He finds that over time the meaning and discussions of laicite have altered. Through his discussions and observations of other scholars he discusses ways in which people have talked about the French government and laicite in order to justify the ban of the headscarf. In doing so he finds that the ban has been justified in multiple ways those being: the discussion of the French as a Republic, France remaining uniform, and the protection that the French government offers when it defines religion (Bowen, 2007). He discusses how the French as a Republic has created a system in which it deals with outsiders and concludes they do so by teaching them how to conform to French society and ideals (Bowen 2007, 11). The way Bowen describes these justifications support of one another. Because France is referred to as a Republic, he emphasizes ways that the Republic has been used to justify a uniformity of the people, which shows how the headscarf would not coincide with these values. Another discussion he exemplifies is that often used to ban the headscarf is the definition of religion. He interviews the chief of organized religions in order to define religion and what it means in France (Bowen 2007, 16). Vianney Sevaistre explains to Bowen that religion is not protected under French law only culte which means a mass, the structures, and its teachings (Bowen 2007, 17). Bowen uses popular discussion from direct sources in order to explain the limit of protection under laicite. By interviewing people and talking with scholars Bowen provides ways in which terms can be interpreted differently to develop his writing and show that laicite and equality can carry different meanings making it difficult for Muslim women and their fight for religious expression (2007). Ways that laicite has been talked about and rights to a neutral space have created
This has made other Western states wonder about their own Muslim problem and whether or not Muslim have now become a source of public anxiety. In Europe, where states have traditionally seen themselves as nation-states based on homogeneous national culture are now dealing with the mass insurgent of Muslim refugees from the middle east and they need a way to deal with this problem (Parekh, p.7). Citied earlier in the essay, France passed a veil law that prohibited the use of the hijabs or any kind veil; this was a sort of assimilation by the French government. In Britain they opted for integration, in the Netherlands they are using multiculturalism as a way to break the barrels between the Muslims in their society, and finally other nations have tried one or two of the other models mentioned in order to deal with their Muslim problem (Parekh,p.7). Even if these states begin to integrate, assimilate, and even use any other form of system. It will take time and slow
The self negotiation and internal struggle of the film’s character Malik Djebena is crucial in the course of sociological theoretical angle of symbolic interaction. Throughout the film, Malik’s personality revealed the bigger ongoing negotiations of Arab Muslim culture and identity within the French society. The largest Muslim Arab community in all of Western Europe resides in the heart of France, constituting five to six million people. Around 65% of this community traces its roots to French colonized countries of Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco and other parts of North Africa. Malik was coined the nickname “The Arab” and “haloof” (which means pig in Arabic) by other inmates which causes high probability that Malik is in fact to be of North African descent. Therefore, the symbolism of Malik’s muddled persona is more or less clear: in the same way that Malik has to come face to face with his own Muslim identity as he faces the iron fist of French prison, ethnic discrimination from the Corsicans, and the resentment and disapproval from his Muslim brothers. Many Muslim Arabs in France today have come to terms with their own identity issues as they face the pretentiously tolerant but merely assimilative French state, the increasing xenophobia
Fernando discusses the difference in hierarchy between the French and Muslim French by analyzing a speech given by the minister of the interior of France, Sarkozy. In a speech to Muslim French people, Sarkozy states, “The national community holds out its hand to you. It is watching you. You are from now on accountable for the image of each and every Muslim in France. Take this hand held out to you by the republic. Do not disappoint it, for the consequences would be enormous” (Fernando 65). Even though Sarkozy initially gives the Muslim French people affirmation that racism of religion and race have no place in the French Republic, Fernando further underlines how the French are catering to the Muslims. This is absurd because the French are the ones in the first place who encouraged the Muslims in Africa to move to France to work. Within the ethnography, many Muslims describe how the government made a coordinated effort after the world war to allow Muslims into France to ameliorate their conditions (Fernando 32). Furthermore, when Sarkozy elaborates about how Muslims should take what the republic offered, this creates a double standard. In simpler terms, Sarkozy is stating how the French is giving the Muslims citizenship, but at the same time are watching their every move as if they are not
In Europe, Islamophobia emerged together with new anti-Semitism, where the targets are the new immigrants, Muslims, as well as Jews. The reason for that is in France and United Kingdom, Muslims and Jews for the past decade inhabit the poorest neighborhoods. Media, on the other hand, portrays this as an incapability of Muslim immigrants to integrate into European society and susceptibility to the imported Islamist ideologies (Silverstein, 367).
