in France much in this way. From correlating wearing the burqa with "dangerous religious practices," to speaking about all immigrants as "Arabs (in fact, many Algerians, Moroccans, and Iranians are not Arabs ethnically, nor do they identify as such), to saying that many tenets of Islam contradict French republicanism, to banning overt religious symbols in public schools... I think it's not such a stretch of the imagination to say that the current debate is being framed by French nationalists in terms of this clash of identity... the "correct" French identity v. a "dangerous" and "anti-republican" Islamic/immigrant one.
But you can also see it differently... I think that like any country in the midst of social and economic crisis (see the US, to a certain extent), France is in the process (remember identification is a process) of remaking itself. The "social state" is being questioned as a viable economic model, women and immigrants are taking up more and more posts in colleges and in professional posts, modernization and globalization are increasing people's access to things outside the French world, and thus arguably decreasing the overall feeling of "Frenchness" in the population (actually, I think nationalism in general is in decline, and for the good!), the European Union has more and more supranational decision-making power, crime and violence are on the rise, unemployment is high (the French HATE unemployment), unions, a huge influence traditionally on policy-making, are in decline... I think that nationalists, like the elites of the country and the majority of politicians in the Parliament and the executive branch, feel like the French state is in crisis and need a healthy dose of "Frenchness" to right the ship. What they will say (especially the far-right Front National) is that past governments have gotten away from "true French republicanism" and what is required is a return to the ideals of the past. My trip to Paris was essentially an exploration of THIS idea... what it means to be French, what the population in general feels, how islam plays into French society, etc.
Measuring it... I dunno how to measure it but to investigate into what is fueling conflicts in France... analyzing rhetoric, researching historical and current notions of French national identity, looking at how the media frames immigrant-state and immigrant-society relations, looking at how and what public schools teach students about France and its history and its current society, finding polls... there are a variety of ways to measure it, mostly qualitatively. I think a variable like identity clashes is very difficult to measure qualitatively, although I will certainly do my best to find both qual and quant sources.
To your comment about ID being thrust upon at birth, sure, I think there are some elements to our identities that cannot be changed. A deaf individual, for example, who has no chance to gain back his hearing, is forced to make his deafness a part of him. Rather, his deafness must have some affect on his identity... whether he incorporates into his life (starting a pro-deaf rights group, for example), OR as any handicapped person must do makes concessions about what he is able to do (cannot be a fighter pilot, for example). But we define the process of identification as deciding "who is who, and what is what," so let's look at it this way... a person deaf from birth may find the kids at school are rough on him (making fun, etc.). Thus he develops the idea that the outside world is cruel and that he must defend himself (emotionally or physically or other) from this world that hates and rejects him. However, another deaf child may go to an all-deaf elementary school, and ride on a deaf parade float in the Memorial Day parade, and may attend a concert or speaker with a sign language interpreter on the side helping him to understand... this child may grow up thinking his world accepts the deaf. His identity is forged through the recognition of his being... Charles Taylor has a great essay called "The Politics of Recognition" which deals with exactly this idea. Implied in this idea is that society has a key role to play in how people form their identities. Their acceptance or non-acceptance can determine just about everything.
We can apply this to multicultural society... if the French would allow the burqa to be worn, if they would support the construction of mosques, if they would acknowledge in speeches and government documents the importance of Islam and Muslims in French contemporary society, if they would support the struggling immigrant populations with more resources to end the cycle of poverty... perhaps you wouldn't have such this pervasive idea of a "clash of civilizations" in the population. One of the reasons crime and violence are so prevalent in France among the Muslim youth is that this group feels victimized, unrecognized... and on top of that, they grow up in squalid conditions with bad parents and little hope for the future. Taylor would argue that better recognition of this group (through economic and social measures) would create a more peaceful society... in short, allowing people to forge their own identity (giving MORE room for this growth and formation) is vital. The French government seems to be grappling with this very idea. In some ways, it is tightening the vise it has on Muslim women's ability to create and maintain her identity (with the ban on veils in schools)... but it is also ramping up efforts to implement affirmative action programs in universities, and not discouraging the construction of mosques and other Islam-themed structures, even in prominent parts of Paris (like the Institute of the Arab World). So, there is this grappling... I suspect, as I've written, that the French government's role as a "bad guy" is largely exaggerated... and politicians' rhetoric on these kinds of topics is also exacerbated by the economic and social crises of the day. Without these, the pressure on these representatives would not be nearly as high to take care of the "immigrant problem."
Please, keep the comments and questions coming, if you'll allow me to send them your way as well :) You seem much more educated on these topics than I am, so it's interesting to hear your input and perspective. I don't see it as nitpicking... as long as you're not correcting my grammar and punctuation! Like I said, I want this thesis to be awesome... it is a good topic... I know I've chosen a good one because there are so many elements that go into it... it could possibly be thousands of pages long, so I've got a semester (and possibly two) to dissect all the information I gather into a measly hundred and twenty.
Author: Richard Jenkins
Year: 2008
Publisher: Routledge
Pages: 246
In this mostly survey review of how and why people identify themselves socially, the author makes the statement that identity is not just one static aspect of a person's life, but rather, a process this person is always going through, making sense of his world as he lives in it. To Jenkins, we make sense of our world by creating classifications (ethnic, religious, national, etc.) of ourselves, but more importantly, of others. Identification can be seen as a natural cognitive process of making sense of what we know and what we are trying to find out. "Identity is the human (and not animal) capacity to know 'who's who, and hence, what's what.'" Identity is not science-imposed nor God-imposed; we learn it to survive and to succeed. In this case, it is a rational process, designed to provide some sense to the world... if we did not identify ourselves and others, we would not be human. That is simply put. But as identity is simply a man and not animal process, and as it is a survival mechanism, identity is not real. Americans and Brits, or Punjabs and Bengali... identity is "a self unstably patched together through shards of discourse and contingently activated in differing contexts." Your claim that you are Irish, and thus you "should" go out on St. Patrick's Day and drink several shots in a row as a claim to your ethnicity holds no water when this claim is pushed further. Though you may have had descendants in Ireland for "as long as anyone can remember," your claim of complete Irishness begins to crumble as you trace your family tree back further. As science has (I think) clearly demonstrated, our ancestors were bacteria, then small single-celled organisms, and then more and more and more advanced creatures (through evolution)... in fact, the only true identity is the one we share: our former animal selves. Who knows, maybe someday we'll have a "Ape Appreciation Month" and a "Ardipithecus" parade through downtown Manhatten, or fireworks commemorating our 6 billionth year on the planet... But these all seemed so far-fetched.
So what stops us from embracing this identity, the only "true" classification, and denouncing all others as man-made? For one, our ignorance. To accept these claims, you'd have to be willing to denounce your own ethnicity, nationality, whatever; not denounce, rather, but stop using these claims as motives for activity. The Irish individual I talked about before would be compelled to find another reason to go out and drink heavily, a more genuine reason that does not rely on manmade constructs of identity and instead relies on rationality. Though the distinguished Irish scientist believes one hundred percent in evolution, he may still enjoy the company of his friends at the Irish Pub down the street or eat cabbage and black-eyed beans at New Years with his family. We see here identity as a survival mechanism, once again. Being surrounded by loved ones, embracing the company of others, eating and drinking and laughing with people, these are all moments of joy in life, and of richness. Although science says his identity and his family's identity is absolutely meaningless, he consciously or more often than not subconsciously decides to embrace his Irishness. At some point, it doesn't matter whether the modes and motions of his identity are constructed... people have to live, and as I stated above, living as humans is necessarily correlated with identity construction.
Reader questions:
Hello, Chris. I’m one of the new academic advisors here in the Honors College, and Dean Williams was kind enough to send along a link to your blog. As you seem dedicated to doing the best Honors Thesis you possibly can, I wonder if I might ask a couple of questions—perhaps mostly theory based.
