Following the exam, we spent the next hour and a half engaged in a discussion of the 2004 ban on the wearing of the hajib and other headscarves in French schools. 1, 2 It was interesting to hear the position of the French students, who tended to side with the law, in the interests of maintaining the public space of the school as an area free of religion and in the interests of protecting the rights of girls who may not want to wear the hajib but feel pressured to by family or peers. The French conception of religious freedom is quite different from that of Americans. It is founded on the principle of laïcité, the basic secular nature of the state. In practice its separation of religion from political life tends to extend to removing religion from all public life, a sentiment expressed by those French students who commented. Thus, they felt, it was appropriate to prevent such religious displays in schools, be they hajib or crosses.
Additionally, they made an argument that because of social pressures, both from families and from peers, there were some young Moslem women who wore the scarves not as a personal choice, but as a necessity for safety, to avoid conflict with fathers and brothers or being bothered in the streets of more traditionally Moslem neighborhoods. The state, they said, had a role to step in and create an environment where no one would face that pressure, by removing all religious displays from the school.
Some of the Americans in our group found that argument compelling, but what seemed like the majority of those joining in the discussion felt this went outside of proper state action, to the point of anti-religious policy. One particularly interesting opinion was that of a Moslem woman in our group. The hajib is worn in modesty and is part of the religious worship and practices of many women, by choice, because it is something important to them in their faith. With such a central place, restricting its use was basically a restriction on an article of the faith. Others Americans expressed similar ideas, noting that this was a personal action that didn’t impose upon anyone else the way organized school prayer would (to draw parallel to an instance of religion being banned from American schools).
On the issue of family pressure, in the case of the children and teenagers this law was directed towards, many felt that it was along the lines of other parental requirements for modest dress any parent might require (“You’re not leaving my house wearing that mini-skirt” as one example.) The idea of the state coming between parental rules and the child in this situation seemed overreaching. Furthermore, while banning the headscarves in school provided an area free of peer pressure there, it did nothing to address the streets and neighborhoods where, from what we were hearing, the real pressure (and very possibly danger) to those women who went sans scarf was problematic.
Looking at the difference of opinion, there are two key factors about the French and American conceptions of the state that I see as background for these viewpoints. The American nation, especially at its conception is a federal system. Americans are not only Americans, but also members of their individual states, regions, and increasingly in more recent history identified with their ethnic histories as well. Thus, being an American necessarily involves a somewhat tangled web of identities. The French meanwhile have historically worked to reduce regional differences, unite the nation around Paris, implement the same law, language, and systems across the entire country, and derive national unity from developing French as the primary identity of its citizens. Regional governments did not come into play until the very recent past. Thus identity has been a more unified concept, and as such would seek to avoid elements that draw clear distinctions in its citizens.
Furthermore, the French have always expected a greater level of involvement from their state. Just look at their social welfare programs – they’re extensive and supported by high taxes because the people are willing to pay for that much involvement. Another case, the post-war economic dirigisme. Americans, meanwhile, have always seemed to treat the government as more of a background figure, there as a safety net of sorts when its needed, keeping things orderly but not getting overly involved. Half of the political system gives at least lip service to the idea of limiting government. So while the Americans felt that the French state overstepped its bounds, the French expected such action.
It’s core differences like these that I find fuel most of the divergent views we’ve experienced with our French classmates in discussion.
