In the United States, we are accustomed to seeing a variety of religious garb worn in the streets. Seeing people in Islamic dress is normal and legal. In contrast to this, in April of 2011, the country of France banned the wearing of the full burka, a loose garment worn by Muslim women which covers the entire body and that has a veiled opening for the eyes. Seeing that this is a piece of religious clothing, much controversy has surrounded this action taken by the French government to prohibit it being worn in public places. In regards to constructivism, it has been brought up if this action has tarnished the image of France as a truly democratic state, one that identifies with its people. In addition and as we all know, France is a member of the European Union; the heart of the matter is that if this action holds up the ideals of this organization or if it is just a faulty political act.
France’s daring political move speaks on several levels. Many actors in the international community, especially U.S. politicians, are still calling this legislation into question, and the implications of this law are still somewhat vague. Overall, the law states that “no one can, in the public space, wear clothing intended to hide the face” and, “A fine of $190 will be imposed on those wearing the full facial veil, and anyone who forces a woman to wear such a veil will be punished by a fine of as much as $38,000 and a year in jail, doubled if the victim is a minor” (Erlanger). What people are grappling with now is if this law was necessary on France’s part, being a representative of its people and a model member of the European Union.
Normative beliefs, a core part of constructivism, are “individuals' beliefs about the extent to which other people who are important to them think they should or should not perform particular behaviors” (Trafimow). And in terms of a country, they act as a guide to what they should and should not do, or what is right/good for the nation as a whole. People are debating whether France had the right to pass this bill, deliberating on who France is to say as a political entity if a Muslim woman can wear a full burka or not. Even though this law only directly affects 2,000 women out of the 6.5 million French Muslim citizens, the key controversy to this issue is if it was in France’s best interest to enact this bill, being a major player and so-called exemplary country in the European Union (Joseph). The European Union is proud of upholding its devotion to promoting human rights, wanting to ensure them for everyone (European Union). Yet, doesn’t the law count as a contradictory action towards this? If this is a clear deviation from what the European Union constitutes a something that is it proud for representing, what does it imply about the modern European Union and the people it identifies with?
From a stout human rights activist standpoint, this law might be seen as totally outrageous. However, constructivism stipulates that identity forms the foundation of a county’s interest and the majority of the people form the core of the values that are upheld; basically, political action is dependent on identity (Jackson). The Muslim population of France is in the minority, so technically speaking, the bulk of traditional French citizens should dictate what local policy is based around. In light of this, 80% of the French voters support the ban of the full burka, a signal that even though the ban might not be considered politically correct, the it might actually hold up ideals of the French people, but not necessarily those of the European Union (Langley).
What France is claiming is that this is a strategy, or suitable policy prescription, meant to cut down on potential security threats in airports and such. Criminals could potentially place weapons within the folds of the garments, abusing the religious purpose of this garment. Eliminating the wearing of this garment all together would aid in the revamping of security measures in France. Despite this defense, the question is if this is a measure to condense what is viewed as the true French identity. It subtly, yet unmistakably, excludes a portion of the Muslims who are apparently seen as outsiders by the government (and to much of the public as voter records indicate). Is this beneficial for French society/culture, and what the country really stands for, or is it actually a security measure meant to aid France in protecting itself against terrorism and crime? Once again, where does France stand now that it is deviating from the ideals of human rights freedoms of the European Union, even though it might be trying to assert that there is only “one” French identity, per say? Sarah Joseph, a Muslim journalist stated that, “We are told it is for security, the preservation of "French values" and to alleviate the oppression of women” (Joseph). On one hand, people might say that this law is stripping the identity of a religious group, but others might retaliate by saying that this law in reality is a tool for defining the true French identity in today’s modern world.
I see France as being torn on an issue, trying to solidify its identity as a nation, but at the same time being shrewdly hypocritical of some of what the European Union represents in regards to human rights. In the end, what is so surprising is that the country of France is being a hypocritical member of the European Union, not following the path of “promoting human rights, democracy and the rule of law…and fighting racism and other forms of discrimination” (The European Union). It seems ironic that, “The Union’s human rights policy encompasses civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. It also seeks to promote the rights of women, of children, of those persons belonging to minorities, and of displaced persons” (The European Union). Are the people who are restricted under this law victim to a crime against humanity, or should the banning of the full burka be seen an obligation toward fortifying French identity?
The French government, and to an extent a bulk of the French people, have spoken through this law. It becomes apparent that the concepts behind identity within constructivism are evident through this situation, demonstrating that identity issues can act as defining and binding actions for a country.
Erlanger, Steven. "Parliament Moves France Closer to a Ban on Facial Veils." NYTimes.com. The New York Times, 13 July 2010. Web. 08 Oct. 2011.
Jackson, Patrick T., and Joshua S. Jones. "Constructivism." Introduction to International Relations. 103-18. Print.
Joseph, Sarah. "Burqa Ban Turns a Right into a Crime." CNN.com. CNN, 14 Apr. 2011. Web. 08 Oct. 2011.
Langley, William. "France’s Burka Ban Is a Victory for Tolerance." The Telegraph. The Telegraph Media Group, 11 Apr. 2011. Web. 09 Oct. 2011.
Rustici, Camille. "France Burqa Ban Takes Effect; Two Women Detained." TheHuffingtonPost.com. The Huffington Post, 11 Apr. 2011. Web. 09 Oct. 2011.
“The EU and Human Rights." European Union External Action. The European Union. Web. 08 Oct. 2011.
Trafimow, David. "Normative Beliefs." National Cancer Institute. Division of Cancer Control & Population Sciences - DCCPS. Web. 09 Oct. 2011.
What I really like about your choice of topic (besides that fact that it's awesome and something I had never thought of before, and after reading your title it clicked in my brain) is the idea of multiple identities, and which should necessarily come first.
ReplyDeleteIn the EU's case, a 'Union' identity is created, which supports human rights. However, we discussed during our visit how the countries individual identity is not only present, but more important to the individual citizens of the EU. Thus, what comes first? What is more important? Being French, or being part of the Union?
I too agree with you that France is torn, and it is situations like these that make me question wether constructivism is valid as a lens, or if this is all purely a realistic game that countries are playing.
I agree with Julia that this is an awesome topic. I also started to think identity focusing on religion. Historcally France is Christian country, but nowadays according to its Constitution it is secular state, it means people are supoosed not to show their religious affiliation in public places, but the state keeps Christian holy days as official holidays and keep promoting Christian ideas. Is it way to preserve the historical identity?
ReplyDeleteAfter learning about constructivism in class, I found myself feeling more like a constructivist than a liberal or a realist. I believe that the way people act and human consciousness are inseparable from government affairs. In some cases, as with the one that you have described, this lack of separation between ideology and state action is unfortunate. People should have the right to their religious or cultural dress despite a state’s ideology or normative belief system. Although France may interpret the full burka as offensive because of their beliefs, in my opinion, it is not the state’s right to ban something based on ideology alone.
ReplyDeleteFrance is headed towards becoming more secularized, even though it is a historic Christian country. Its attempts to do this, as seen through laws like banning the burka as I described, are very controversial. France's restrictions just highlight the issue of how religion is always an integral part of a country, as Hannah noted. The root of the issue is how far countries should be permitted to interfere with a person's beliefs. it some respects, it still seems unclear to me the true motivations behind this law. France needs more definite reasons. Religion and politics don't mix necessarily, especially in today's modern world.
ReplyDelete