First, having no advance knowledge of your background/major/focus, I’m wondering from what sort of academic background are you approaching this topic? And, more directly, I’m wondering about the following quote from your blog (which, if I’m reading correctly) is your response to Social Identity by Jenkins. There are some interesting implications which might come out of this type of an examination. “…if we did not identify ourselves and others, we would not be human. That is simply put. But as identity is simply a man and not animal process, and as it is a survival mechanism, identity is not real.” A couple of questions come to mind:
1. Is the claim that the only ‘true’ identity is that we all share a history of animal evolution? What I’m hunting for here is a closer definition of “identity”—what Philosophers might term essential properties. So, being Irish is a constructed identity that some use as an impetus for action (agreed and good point)—but, are there no other “true” classifications? Being male, perhaps, or having green eyes? Both of which, it might be argued have been helpful to survival of certain groups….
2. If a given human lacks the capacity to understand/identify himself and others does it make the being in question non-human? Are we scientifically sure that animals don’t have a similar mechanism in place? Might a tiger born in captivity, and dropped into the wild have some system by which to judge/be judged; identify as same/different?
My response:
Wayne, thanks for the comments! I was in fact not prepared for people to read the blog quite yet... especially that last blog, I am still mulling over some of the things I said, including some of the things you questioned me on. But your comments are timely, in that it gives me an impetus to actually cement my views in writing to you (and forgive me if I post your message and my response on the blog). And yes, I definitely want to make this the best thesis I can... So, I'll start with your first question?
1. I am a French and International relations major. My interests are all over the place, but European identity issues have really been one of my principle ones for a while. I took a course on French Contemporary Culture last semester, and spent the spring 2009 semester in Geneva, Switzerland doing an internship with a global health group and also taking classes. I got to learn about Europe a lot over there. In addition, many of my classes in the French department have informed my body of knowledge of French history and culture, so I consider myself a reasonable authority on that subject. My dad is the chair of the Political Science Department at KSU, and he led me to approach this topic initially using theory. Getting a base of knowledge with social identity and constructivist theories, and then growing more and more specific with my research to form a well-researched conclusion and thesis. I am approaching this topic that way.
2. We have to differentiate between phenotype and identity... green eyes can be a physical descriptor, but not necessary an identity. We use these physical differences as means to separate each other into groups, to form identities. So if you don't have blue eyes or blonde or brown hair, please go into this line to be sent to Auschwitz. More clearly, I mean that scientifically, an individual with blue eyes is more or less (with small genetic exceptions) the same as the person with green. Male is same as female. Sure, these classifications might have helped as indicators of virility or fertility when life was so survival-oriented. But we've advanced... and the use of these classifications today, though extremely important for those who classify themselves, seem to make no sense. . The only remnant from that survival-oriented premodern culture is our need to find companionship and friendship... but as multicultural societies across the world are showing, we have much more in common than we thought... and we're getting to a place where we're not as often using our identities against each other so much. But it's difficult, because identities are so crucial to people. I suspect it's because I have no real background that I can say these things. The definition of identity is tricky... I would go with how we figure out "who's who, and what's what." This definition implies that we use our identity and the identity of others to make judgments on the world.
I think I need to differentiate between a science-based ID, and a culture-imposed one. Identity isn't even a scientific concept... perhaps what I mean is classification. There are obviously classifications that allow us to form our identities... groups of green-eyed people perhaps. But no ID is ever forced upon on us just by our being born. ID is what we learn as we get older... it's easier and more efficient and natural for us to embrace an identity out of our childhood. The process of puberty can be seen as a struggle for identity... we reject that of our parents because finally we can, we embrace that of our pop idols, we begin to wear clothing that conflicts with the norms (which are imposed rules of identity)... you could argue this process never stops, and that identification (as a process, not a thing) in itself becomes the norm.
I hope that answers your question... I have lots more thinking on this to do.
3. I don't think there exists a human who lacks this capacity... perhaps some of us are better wired than others to make these classifications, but I think it is a unique element of our humanness that we do this. And in response to your second statement, yes, I think animals do this too, to a certain extent... it seems to be a function of a creature's intelligence to be able to figure out "who's who, and what's what." I think humans have a much greater capacity than all other animals, so much that we have created extremely advanced civilizations and societies and cultures... animals and humans classify in order to survive, but the latter does it on a much more primeval level. As I said previously, we've taken our capacity to self-identify and identify others to a place that is past survival.
Thanks for your questions. And I would love to hear your response.
His response:
Thanks for the quick response! My BA is in International Studies with a concentration on the Middle East, and having done a study abroad program in Israel, I can certainly relate to the value added from on-the-ground fact gathering and interacting in a culture/arena that are different than where one was born and raised.
I agree—making a clear distinction between phenotype and identity is certainly an important factor. Your point is well taken; most green-eyed people don’t consider their green eyes to be an essential part of their identity.
And we’re in agreement that the genetic difference between those with green and those with blue eyes is very slight—scientifically almost non-relevant. So, I’m with you on the idea that our construction of identity is far more often based on our cultural surroundings (society, family, friends, and schools) and our interactions within these groups than neat genetic classifications. I think an examination of our reasoning and an exploration of how and why we shape and reshape the many layers of our identity is quite worthy of study, and I’m interested to see where this research takes you.
I would venture to say that in addition to seeking companionship and friendship (as a remnant from our survival instinct) is our drive to identify (potential) enemies (real or imagined). These two innate drives, I think, are sides of the same coin…I imagine that our genetic predisposition for survival is double edged—we seek some people out for companionship, and avoid/have conflict with others.
Maybe, just a hypothesis, we’re hard wired this way: we need (seek, desire, thrive best with) companionship and friendship—and to forge these bonds we create an Other to rally against. In some sense, Achilles needs Hector to cement his friendship with Patroclus, nes pas?
I’m not clear on your statement that we’re not “using our identities against each other as much”. How might this be measured? Number of armed conflicts? Percentage of the world’s population impacted by ethnic strife? The rights granted (or denied) to certain sub-groups in any given Post-Modern society? (Say, for example, the right of a woman to wear a niqab on a Parisian bus, perhaps?)
As to the idea that no ID is thrust upon us at birth, perhaps we’re just speaking past each other. One might not be able to verbalize, act against, or rebel against one’s cultural (social, religious, familial) identity until one has acquired a sufficient vocabulary and set of actions, but might you agree that there are some identities bestowed/presumed/forged at birth? Say, for example, one is born as the first male child of the Prince and Princess of Wales. I can imagine that there are a whole boat load of identity preconceptions that are visited upon this person—that he’s genetically male (and that he will identify as part of the male gender, that he’s straight), that he’ll grow up to be a good Anglican Christian, that he’ll marry a woman of similar caste, that he’ll be an active member of society, that he’ll take his turn on the throne etc... His struggle to form his identity will emerge (or struggle to emerge) most likely during his maturation from child to adult. This being said, most of these identities can be overcome/challenged/changed (he could, should he choose, have a sex change, convert to a different religion, marry a working-class woman, sit around and drink all day, renounce his birthright…) but what about his identities that are non-alterable—ones that might be considered essential to the unique individual’s identity? What if he were born profoundly deaf? Seems like eye color is a definite phenotype (and one that most people wouldn’t claim as an essential part of their identity) but it strikes me that being born deaf (or not-straight) are more than phenotypes. People do, I think, consider their deafness and/or sexuality as key parts of their identity solidified at birth and non-alterable.
At any rate, I think you’ve got a wonderful thesis idea, and you certainly are tackling challenging and multi-faceted aspects of modern civilization to task. I hope you don’t think I’m trying to split hairs or nitpick—the truth is that I’m fascinated by issues and examinations of gender, class, ethnicity, and geography (just to name a few)… So, when I read your blog post it piqued my curiosity—and I figured you might appreciate an outsider’s perspective. I’ve found that engaging in thoughtful discussions has taken me to some interesting places….and led me to read some texts that I otherwise would have put away long ago. (Judith Butler most prominently springs to mind….)
My response:
Yeah, I would agree that part of identification is deciding who is and isn't the enemy. It's a little difficult to decide how to apply this to our "post-modern" existences. We've certainly moved beyond simple friend-enemy distinctions... perhaps class distinctions have replaced this due to our immersion in a materialist-capitalist society? Or perhaps each of us makes many of these distinctions, some more important than others... For example, I have a hard time not identifying people as conservative or liberal and then making this one of the more important distinctions I go by to determine compatibility. I can't help it... I also tend to mistrust people who are strongly religious, who pay close attention to reality tv shows, who flaunt their wealth... I make these distinctions. I think we all do though, and it's a rather personal choice. Perhaps I've revealed too much by saying all of this, but I think it's important as an author to acknowledge my own biases on this research in order to be as objective as possible. Do you agree? Do you think that friend-enemy distinctions are important to people today?