In the article “France and Its Muslims”, published in the 2006 September/ October issue of the magazine Foreign Affairs, Senior Editor and freelance writer Stephanie Giry discussed the
The term ‘cuius regio eius religio’, ‘the religion of the ruler is the religion of all of his subject’, applies in France's largely irreligious society in the sense that it suggests an absolute power, with a single political task; the care of its population, which in this case ought to abide secularism. The“crisis of laïcité ” is embedded in a political struggle over the model of France’s future, one which aims to maintain a secular personality of the French Republic. Anniversary of the French Revolution in 1989 - reiterates issue of Universalism being a defining trait of republican France. However, as Casanova suggest the secular is a ‘central, modern category’, aïcité constructs/frames a reality based on its differentiation and separation from the religious.Thus, in terms of French Secular politics Universalism in the public sphere is limited to individuals who practice secularity/ reinforce the nation’s drive for laïcité. The way in which the French community negotiates two conceptual boundaries, establish secularity and subvert religion , as Asad suggests, tell us how people live in the secular. This personality of the French state expresses itself through law, media and education and as a result of this, The headscarf is held to be a religious symbol that conflicts with and is a threat to
However, until I put myself in the other person’s (France’s) shoes, I hadn’t realized that customs differ from one country to another, so I began to look at the accusations through France’s eyes. I too, then viewed the ban as a positive movement by France, influenced by a government’s determination to govern their citizens under laws, which they found suitable. Although they
The mixing of cultures in a global world can cause some serious problems, with Muslim immigration into Europe being one such (Glazer, 2010). The low-skilled poor migrants face hostility in many European nations, as anti-immigration policies and laws are being implemented, with xenophobia running rampant (Glazer, 2010). Some experts argue that the influx of immigrants is necessary to combat the inevitable social security and aging workers crisis, yet others argue technology will solve the problem (Glazer, 2010). With tensions high, questions come to the limelight over the banning of burqa’s in European countries, and the effects these policies will have on future immigration to Europe (Glazer, 2010).
“A spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of Communism.” This is the opening line of Karl Marx’s famous Communist Manifesto and in 1848, when it was written, Communism was haunting Europe, though not nearly so much as it would nearly a century and a half later, at the height of the Cold War. Under the looming threat of nuclear holocaust, the bitter conflict between the west and the communist world seemed intractable, omnipresent and all consuming. Fear of communism reached hysterical levels with McCarthyism in the United States; similar movements throughout the west leeched off of the paranoia and despair of a world seemingly condemned to interminable war. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, the end of the Soviet Union, the triumph of the market economy and the official end of the Cold War, the fear of Communism has dropped from our collective psyche. In its place, however, has emerged a new spectre for the twenty-first century- the spectre of Islam. Within this position paper I will be proving how the political rhetoric from the most recent U.S presidential election plays a role in fuelling the occurrences of Islamophobic hate crimes around the world. Political rhetoric during elections serves as a way for a candidate to attempt to sway voters opinions and get
Since the French Revolution of 1789, religion and the state of France have gone trough a transition of separation from influencing and working with one another, to becoming completely secular. In the present 21st Century, France deviated from their secular nature by instituting a law that directly affects some adherents of Islam, which is causing difficulty, particularly for those looking to live lives of freedom and equality in France. Pre-French Revolution, Catholicism was the recognised state religion of France, however, over time suspicion and criticism grew clouding religion and diminishing its power amongst the state, until it was formally separated on 21st February 1795
According to former President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, “immigration presents the possibility of bringing new skills, new talents, new blood…” (“France Seeks”), though others think differently. Immigration, the act of abandoning one’s homeland to establish a new life in another country, was not a concept that has suddenly erupted in present time. In fact, immigration is a process, not an event; it never had an actual start date, nor will it have an actual end date. Knowing the background of immigration across the world, the history of immigration in the United States, the immigration process, and the controversies and debates immigration carries are important aspects to consider to knowing when, why, and how immigration was, is, and will continue for centuries as a form of human migration.
Although most European countries present themselves as secular states, most of their citizens can be characterized as being either “believing without belonging” or “belonging without believing” (Casanova, 1). This shows that, although Europe has become secularized, some aspects of Christianity still remain. Consequently, its remaining Christian values often lead to the rejection of Muslim migrants while its modern secular values are used towards supporting the refugees. In many European countries, religious groups have organized themselves into a church-like institutional structure that can serve as the interlocutor to the state (6). This indicates that the power of Christians in the outwardly secular Europe is still strong. Moreover, the Christian identity of Europe is used in regulating religions of the immigrants; they are particularly strict on Islam (6). According to Jose Casanova, Europe has met two out of three requirements provided by Samuel Huntington that a country has to fulfill to become civilized. The requirement that most European countries have failed to meet is the willingness to “embrace the convert”
François Guizot was a French historian during the 19th century, known as a powerful person in French politics. He presented one of the first comprehensive stories of Europe, by highlighting pluralism, which is a theory that characterize shared values, cooperation and harmony, also by highlighting antagonism, which is defined as a hostile opposition in a conflict or principle. François Guizot used these two terms as the key factors of the development of the continent of Europe. This essay is going to discuss two examples that will show the strengths and weaknesses of the pluralism and antagonism of Guizot’s thesis. The first example is the history of democracy in Greece, and how other organizations in Europe took after the success of the system. The second example is the regime Fascism, and how it has affected European countries.