Universalism, Nationalism, and the Burqa

Michelle Goldberg has a really nice piece, relying heavily on the views of Joan W. Scott, of the origins of the debate on the burqa in France. She notes the prevailing view that Sarkozy’s big push on this was, in part at least, in response to the moment in Obama’s Cairo speech where he critiqued “the view of the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal.” I certainly read that as a shot at France, certainly many French people did as well. I’ve spoken with two about the speech, both of whom noted a, relatively justifiable, annoyance at Americans trying to tell the world what to do, how to act, etc.

It’s a fair enough point, but it also underlines an important aspect missing from discussions of these issues, which Goldberg’s otherwise nicely balanced piece serves as an example. Her subtitle poses the question: “What happens when feminism and sexual liberation become tools for nationalism?” By this she means Sarkozy’s attempts to curry favor with the French far-right, represented by Jean-Marie le Pen’s National Front, while not alienating the “Left,” who would hesitate to attack Sarkozy for moves made in the name of feminism and women’s equality. In this sense, Sarkozy plays to an entire political spectrum, solidifying his electoral base — which doesn’t seem to have anywhere else to go, by the way — in the name of French values, but a type of French values carefully presented as egalitarian, rather than chauvinist.

But what’s missing in this analysis, and this is where pointing at America becomes problematic, is an emphasis on the fact that French nationalism, since the French Revolution, has been tinged with a universalism that does not only encompass its own citizens and immigrants, but the world over. When the Revolution began marching through Europe it did so, not only in the interests of self-preservation, but in the belief that the principals it was still in the process of laying down — a process never fully complete — could apply the world over. That is one type, the maintstream type, of nationalism one sees in France to this day. The effort to ban the burqa in the name of women’s rights, therefore, is not just an assertion of French values, but of universal human rights, never mind the incredibly problematic, and fairly condescending, attitude it shows to those women who wear the burqa whose rights don’t seem to matter. The French debate, in other words, is also a mode of exerting France’s own applicability to other countries. It is, in other words, a way of telling the world what to do, how to act. It’s just done with a whole lot more subtlety than Americans usually manage.

P.S.  I got the link to Goldberg’s piece from Matt Yglesias, who rightly highlights some of the potentially negative effects of a burqa ban.  Where I think some naunce should be added is in his assertion that “The French have a strong tradition not just of secularism, but of a kind of illiberal egalitarianism that holds that everyone should really be the same…”  Not exactly, at least from my point of view.  The French have a tradition that everyone should be both treated as and act the same in their relation to the public sphere.  In other words, French tradition does not reject difference; rather it rejects the notion that such difference is fundamental to one’s personhood and relation to state authority.  The French citizen is abstract, not homogeneous.  See, of course, Joan Scott’s Parite!for the best introduction to the French principal of the abstract citizen.

The Lord of the Rings in Iran

I obviously don’t have much to say on the events in Iran, leaving such things to the experts and those with the contacts, other than to note how affecting, yet also perverse, watching the events unfold has been.  (This Daily Show clip hit hard for some reason).  But I feel the urge to note just how bizarre I find Iranian television broadcasting Hollywood films to mollify the masses.  So many assumptions frame such a decision, discussed endlessly by cultural critics.  The Iranian government as Frankfurt School?  But also, as the Time piece on The Lord of the Rings notes, an implicit subversiveness, a particular choice that lends itself to individual interpretation.  Tolkien himself always claimed that his stories were not allegory, but should instead be considered “applicable.”  How appropiate, then, to take the seemingly hopeless struggle that succeedes in The Lord of the Rings and therin find solace for the protestors and their lost comrades.

Two Links

1) It has been a nightmare trying to come to grips with the situation of the French university system and the months-long strikes. I did finally have someone explain it clearly, and it helped that he was a French academic with strong ties to the American university system. This post at Crooked Timber by Michèle Lamont accomplishes something similar.

2) I thought this profile of Joan W. Scott, certainly one of my biggest influences, in Le Monde, was just worth pointing out. Note, however, that they don’t discuss her recent work on the controversy over the veil in France, all the more important and relevant in light of the Sarkozy’s new war on the Burkha. Her bookon the veil, apparently, has been “refusé par les éditeurs français (“pour les républicains orthodoxes, c’est trop”).” Just when the work could most use a French audience…

Terrorism wins

I wanted to post something more substantive on the terrorist assassination of Dr. George Tiller, but obviously just haven’t had the time (hoping to have a draft of presentation number two finished tomorrow, if not this evening, so things continue to progress).  I did, however, want to highlight this paragraph, highlighted by Samhita at Feministing, from the announcement that Dr. Tiller’s clinic will unfortunately close down permanently:

The family of Dr. George Tiller announces that effective immediately, Women’s Health Care Services, Inc., will be permanently closed,” according to a statement issued on Tuesday morning by the family’s lawyers. “Notice is being given today to all concerned that the Tiller family is ceasing operation of the clinic and any involvement by family members in any other similar clinic.

That last sentence, I think, is fairly horrifying.  It’s basically a plea to “pro-life” — “all concerned” — groups to not attack this family any more.  To not kill any one else they love.  This family is out of the business of women’s health and in that sense, this particular act of terrorism was a tragic success.

Newsflash

Gay people confuse kids (via Dave):

Kids also confused by:

1) Color of the sky
2) How Santa gets down the chimney
3) Why he/she has to go to school/church/etc
4) Where babies come from

You get the point. Fortunately, I had parents (opposite sex, but I think one parent or two parents of the same-sex could handle these dangerous confusion points in the same manner) who had the forethought to, you know, explain shit to me. School was also a help here.

Makes me cry

Blogging will be light as I write a couple presentations and an article (!), but take a look at this required viewing Rachel Maddow segment on torture:

Also sick?

My country:

Overall, the public is about evenly divided on the questions of whether torture is justifiable in terrorism cases and whether there should be official inquiries into any past illegality involving the treatment of terrorism suspects. About half of all Americans, and 52 percent of independents, said there are circumstances in which the United States should consider employing torture against such suspects.

Via Political Animal.

WaPo Editorial Page: “We Heart Torture”

Our discourse is so sick (via Pandagon).

Also, shorter Porter Goss: “If our enemies can torture, why can’t we?” Shorter shorter Porter Goss: “They started it!”

Bet you can’t find ten people who think Michele Bachmann deserves to be taken seriously

I found one!

I think I get bonus points since this guy also take David Horowitz seriously.

Oh, and one more thing…

Can we stop listening to Pat Buchanan now? He’s not funny, not even when he and Rachel Maddow get into it. In fact, much more than her tone, the fact that Rachel doesn’t find Buchanan to be a totally repugnant human being is the reason I’m not a wild eyed fan (just a normal fan).