What I mean by "using our identities against each other" is kind of the Huntingtonian "clash of civilizations" idea... that the "battles" of the 21st century will no longer be realpolitik battles between nations, but will feature conflicts between identity groups... shiite v. sunni, or maoist v. democratics (india), or perhaps the most obvious example, a battle of fundamentalism (and its friends... extremist religion, conservatism, authoritarianism, the "east") v. liberalism (democracy, the "west," reason, etc.). The French example can be perceived in this light, although I won't pretend to be able to navigate my way around Huntington's work (perhaps this should be my next venture?). I think that Sarkozy, his political party, and French upper society have made their case against Muslim immigrants in France much in this way. From correlating wearing the burqa with "dangerous religious practices," to speaking about all immigrants as "Arabs (in fact, many Algerians, Moroccans, and Iranians are not Arabs ethnically, nor do they identify as such), to saying that many tenets of Islam contradict French republicanism, to banning overt religious symbols in public schools... I think it's not such a stretch of the imagination to say that the current debate is being framed by French nationalists in terms of this clash of identity... the "correct" French identity v. a "dangerous" and "anti-republican" Islamic/immigrant one.
But you can also see it differently... I think that like any country in the midst of social and economic crisis (see the US, to a certain extent), France is in the process (remember identification is a process) of remaking itself. The "social state" is being questioned as a viable economic model, women and immigrants are taking up more and more posts in colleges and in professional posts, modernization and globalization are increasing people's access to things outside the French world, and thus arguably decreasing the overall feeling of "Frenchness" in the population (actually, I think nationalism in general is in decline, and for the good!), the European Union has more and more supranational decision-making power, crime and violence are on the rise, unemployment is high (the French HATE unemployment), unions, a huge influence traditionally on policy-making, are in decline... I think that nationalists, like the elites of the country and the majority of politicians in the Parliament and the executive branch, feel like the French state is in crisis and need a healthy dose of "Frenchness" to right the ship. What they will say (especially the far-right Front National) is that past governments have gotten away from "true French republicanism" and what is required is a return to the ideals of the past. My trip to Paris was essentially an exploration of THIS idea... what it means to be French, what the population in general feels, how islam plays into French society, etc.
Measuring it... I dunno how to measure it but to investigate into what is fueling conflicts in France... analyzing rhetoric, researching historical and current notions of French national identity, looking at how the media frames immigrant-state and immigrant-society relations, looking at how and what public schools teach students about France and its history and its current society, finding polls... there are a variety of ways to measure it, mostly qualitatively. I think a variable like identity clashes is very difficult to measure qualitatively, although I will certainly do my best to find both qual and quant sources.
To your comment about ID being thrust upon at birth, sure, I think there are some elements to our identities that cannot be changed. A deaf individual, for example, who has no chance to gain back his hearing, is forced to make his deafness a part of him. Rather, his deafness must have some affect on his identity... whether he incorporates into his life (starting a pro-deaf rights group, for example), OR as any handicapped person must do makes concessions about what he is able to do (cannot be a fighter pilot, for example). But we define the process of identification as deciding "who is who, and what is what," so let's look at it this way... a person deaf from birth may find the kids at school are rough on him (making fun, etc.). Thus he develops the idea that the outside world is cruel and that he must defend himself (emotionally or physically or other) from this world that hates and rejects him. However, another deaf child may go to an all-deaf elementary school, and ride on a deaf parade float in the Memorial Day parade, and may attend a concert or speaker with a sign language interpreter on the side helping him to understand... this child may grow up thinking his world accepts the deaf. His identity is forged through the recognition of his being... Charles Taylor has a great essay called "The Politics of Recognition" which deals with exactly this idea. Implied in this idea is that society has a key role to play in how people form their identities. Their acceptance or non-acceptance can determine just about everything.
We can apply this to multicultural society... if the French would allow the burqa to be worn, if they would support the construction of mosques, if they would acknowledge in speeches and government documents the importance of Islam and Muslims in French contemporary society, if they would support the struggling immigrant populations with more resources to end the cycle of poverty... perhaps you wouldn't have such this pervasive idea of a "clash of civilizations" in the population. One of the reasons crime and violence are so prevalent in France among the Muslim youth is that this group feels victimized, unrecognized... and on top of that, they grow up in squalid conditions with bad parents and little hope for the future. Taylor would argue that better recognition of this group (through economic and social measures) would create a more peaceful society... in short, allowing people to forge their own identity (giving MORE room for this growth and formation) is vital. The French government seems to be grappling with this very idea. In some ways, it is tightening the vise it has on Muslim women's ability to create and maintain her identity (with the ban on veils in schools)... but it is also ramping up efforts to implement affirmative action programs in universities, and not discouraging the construction of mosques and other Islam-themed structures, even in prominent parts of Paris (like the Institute of the Arab World). So, there is this grappling... I suspect, as I've written, that the French government's role as a "bad guy" is largely exaggerated... and politicians' rhetoric on these kinds of topics is also exacerbated by the economic and social crises of the day. Without these, the pressure on these representatives would not be nearly as high to take care of the "immigrant problem."
Please, keep the comments and questions coming, if you'll allow me to send them your way as well :) You seem much more educated on these topics than I am, so it's interesting to hear your input and perspective. I don't see it as nitpicking... as long as you're not correcting my grammar and punctuation! Like I said, I want this thesis to be awesome... it is a good topic... I know I've chosen a good one because there are so many elements that go into it... it could possibly be thousands of pages long, so I've got a semester (and possibly two) to dissect all the information I gather into a measly hundred and twenty.
Where to go?
Like many researchers before me, I am in a transition phase, trying to figure out where to go next with my research... having come home and experienced the wonders of American food, TV in English, available friends, and a month left until the semester begins, I have been a wee bit sluggish to get back into researcher mode. I definitely needed a break, especially after a hectic few days getting back into the US, but yesterday it occurred to me that this short term post-trip lethargy could very well spring into a longer term post-trip lethargy... I have heard from several people, students and administrators alike, that the number obstacle in finishing your Honor's Thesis is time management, as in, should-I-take-this- weekend-backpacking-trip-to-Pennsylvania-or-should-I-work-on-my-thesis kind of a obstacle... luckily, there is no such trip looming in the future, and in the absence of any real plans, I am compelled to go further, to begin my book research, to begin applying what I learned in France to what scholars have said on the subject, and to get a much needed head start on what will be an incredibly difficult semester... I am carrying 18 credits, which break down as such: Science and Lab (TBNL) - 4 cr., Men's Chorus - 1 cr., Comparative Fascism - 3 cr., Senior Seminar: Politics of Oil - 3 cr., Intro to French Novel - 3 cr., Senior Thesis Writing - 5 cr. It will be a great semester, an excellent learning semester, but tough on the ol' schedule.
So I think I am going to list several topics I've identified in my head and on paper that I want to hit on in my thesis, topics that only came out after being in France. I want to state that I feel much more knowledgeable on this subject, much more confident in researching on my own, much better about writing a peer-reviewed hundred+ pg. paper for credit... I feel almost that even if the paper does not end up reflecting the amount of work I've put into it, it will be an extremely valuable process for me. I hope that the paper will be good, and like my dad said, "cutting edge for any level," but I've got to put the work into it first.
I think I should address: the French system that favors "elites," employment figures, promotions, women and immigrants hiring rates, schools, the end-of-high-school test the BAC, the "grands ecoles," minority and women representation in political offices, how Muslims express themselves politically (if at all), how much Jihad plays into Muslims' psyches, the solidarity between Muslims of different ethnicity and nationality types in a multicultural society, the role of religion in the live's of Muslims (a.k.a. religiosity), political leanings of the French populace in times of economic crisis, roots of French perceptions of national identity, and other topics I'm sure I will add to this list. My main concern is to get an idea about: what the values of the French culture are, how the majority of Muslims live and think in France, and how external and internal pressures strain and stretch these two foundations in order to form the current type of multicultural society we see in France today.
