Fanatically Secular, France Places Scarves under Siege
.............................................................................................................
Symbols are like magic mirrors: people see in them what they want to see. A Confederate flag to some is a symbol of southern pride. To others it's a mark of oppression. To some a Christian cross represents divine justice and love, but to others it means persecution and pain. Symbols remind us of our unique experience with the larger issue they represent, and they reflect many of our deepest longings and fears. This could not be more true of the hijab, the Muslim headscarf and veil currently causing so much furor in France. Ethnic French look upon the hijab and see 9/11. What Muslims see is more complex.
On the release of the State Department's annual Religious Freedom report last week, the U.S. sharply criticized President Chirac's decision to ban all religious symbols from public schools. Chirac's supporters demand that Republican institutions be kept religion-free zones. Muslims, in other words, either adapt or go home. Critics charge that the ban will only alienate Muslims even further. Lost in the debate is an examination of what the headscarf really represents.
France's headscarf headaches date back more than a decade, long before terrorists attacked New York. A 1989 survey revealed that 75% of French citizens opposed the wearing of veils in schools, with 17% indifferent, and only 6% in favor. Today reactions to the hijab have grown even more intense. The common perception is that the veil's increasing prevalence signifies a rise in Islamic extremism, making the scarf an enticing target for those who feel France's traditional culture is under siege. Yet rarely do the headscarf opponents ask what motives lie behind the veil.
Rather than reflecting a rise in militancy, Muslim women choose to veil for a variety of reasons. Some wear the hijab to appear righteous and pure, thereby gaining respect within their local community. Other women find the hijab, unlike revealing Western dress, a coat of armour, shielding them from the jeering comments and sexual harassment which sometimes comes from men in public places. Some women veil for class reasons, as the hijab is both economical (you need only two or three to complete your wardrobe), and it conceals one's class, which Western clothes expose. Older women sometimes veil simply to hide their graying hair.
Of course, others are compelled to veil by their husbands and fathers, though this group appears to be in the minority. For these school-age girls, veiling is sometimes their only option lest their parents forbid them from attending mixed gender classes. In such cases Chirac's policy could prevent many women from getting an education, inhibiting their integration into French society. The motivations for veiling are manifold, from personal safety to religious conservatism, but rarely do they stem from political extremism.
Above all, younger Muslim women are choosing to veil as a means of staking out their identity in a highly secular and often alienating society. Tariq Ramadan, a leading figure among Europe's Muslims, estimates that at least 80% of Muslims do not practice their religion regularly and do not perform their daily prayers, and less than 40% attend the Friday mosque service. Perhaps in response to their elders' lack of religiosity and their society's failure to integrate them, many younger Muslims are reclaiming their religion. Adopting the headscarf is one way of defining themselves on a continent which sometimes seems fanatically secular, and from which they often feel excluded.
At the root of Chirac's ban lies the fear of Muslim extremism, but laying siege to a symbol will not secure the state, especially when that symbol rarely reflects the extremism he hopes to ban. French students have long worn crosses and skullcaps in school yet the country has not collapsed. Rather than banning all religions' symbols as a means of excluding the Muslim garb, a wiser policy would be to include the hijab among acceptable symbols. This would do more to incorporate Muslims into French society, reducing everyone's sense of siege. But fixating on the scarf only shrouds the deeper problems from view.
Symbols are like mirrors: they make the superficial appear to have depth. Schoolgirls in headscarves do not threaten French stability, but millions of alienated Muslims just might. Instead of laying siege to symbols, European leaders should be devising coherent integration strategies for their Muslim millions. If they can focus on the substantive issues now, they can still avoid domestic fragmentation and wrenching social change.
Zachary Shore is a joint Research Fellow at the Institute of European Studies, UC Berkeley and the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies in Washington, DC. He is the author of What Hitler Knew: The Battle for Information in Nazi Foreign Policy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003) and is currently writing a book entitled Muslim Europe: How Islam Is Changing a Continent.
This essay appeared in the January 9, 2004 AICGS Advisor. .............................................................................................................
The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) alone.
They do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies.
|