I think I will need to make out an outline of the paper soon... this is where, obviously, I will need some guidance from my advisor, but since we haven't had much contact this summer, I will need to set up a meeting with him as soon as I can. Aha, so that will be order of business number one... DONE. Next, I want to do more reading, using what I learned in France as a backdrop. Here goes... see ya on fifteen.
So I think I am going to list several topics I've identified in my head and on paper that I want to hit on in my thesis, topics that only came out after being in France. I want to state that I feel much more knowledgeable on this subject, much more confident in researching on my own, much better about writing a peer-reviewed hundred+ pg. paper for credit... I feel almost that even if the paper does not end up reflecting the amount of work I've put into it, it will be an extremely valuable process for me. I hope that the paper will be good, and like my dad said, "cutting edge for any level," but I've got to put the work into it first.
I think I should address: the French system that favors "elites," employment figures, promotions, women and immigrants hiring rates, schools, the end-of-high-school test the BAC, the "grands ecoles," minority and women representation in political offices, how Muslims express themselves politically (if at all), how much Jihad plays into Muslims' psyches, the solidarity between Muslims of different ethnicity and nationality types in a multicultural society, the role of religion in the live's of Muslims (a.k.a. religiosity), political leanings of the French populace in times of economic crisis, roots of French perceptions of national identity, and other topics I'm sure I will add to this list. My main concern is to get an idea about: what the values of the French culture are, how the majority of Muslims live and think in France, and how external and internal pressures strain and stretch these two foundations in order to form the current type of multicultural society we see in France today.
I think I will need to make out an outline of the paper soon... this is where, obviously, I will need some guidance from my advisor, but since we haven't had much contact this summer, I will need to set up a meeting with him as soon as I can. Aha, so that will be order of business number one... DONE. Next, I want to do more reading, using what I learned in France as a backdrop. Here goes... see ya on fifteen.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Some pictures from the trip
 |
| La Pantheon, a building built by Napoleon I to celebrate the French legacy. Buried inside are French legends Victor Hugo (author of Les Miserables, the Hunchback of Notre Dame, and numerous plays and poems), and Jean Monnet, the "father of Europe" who originally proposed the idea for what has become the modern European Union (thanks Dr. Robyn) |
 |
| Homer Simpson wants you to watch the World Cup games there |
 |
| La Cathedrale Notre-Dame |
 |
| Sneaking photos on the Metro... |
 |
| My favorite French existentialist couple, buried together at Montparnasse Cemetery |
 |
| A Gendarme directs traffic during a rainstorm |
 |
| Minaret of the Grand Mosque of Paris |
 |
| View of tourists from the balcony of the Paris Opera House... this square in particular is known as the American quarter, for its popularity with American tourists and ex-patriots |
 |
| More sneaking photos, here at a convenience store at Montmartre |
 |
| Beautifully-decorated metro entrance |
 |
| Sculpture at Luxembourg Gardens with Conseil d'Etat in back |
 |
| The Tuilery Gardens with some Haussmanian architecture in back (thanks Jean!) |
 |
| Parisian bookstore, very "punny" |
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Interesting articles on the burqa and the crisis of French society, FYI
France and its Muslims -- Stephanie Giry
http://www.jstor.org/pss/20032072
(Will need to access with JSTOR account, which is free for KSU students as long as you open the article through the KSU library website or the KSU server itself)
Laicite or Discrimination? -- David Laitin, NYT Op-ed contributor
http://bit.ly/b6Yo5T
In Your Face -- Christopher Hitchens
http://www.slate.com/id/2253493
BBC Reader speak-out
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/should_france_ban_the_veil.html
Chart looking at percent of Muslims in Western Europe
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/france/info.html
PBS Wide Angle video-- "Young, Muslim, and French"
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/france/
http://www.jstor.org/pss/20032072
(Will need to access with JSTOR account, which is free for KSU students as long as you open the article through the KSU library website or the KSU server itself)
Laicite or Discrimination? -- David Laitin, NYT Op-ed contributor
http://bit.ly/b6Yo5T
In Your Face -- Christopher Hitchens
http://www.slate.com/id/2253493
BBC Reader speak-out
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/should_france_ban_the_veil.html
Chart looking at percent of Muslims in Western Europe
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/france/info.html
PBS Wide Angle video-- "Young, Muslim, and French"
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/france/
Article on the burqa I wrote in the spring of 2009
I wrote this article before I began most of my research on the burqa ban and other French Muslim issues that continue to roil the country... What I wrote, I think, reflects very well my pre-trip mentality, which was very US-centric.
Enslavement in the name of liberty
by Christopher Hook
27 January 2010
Xenophobia, or the fear of foreigners, is sweeping through Europe. Last year, Swiss voters widely approved a ban on the building of minarets, the large steeples common to mosques. Countries like Austria, the Netherlands and Belgium (among others) have radical right-wing fringes known for making anti-Semitic comments and calling for a complete halt to immigration; these parties are becoming less peripheral and more powerful in wielding government authority.
In the latest, last Tuesday an advisory panel of top French legislators submitted a report recommending that the French government, led by President Nicolas Sarkozy, should ban the wearing of burqas, a garment worn by devout Muslim women that covers the woman’s entire body, including her eyes. The ban would extend only to being in public, not to the privacy of one’s home. To these French “représentatifs d’état,” the burqa represents extremist (see “dangerous”) Islam, the repression of women and a threat to the state doctrine of “laïcité,” or the strict separation of church and state.
But I think the French are wrong (I know, again?). While the veil is donned by those more fundamental adherents, it is in no way representative of a dangerous Islam, the kind practiced by al-Qaida or Osama bin Laden. Women have been wearing the burqa for years in France. It is only because there are such heightened fears about “Islamofacism” brought on by 9/11 and other attacks that this kind of attitude is taken. In addition, international law only allows the repression of religious practice if the practice creates an unsafe situation in the country. I hardly believe that simply wearing a burqa is a security threat.
Moreover, the West needs to concern itself with the effect its policies on Islam have in its attempt to root out and destroy global terrorism. To win the “hearts and minds” of those in the Muslim world, the West needs to state clearly that it is not “at war” with Islam, just those who would use Islam to take innocent lives. Unfortunately, banning the veil sends the message that the Western lifestyle is incompatible with a fundamental Islamic one.
And the attempt to defend women against the horrors of their own religion is merely a misguided values judgment about one of the core methods of practice for devout Muslim women. True, these women, just by nature of their religion, do not enjoy the same freedoms as their counterparts in the West. This would be an issue if the government itself promoted such inequality. But in making such a claim about a non-state entity — a religion — France is blatantly disregarding its constitutional creed to separate church and state, and rather thrusting itself into the role as the principal authority on what constitutes legitimate religious practice.
The French Parliament and Sarkozy will decide whether to adopt the recommendation, which enjoys strong support by the French populace, in the months to come. Unfortunately, “le gouvernement français,” bowing to popular pressure, seems headed toward making the proposed ban a reality.
But instead of freeing Muslim women from the chains of their repression, this ban will prohibit a vital ritual of the most important aspect of these women’s lives: their religion. Instead of gaining liberty, Muslim women in France will become slaves to an immoral law and an ugly society that rejects them for their beliefs.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Now a little more enlightened, I think we in the US believe strongly in the causes of liberty more than any other ideal of government. When gun laws threaten to take guns out of our hands, we are very quick to argue that our right to bear arms is in the 2nd amendment. When Congress proposes a law that gives government officials more authority on our healthcare, we do not hesitate to participate in rallies, attend town halls, write letters and Facebook posts and sign petitions that express in sometimes very harsh terms that we are a free people, founded in a nation whose principles are that the government should keep its dirty mischievous power-grubbing hands off of our freedom to choose to buy healthcare or not, or our freedom to make money without being taxed. Although these latter two arguments are normally employed by the right-wing of our country, the left is also very anxious to defend freedom. Marches and protests for civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, even the right of an accused terrorist to have ample food, water, and access to a lawyer... We love liberty. And we are pretty unique in our ardour. Though European and other democracies certainly have liberty enshrined in their constitutions and other state documents, emphasis is often put more on the ideals of equality or the preservation of order, than liberty.
Thus is the case in France... we in the US love to pounce on the French for banning the wearing of overt religious symbols in schools, saying that this ban infringes on the right of people in France to express their religion openly and freely. But proponents in France say that taking off the veil, removing the yarmulke, unhooking the crucifix from the neck, all of these level the playing field, make every student seem more equal... not Muslim, or Jewish, or Christian, but French, or even just human. This goes into the dominance of the American ideology... we get so used to thinking that any law or policy that hinders liberty is a terrible thing... but I would ask you to just ponder the above thoughts. If taking off all religious symbols in public schools would create a more equitable, peaceful, and safe society, should we do it? If yes, why not ban all religious symbols in all public places?
ALSO-- see Christopher Hitchen's article about the burka ban, which also takes the liberty-infringement-is-bad angle. I guess they have this in G.B. too... http://www.slate.com/id/2253493
by Christopher Hook
27 January 2010
Xenophobia, or the fear of foreigners, is sweeping through Europe. Last year, Swiss voters widely approved a ban on the building of minarets, the large steeples common to mosques. Countries like Austria, the Netherlands and Belgium (among others) have radical right-wing fringes known for making anti-Semitic comments and calling for a complete halt to immigration; these parties are becoming less peripheral and more powerful in wielding government authority.
In the latest, last Tuesday an advisory panel of top French legislators submitted a report recommending that the French government, led by President Nicolas Sarkozy, should ban the wearing of burqas, a garment worn by devout Muslim women that covers the woman’s entire body, including her eyes. The ban would extend only to being in public, not to the privacy of one’s home. To these French “représentatifs d’état,” the burqa represents extremist (see “dangerous”) Islam, the repression of women and a threat to the state doctrine of “laïcité,” or the strict separation of church and state.
But I think the French are wrong (I know, again?). While the veil is donned by those more fundamental adherents, it is in no way representative of a dangerous Islam, the kind practiced by al-Qaida or Osama bin Laden. Women have been wearing the burqa for years in France. It is only because there are such heightened fears about “Islamofacism” brought on by 9/11 and other attacks that this kind of attitude is taken. In addition, international law only allows the repression of religious practice if the practice creates an unsafe situation in the country. I hardly believe that simply wearing a burqa is a security threat.
Moreover, the West needs to concern itself with the effect its policies on Islam have in its attempt to root out and destroy global terrorism. To win the “hearts and minds” of those in the Muslim world, the West needs to state clearly that it is not “at war” with Islam, just those who would use Islam to take innocent lives. Unfortunately, banning the veil sends the message that the Western lifestyle is incompatible with a fundamental Islamic one.
And the attempt to defend women against the horrors of their own religion is merely a misguided values judgment about one of the core methods of practice for devout Muslim women. True, these women, just by nature of their religion, do not enjoy the same freedoms as their counterparts in the West. This would be an issue if the government itself promoted such inequality. But in making such a claim about a non-state entity — a religion — France is blatantly disregarding its constitutional creed to separate church and state, and rather thrusting itself into the role as the principal authority on what constitutes legitimate religious practice.
The French Parliament and Sarkozy will decide whether to adopt the recommendation, which enjoys strong support by the French populace, in the months to come. Unfortunately, “le gouvernement français,” bowing to popular pressure, seems headed toward making the proposed ban a reality.
But instead of freeing Muslim women from the chains of their repression, this ban will prohibit a vital ritual of the most important aspect of these women’s lives: their religion. Instead of gaining liberty, Muslim women in France will become slaves to an immoral law and an ugly society that rejects them for their beliefs.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Now a little more enlightened, I think we in the US believe strongly in the causes of liberty more than any other ideal of government. When gun laws threaten to take guns out of our hands, we are very quick to argue that our right to bear arms is in the 2nd amendment. When Congress proposes a law that gives government officials more authority on our healthcare, we do not hesitate to participate in rallies, attend town halls, write letters and Facebook posts and sign petitions that express in sometimes very harsh terms that we are a free people, founded in a nation whose principles are that the government should keep its dirty mischievous power-grubbing hands off of our freedom to choose to buy healthcare or not, or our freedom to make money without being taxed. Although these latter two arguments are normally employed by the right-wing of our country, the left is also very anxious to defend freedom. Marches and protests for civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, even the right of an accused terrorist to have ample food, water, and access to a lawyer... We love liberty. And we are pretty unique in our ardour. Though European and other democracies certainly have liberty enshrined in their constitutions and other state documents, emphasis is often put more on the ideals of equality or the preservation of order, than liberty.
Thus is the case in France... we in the US love to pounce on the French for banning the wearing of overt religious symbols in schools, saying that this ban infringes on the right of people in France to express their religion openly and freely. But proponents in France say that taking off the veil, removing the yarmulke, unhooking the crucifix from the neck, all of these level the playing field, make every student seem more equal... not Muslim, or Jewish, or Christian, but French, or even just human. This goes into the dominance of the American ideology... we get so used to thinking that any law or policy that hinders liberty is a terrible thing... but I would ask you to just ponder the above thoughts. If taking off all religious symbols in public schools would create a more equitable, peaceful, and safe society, should we do it? If yes, why not ban all religious symbols in all public places?
ALSO-- see Christopher Hitchen's article about the burka ban, which also takes the liberty-infringement-is-bad angle. I guess they have this in G.B. too... http://www.slate.com/id/2253493
A good link from a friend
Sent to me from Brad Baranowski:
This is a section from (philosopher) Zizek's Living in the End Times about the French debate over banning the veil. I think he made some good points (and was pretty fair overall) and figured you might like to read it (just the parts about the law, that is):
Problems, however, begin with Sarkozy's statement that veils are "not welcome" because, in a secular country like France, they intimidates and alienate non-Muslims . . . one cannot but note how the allegedly universalist attack on the burqa on behalf of human rights and women's dignity ends up as a defense of the particular French way of life. It is, however, not enough to submit this law to pragmatic criticism, such as the claim that, if implemented, it will only increase the oppression of Muslim women, since they will simply not be allowed to leave home and thus be even more cut off from society, exposed to harsh treatment within forced marriages, etc. (Furthermore, the fine will exacerbate the problems of poverty and joblessness: it will punish the very women who are least likely to have control over their own money.) The problem is a more fundamental one--what makes the whole debate symptomatics is, first, the marginal status of the problem: the whole nation talks about it, while the total number of women wearing both types of full-body veil in France is around 2,000, out of a French population of adult Muslim women of about 1,500,000. (And, incidently, most of those women who wear full-length veils are below the age of thirty, with a substantial proportion of them being French women who have converted.) The next curious feature is the ambiguity of the critique of the burqua: it moves at two levels. First, it is presented as a defense of the dignity and freedom of oppressed Muslim women--it is unacceptable that, in a secular France, any woman has to live a hidden life secluded from public space, subordinated to brutal patriarchal authority, and so on. Secondly, however, as a rule the argument then shifts towards the anxieties of non-Muslim French people: faces covered by the burqua do not fit with the coordinates of French culture and identity, they "intimidate and alienate non-Muslims" . . .
Zizek goes on to apply a more in-depth psychoanalytical critique but this was the part that mostly interested me (and was the shortest in terms of typing . . .).
And my response:
Yeah, that's about right, and I was glad to understand what he was talking about... I know from looking at your Zizek books in Europe that sometimes he can difficult to decipher... but yes, the proposed burqa ban and the current veil ban in public schools do, more often than not, end up being a defense of the French way of life. One of the things I've found out, is that if you had to describe the French government and the French "system" 's dominant ideology, it would be pragmatism. Rationality. Empiricism. But also traditions. It's a curious mix, one that borrows conservative ideas (reliance on tradition, history, using symbolic language, a la Burke, etc) as well as forward thinking and practical liberal ideas (like a quasi socialist state, like nuclear energy programs)... in this regard, it is very difficult to indeed to compares theirs with ours... we tend to sacrifice forward thinking and pragmatism for our founding fathers, for our beloved Constitution, our system that turns out rather daft politicians... but what I think he misses, and perhaps he gets into this but I would suspect not, is the political advantage there is to leading a debate on national identity. Though the conservative UMP party has effectively done nothing to quell the economic crisis, is facing serious governmental scandals new and old, they have the burqa a "big deal" because it is, politically, a good move. When you are facing such troubles, distracting people from the main drama with big scary words like "immigrant," "terrorism," "oppression," "end of our way of life," "threat to France," etc. has a tendency to get people talking and get people behind the ones defending the French state.
When I watched debates on the burqa in Parliament two weeks ago, the debate centered not on the burqa itself and the social effects of such a ban (as Zizek pondors here), but rather how the burqa's existence on French soil harms the French way of life... it threatens secularism, it is not egalitarian, it leaves society open to terrorist attacks, etc. I found that very interesting... and I think the reason for that is politically if you can lead these discussions in what is already a very patriotic country, you have a tendency to be viewed as the more French party and the more French president and you more often than not come out on top in elections and such... I had one professor in France tell me that the UMP will definitely hold on to the presidency and the majority in the Parliament, even with current approval ratings in the 20s....
And his response:
I believe you are correct in the tactical political sense here in that this is defiantly a cynical play by the UMP to tap into an ongoing tradition/tension. I might even sum up your already succinct (and well put) characterization of the French political logic as: progressive politics as a means to serve traditional values. This would, of course, allow for the usual "invented traditions" and mystifications that go along with modernity.
As for Zizek, I think he is pointing to something behind even the veil and more global than just French. Apropos the UMP, the shift to the veil discussion is precisely the opposite of Politics as such. Tactically, and by the low standards we are today surrounded by, this may seem like a typical political move, but in a setting not so long lost where people could put space between them and the constant feed of information in order to pass judgement (I think we once called this odd act "being critical"), we might have merely deemed the UMP's actions cycnical. As for the political, it always strive to redefine the coordinates in which we think--to redraw the lines of good/bad, friend/enemy.
Indeed, the very fact that a crucial site of political potentiality--the fast dissolving neoliberal carnival of the '90s and the apparent end times we are approaching--is staring us (veiled or not) in the face and the UMP has decided to fight for its own survival rather than commit an act in the truest sense of that word the essence of the negation of politics. For whenever a people should shy away from taking that crucial leap that is the commitment to a political cause (possibly the most beautiful and tragic forms of belief), we should not label their methods as "good" or even "practical" (unless we do so in the dismissive sense that a philosopher might); it is better to just to be honest: they are rats. Sarkozy is the Rat Man par excellence. His job is not to make difficult decisions; he must only survive.
Zizek understands full well, however, that the French are doing this out of a collective obsession; that the president is not constitutive but merely emblematic (and how wonderfully so!) of this cultural neurosis--and that obsession is their own lack. Zizek's proposition of the effects of its most recent manifestations (this pitiful and lamentable law) are merely rhetorical tools (as he alludes to when phrasing it with the derogative term "pragmatic"--the most ideological of words) that he uses in order to get at the heart of the issue: the deep desire to know what the Other--History possibly?--wants and thus, avoid the traumatic realization that such assurances do not exist; the decision to act politically is truly ours.
In other words, under the guise of the "utilitarian liberalism," the notion of Universal political Ideas have been whored out to such an extent that we are today (French or not) faced with a situation where only those who blatantly trod on Justice's skirt (recall, as you of all people have no need of "remembering," Sarkozy's quaint nickname for impoverished immigrants who dared to assert their right to be included in the commons, or his equally questionable standing in relation to labor) can claim to be the last defenders of enlightened universality while its traditional proponents--that ephemeral force we once called the "Left"--is now happy with the table scraps that pass as "multiculturalism" or "human rights." I think it is this larger tension--typified by the ban--that Zizek is trying to speak to, not just the possible ramifications for French Muslims in the future.
But, it would seem that I have over-extended my own perimeters for this message far beyond the scant lines from Slavoj that I provided you; such is the risk of spending too much time NOT in Europe. :)
Problems, however, begin with Sarkozy's statement that veils are "not welcome" because, in a secular country like France, they intimidates and alienate non-Muslims . . . one cannot but note how the allegedly universalist attack on the burqa on behalf of human rights and women's dignity ends up as a defense of the particular French way of life. It is, however, not enough to submit this law to pragmatic criticism, such as the claim that, if implemented, it will only increase the oppression of Muslim women, since they will simply not be allowed to leave home and thus be even more cut off from society, exposed to harsh treatment within forced marriages, etc. (Furthermore, the fine will exacerbate the problems of poverty and joblessness: it will punish the very women who are least likely to have control over their own money.) The problem is a more fundamental one--what makes the whole debate symptomatics is, first, the marginal status of the problem: the whole nation talks about it, while the total number of women wearing both types of full-body veil in France is around 2,000, out of a French population of adult Muslim women of about 1,500,000. (And, incidently, most of those women who wear full-length veils are below the age of thirty, with a substantial proportion of them being French women who have converted.) The next curious feature is the ambiguity of the critique of the burqua: it moves at two levels. First, it is presented as a defense of the dignity and freedom of oppressed Muslim women--it is unacceptable that, in a secular France, any woman has to live a hidden life secluded from public space, subordinated to brutal patriarchal authority, and so on. Secondly, however, as a rule the argument then shifts towards the anxieties of non-Muslim French people: faces covered by the burqua do not fit with the coordinates of French culture and identity, they "intimidate and alienate non-Muslims" . . .
Zizek goes on to apply a more in-depth psychoanalytical critique but this was the part that mostly interested me (and was the shortest in terms of typing . . .).
And my response:
When I watched debates on the burqa in Parliament two weeks ago, the debate centered not on the burqa itself and the social effects of such a ban (as Zizek pondors here), but rather how the burqa's existence on French soil harms the French way of life... it threatens secularism, it is not egalitarian, it leaves society open to terrorist attacks, etc. I found that very interesting... and I think the reason for that is politically if you can lead these discussions in what is already a very patriotic country, you have a tendency to be viewed as the more French party and the more French president and you more often than not come out on top in elections and such... I had one professor in France tell me that the UMP will definitely hold on to the presidency and the majority in the Parliament, even with current approval ratings in the 20s....
And his response:
As for Zizek, I think he is pointing to something behind even the veil and more global than just French. Apropos the UMP, the shift to the veil discussion is precisely the opposite of Politics as such. Tactically, and by the low standards we are today surrounded by, this may seem like a typical political move, but in a setting not so long lost where people could put space between them and the constant feed of information in order to pass judgement (I think we once called this odd act "being critical"), we might have merely deemed the UMP's actions cycnical. As for the political, it always strive to redefine the coordinates in which we think--to redraw the lines of good/bad, friend/enemy.
Indeed, the very fact that a crucial site of political potentiality--the fast dissolving neoliberal carnival of the '90s and the apparent end times we are approaching--is staring us (veiled or not) in the face and the UMP has decided to fight for its own survival rather than commit an act in the truest sense of that word the essence of the negation of politics. For whenever a people should shy away from taking that crucial leap that is the commitment to a political cause (possibly the most beautiful and tragic forms of belief), we should not label their methods as "good" or even "practical" (unless we do so in the dismissive sense that a philosopher might); it is better to just to be honest: they are rats. Sarkozy is the Rat Man par excellence. His job is not to make difficult decisions; he must only survive.
Zizek understands full well, however, that the French are doing this out of a collective obsession; that the president is not constitutive but merely emblematic (and how wonderfully so!) of this cultural neurosis--and that obsession is their own lack. Zizek's proposition of the effects of its most recent manifestations (this pitiful and lamentable law) are merely rhetorical tools (as he alludes to when phrasing it with the derogative term "pragmatic"--the most ideological of words) that he uses in order to get at the heart of the issue: the deep desire to know what the Other--History possibly?--wants and thus, avoid the traumatic realization that such assurances do not exist; the decision to act politically is truly ours.
In other words, under the guise of the "utilitarian liberalism," the notion of Universal political Ideas have been whored out to such an extent that we are today (French or not) faced with a situation where only those who blatantly trod on Justice's skirt (recall, as you of all people have no need of "remembering," Sarkozy's quaint nickname for impoverished immigrants who dared to assert their right to be included in the commons, or his equally questionable standing in relation to labor) can claim to be the last defenders of enlightened universality while its traditional proponents--that ephemeral force we once called the "Left"--is now happy with the table scraps that pass as "multiculturalism" or "human rights." I think it is this larger tension--typified by the ban--that Zizek is trying to speak to, not just the possible ramifications for French Muslims in the future.
But, it would seem that I have over-extended my own perimeters for this message far beyond the scant lines from Slavoj that I provided you; such is the risk of spending too much time NOT in Europe. :)
Friday, July 16, 2010
Trip Update #3
July 16
I have one more day in Paris (today), then I will spend three days and two nights seeing my former host family in Geneva, as well as visiting my old haunts there. I also hope to do some research in Geneva on my thesis, after all, it is the capital of the world when it comes to this kind of stuff.
I've run into a few roadblocks this past week... everyone seems to have gone on vacation this week or the last, and thus, many people with whom I wanted to talk have been gone. I have gotten good contact information from many of these offices, including the Office of Integration and City Policy. Upon many of my contacts' returns from vacation, I will send emails out and hopefully get a response back from them shortly. Like I said in my last update, I am trying to do things here in Paris that I couldn't do at home... unfortunately, I may have to do some of my interviews back in Kent by email. Not as personal, not as fun, but effective, nonetheless.
But despite my difficulty in getting interviews, I have been able to get a good amount of reading done. Along with reading the news everyday, I went to the Arab World Institute, a giant structure in the middle of the Paris center... they had a lot of interesting reading material, and so for a couple of hours I perused their selection, and wrote down some good books to pick up when I get home through OhioLink.
 |
| Me on the roof of the Arab World Institute |
She said that all foreigners, not just Muslims, encouter racism around the country... indeed, I think many French are still tied up in the idea of one pure "Gaul" identity or race, which of course doesn't exist (see my friend Paurav's interesting dissection of this at his blog: http://jatwarrior.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/ethnicity-think-you-understand-it/). The Gauls can trace their roots back to the Celts, way back in the early AD years... but beyond that, "French" or "Gaulois" doesn't mean much.
I also had a good chat with my friend Jean, who goes to the Political Science school in Bordeaux and who went to Kent on an exchange program in the fall of 2008 and spring of 2009. He came up with his girlfriend for about a week, and we had several good discussions about my thesis, and about French culture, etc.
One of the things I am realizing this thesis is developing into is a discussion of the interplay between identities, the dominant one of the state versus the minority one.... how identities compete, gel, work together to form society and culture... this has been a fascinating exposé for me. I am excited to dive into this world of literature, see what I can find.
I am also toying with the idea of how and why policies are introduced at different times. I am beginning to suspect the burqa ban, for example, is not really about banning a one by one ft piece of fabric on a woman's face. Well it is, obviously, but I suspect more that the introduction of the legislation by the center-right wing party UMP was a ploy to get people to begin discussion about what it means to be French, what identity is, etc. The UMP has happily led this discussion, putting up Facebook and Party site forums, hosting events, working with NGOs and other groups to put out literature on the subject... I think in times of economic crisis, for example, the UMP has learned that discussing the fundamentals of a state keeps the attention OFF the state and onto the society, which had advantages politically... even though Sarkowy is running at a measly 32% approval (that's Bush low!), his party enjoyed widespread support on the burqa ban (which just passed the upper house of French Parliament on Tuesday), and looks poised to retain the presidency and the Congress, that is unless their opposition can get their acts together. Their opposition, the Parti Socialist (PS) has at least three candidates who have announced their candidacy for President, and four or more from other left wing parties (the Greens, the Communists, etc.) who have done the same.
Along with studying and interviewing, I've been able to do some sightseeing as well. I saw the Bastille Day military parade, where the French govt invited 12 former colonized African countries to march their troops down the Champs-Elysées. Many in the media saw this as France being nostalgiac for their colonial past, but I see this more as a positive sign that Sarkozy is willing to recognize the contributions Africans can make in the world; this obviously has implications for the Africans in his own country.
 |
| Bastille Day in Paris as planes shoot "le tricolore"-- blue, white and red smoke, into the air |
 |
| African troops on Rue Madeleine |
I am off today for two more interviews with students, to observe and interview Muslims doing their prayers this morning, but most importantly, to buy my mother a tablecloth and a winestopper at the largest flea market in the world.
Tonight is my second-to-last night here, sadly, but I am anxious to get home, see my family and friends, get pumped for the semester, and finally, start writing this damn thing. Thanks again for all of your words and support. See you aux Etats-Unis very soon!
Thursday, July 15, 2010
At the Assemblée Nationale
July 8
Like my other post indicated (Four), I was invited by a French député from a small banlieue just north of Paris to attend the débat on the "dissimulation du visage en publique," the hiding of one's face in public. If this bill passes, it will be illegal to hide your face in public, with exceptions for sporting events. Anyway, I took frantic notes because I wasn't allowed to bring my camera or my recorder into the chamber. The notes are a little scattered because I sometimes had difficulty following the rapid fire French coming from these députés mouths. What I note here are transcribed speeches from the mouths of the deputies, with thoughts I had at the time in-between. The thoughts are not nearly developed, so you'll forgive me if you find errors or disagree with things I say. I need to think out a little more some of what I wrote here.
----------------------------------------------------------
Get the idea it's an "old boy's club"
Very ornate hall
Red seats and floors, like velvet coating
Built before Henry IV
Not many députés actually in attendance
Speakers:
1)Conservative
-calls the veil an "assault on women"
-A "maladie"
-States there are rights and obligations attached to citizenship
2) Liberal
-Creating a civil war, and there will be consequences from this
-We should be dealing with the sorry state of economics in France, not this issue
-Far from confronting radical Islam, this may actually invite fundamentalism
-With this law, we will be indoctrinating our children with a savage and totalitarian ideology
-Creating a war between the public
-It's public gangrene, and it's civil war
-should be promoting the creation of an modern Islam that fits in the French tradition, can do it without banning the voile
3) Conservative (I bet you're seeing the trend here...)
-French society based on civility (civilité), politesse (polite respect)
-No "right to be different"
-Veil is a threat to republicanism
-Difficult to live together when people come from different traditions and backgrounds
-it's "decivilization"
-The burqa=fundamentalist Islam
-We are tolerant, but we are also afraid
-Veil is a refusal to live as a French person
-Veil wearers are antagonistic
-Need a total ban
-The burqa could be the end of the social pact and the government
4) Liberal
-Veil is an non-existent problem
NOTE 1: No one is here... Out of a possible 577 seats, I count 36 députés; using rationality (rather than other means) to make case for/against burqa ban
5) Liberal
-Burqa and burqa ban proposals is a recent phenomenon
-Special council looking at burqa ban did not recommend at all the ban
-The veil is not founded on anything "Islamic"
6) Conservative
-Wearers of the burqa reject republican values
-Represents totalitarianism
-"Dangerous" identity wrapped in the burqa
-Burqa is against the rights (les droits) of women
NOTE 2: Here is where I fell asleep for a few minutes... it was hot in that chamber! So I missed three speakers...
NOTE 3: Conversation is centering around the values of the state. What IS France? Debate not at all on the specifics of the law.
10) Liberal
-Should focus on socioeconomic problems to fix social divisions between Muslims and the majority society
-Veil is definitely as assault on the liberty of women
-Promotes growth of islamaphobia
-Lack of civility
-But the wearing of the veil is not against democracy
-Such a ban would relay the "sentiment" that the government has a problem with Islam as a whole
-Religion should have to adjust itself to values of the state somewhat
-There be a law, but not this one
-Should fight against crime and domestic violence, not the burqa
-If law passes, we will see an increase in crime
11) Conservative
-Begins with summary of the values of the French state: secularism, equality between the sexes, national security
-Veil is slavery (l'esclavage) for women
-If we care about women, must "votez contre la tyrannie!" (Vote against tyranny!)
NOTE 4: US Conservatives hate secularism-- say we live in a "Christian nation." But Conservatives defend secularism as an essential value of the country.
NOTE 5: Liberals in France support laws that protect rights, as enshrined in the Constitution and whatnot. Conservatives, though, argue that the burqa oppresses women, and though freedom of expression in is the Constitution, support this law, which certainly violates women's freedoms (in a universal way) more than promotes it. Contrast to the US... Liberals there don't mind taking away rights (like guns, for example) in the name of peace. Interesting comparisons and thoughts.
12) Difficult to follow... and short speech.
13) Compares burqa ban to mission in Afghanistan, which was premised on promoting universal values of liberty and equality in the population [I should look into this].
14) Liberal
-Everyone in French society has a right to recognition
-We talk a lot about liberty, and equality, but what about fraternity?
-Stigmatizes Islam
-Will cause mass protests (manifestations)
15) Conservative
-Once again, restates values of the French state
-Communitarianism, La Patrimoine, "nos saints republicains"
-Burqa ban will send strong and firm message to those wishing to suppress the liberties of women in French society
-We are against those who would be against the values of the state
-"The veil has no place here"
16) Crappy
NOTE 6: The proposed law will outlaw covering your face in public. Will not restrict the wearing of the hijab (headscarf) or other garments that cover the head but not the face. So what we're talking about is an eight-inch by eight-inch piece of fabric on the face. Never has such a meaningless and inconsequential law been so hotly debated. Historical. Idea: "On it's face (no pun intended), the veil is..." Haha, funny article/thesis chapter/thesis title idea.
NOTE 7: Not many representatives here. I count less than twenty now. People are just obviously yelling at each other without regard for courtesy. And these two people, one on the left and one on the right, are blatantly reading the paper while their fellow deputies speak. Man, what an easy job to be a politician.
NOTE 8: French and European Union flag in front of room.
NOTE 9: Left seems fractured on the bill (go figure). Some agree wearing the burqa is against French republican values, and others cannot. All seem against application of the law.
NOTE 10: How did these people ever agree to join the European Union and sign the Maastricht Treaty in 1992? That had infinitely larger implications for the future of French sovereignty and the preservation of the French way of life.
NOTE 11: Debate very "buzz word-y"... I.E. Glory, Brotherhood, Liberty, Equality, Secularism
Seems to be okay to really go at each other during debate, even when speaking out of turn. Openly being rude... I don't know I feel about this. Where is the respect, the politeness? I imagine that despite the anger towards the other side, despite the emotion playing into these debates, these are rapidly forgotten if the two deputies see each other in the hallways of the chamber. I think debate is the status quo for these men... but they don't let it infect their personal lives.
Like my other post indicated (Four), I was invited by a French député from a small banlieue just north of Paris to attend the débat on the "dissimulation du visage en publique," the hiding of one's face in public. If this bill passes, it will be illegal to hide your face in public, with exceptions for sporting events. Anyway, I took frantic notes because I wasn't allowed to bring my camera or my recorder into the chamber. The notes are a little scattered because I sometimes had difficulty following the rapid fire French coming from these députés mouths. What I note here are transcribed speeches from the mouths of the deputies, with thoughts I had at the time in-between. The thoughts are not nearly developed, so you'll forgive me if you find errors or disagree with things I say. I need to think out a little more some of what I wrote here.
----------------------------------------------------------
Get the idea it's an "old boy's club"
Very ornate hall
Red seats and floors, like velvet coating
Built before Henry IV
Not many députés actually in attendance
Speakers:
1)Conservative
-calls the veil an "assault on women"
-A "maladie"
-States there are rights and obligations attached to citizenship
2) Liberal
-Creating a civil war, and there will be consequences from this
-We should be dealing with the sorry state of economics in France, not this issue
-Far from confronting radical Islam, this may actually invite fundamentalism
-With this law, we will be indoctrinating our children with a savage and totalitarian ideology
-Creating a war between the public
-It's public gangrene, and it's civil war
-should be promoting the creation of an modern Islam that fits in the French tradition, can do it without banning the voile
3) Conservative (I bet you're seeing the trend here...)
-French society based on civility (civilité), politesse (polite respect)
-No "right to be different"
-Veil is a threat to republicanism
-Difficult to live together when people come from different traditions and backgrounds
-it's "decivilization"
-The burqa=fundamentalist Islam
-We are tolerant, but we are also afraid
-Veil is a refusal to live as a French person
-Veil wearers are antagonistic
-Need a total ban
-The burqa could be the end of the social pact and the government
4) Liberal
-Veil is an non-existent problem
NOTE 1: No one is here... Out of a possible 577 seats, I count 36 députés; using rationality (rather than other means) to make case for/against burqa ban
5) Liberal
-Burqa and burqa ban proposals is a recent phenomenon
-Special council looking at burqa ban did not recommend at all the ban
-The veil is not founded on anything "Islamic"
6) Conservative
-Wearers of the burqa reject republican values
-Represents totalitarianism
-"Dangerous" identity wrapped in the burqa
-Burqa is against the rights (les droits) of women
NOTE 2: Here is where I fell asleep for a few minutes... it was hot in that chamber! So I missed three speakers...
NOTE 3: Conversation is centering around the values of the state. What IS France? Debate not at all on the specifics of the law.
10) Liberal
-Should focus on socioeconomic problems to fix social divisions between Muslims and the majority society
-Veil is definitely as assault on the liberty of women
-Promotes growth of islamaphobia
-Lack of civility
-But the wearing of the veil is not against democracy
-Such a ban would relay the "sentiment" that the government has a problem with Islam as a whole
-Religion should have to adjust itself to values of the state somewhat
-There be a law, but not this one
-Should fight against crime and domestic violence, not the burqa
-If law passes, we will see an increase in crime
11) Conservative
-Begins with summary of the values of the French state: secularism, equality between the sexes, national security
-Veil is slavery (l'esclavage) for women
-If we care about women, must "votez contre la tyrannie!" (Vote against tyranny!)
NOTE 4: US Conservatives hate secularism-- say we live in a "Christian nation." But Conservatives defend secularism as an essential value of the country.
NOTE 5: Liberals in France support laws that protect rights, as enshrined in the Constitution and whatnot. Conservatives, though, argue that the burqa oppresses women, and though freedom of expression in is the Constitution, support this law, which certainly violates women's freedoms (in a universal way) more than promotes it. Contrast to the US... Liberals there don't mind taking away rights (like guns, for example) in the name of peace. Interesting comparisons and thoughts.
12) Difficult to follow... and short speech.
13) Compares burqa ban to mission in Afghanistan, which was premised on promoting universal values of liberty and equality in the population [I should look into this].
14) Liberal
-Everyone in French society has a right to recognition
-We talk a lot about liberty, and equality, but what about fraternity?
-Stigmatizes Islam
-Will cause mass protests (manifestations)
15) Conservative
-Once again, restates values of the French state
-Communitarianism, La Patrimoine, "nos saints republicains"
-Burqa ban will send strong and firm message to those wishing to suppress the liberties of women in French society
-We are against those who would be against the values of the state
-"The veil has no place here"
16) Crappy
NOTE 6: The proposed law will outlaw covering your face in public. Will not restrict the wearing of the hijab (headscarf) or other garments that cover the head but not the face. So what we're talking about is an eight-inch by eight-inch piece of fabric on the face. Never has such a meaningless and inconsequential law been so hotly debated. Historical. Idea: "On it's face (no pun intended), the veil is..." Haha, funny article/thesis chapter/thesis title idea.
NOTE 7: Not many representatives here. I count less than twenty now. People are just obviously yelling at each other without regard for courtesy. And these two people, one on the left and one on the right, are blatantly reading the paper while their fellow deputies speak. Man, what an easy job to be a politician.
NOTE 8: French and European Union flag in front of room.
NOTE 9: Left seems fractured on the bill (go figure). Some agree wearing the burqa is against French republican values, and others cannot. All seem against application of the law.
NOTE 10: How did these people ever agree to join the European Union and sign the Maastricht Treaty in 1992? That had infinitely larger implications for the future of French sovereignty and the preservation of the French way of life.
NOTE 11: Debate very "buzz word-y"... I.E. Glory, Brotherhood, Liberty, Equality, Secularism
Seems to be okay to really go at each other during debate, even when speaking out of turn. Openly being rude... I don't know I feel about this. Where is the respect, the politeness? I imagine that despite the anger towards the other side, despite the emotion playing into these debates, these are rapidly forgotten if the two deputies see each other in the hallways of the chamber. I think debate is the status quo for these men... but they don't let it infect their personal lives.
 |
| Current make up of the National Assembly... Blues represent UMP, the center-right majority party. Reds are Socialists. Light blues are moderates, like Christian Democrats and Greens. Dark reds are Communists. |
 |
| Logo of the National Assembly |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)