Politics of the Veil

Joan Scott came to UK a couple weeks ago; here's the news story about it on UK's website:


Gender Theorist Joan Scott to Speak

LEXINGTON, Ky. (Nov. 2, 2007) − Internationally known gender theorist Joan Scott visits the University of Kentucky as the Committee on Social Theory 2007 Distinguished Visiting Author, Nov. 8 and 9. While on campus Scott will lecture on two topics. Her first presentation, "Cover-up: French Gender Equality and the Islamic Headscarf," will be held at 4 p.m., Thursday, Nov. 8. In her second talk at 2 p.m. Friday, Nov. 9, Scott will speak on "Academic Freedom in Danger, or Anti-Intellectualism in American Life Revisited."

Joan Scott is known for writings that theorize gender as an analytic category. She is a leading figure in the emerging field of critical history. Her work has challenged the foundations of conventional historical practice, including the nature of historical evidence and historical experience and the role of narrative in the writing of history, and has contributed to a transformation of the field of intellectual history. Scott’s books focus on gender and democratic politics. They include "Gender and the Politics of History" (1988), "Only Paradoxes to Offer: French Feminists and the Rights of Man" (1996), and "Parité: Sexual Equality and the Crisis of French Universalism" (2005). Princeton University Press has just published "The Politics of the Veil." Scott is currently the Harold F. Linder Professor in the School of Social Science at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J.


Prompted by my French professor, I attended the Thursday lecture about the Veil Law that was passed in France in 2004, promoting secularity by banning "conspicuous religious symbols" in public schools.

Instead of examining the law as an infringement on religious freedom, she revealed the latent sexual context of the veil and provided a stunning argument for the real motivation behind the law.

I had never considered the veil law from a sexual perspective. The first things that come to mind when this topic is brought up are religious freedom, cultural differences and tension, etc. Scott took a different tack; she confronted subtleties in French tradition and culture that are easy to look over, but which should definitely be considered when studying this law and its aftermath.

What I learned:

The French Republican view of sexuality contrasts the Muslim view. The French are almost overtly sexual. In fact, the Marianne, who is the symbol for the French republic, is always shown with her breasts uncovered, which I thought was an interesting tidbit. Nudity is prevalent in French advertising, entertainment, media, etc. It's everywhere. The French believe that sexuality should be open, not hidden, and freely expressed and embraced. Moreover, sexuality should not be feared, and it should not be made complicated.

The veil, then, completely goes against all of that. One would think that a veil would denote modesty, which it is supposed to do in Muslim culture, but the French don't perceive it that way. To the French, the veil is like a glaring reminder of how the Muslim view of sexuality contrasts the French view. So in that way, the veil is "conspicuous," in that it makes Muslim women stand out.

For the French, this is a blatant disruption of core French Rebuplican values. It's as if the Muslim women are wearing the veil simply to stir things up. This disruption, of course, is undesirable and incredibly threatening. I think they see it as a "fuck you" to the French Republic, which is not at all the purpose of the veil.

And if you do consider it from a religious perspective, it's difficult, as Americans, to not find this law ridiculous - we see it as a violation of First Amendment rights. But consider the foundations of the American republic versus those of the French Republic. Our country is founded on religious freedom - that's the reason we came here in the first place, to be able to practice religion freely. Freedom of religion is a right defended by the First Amendment, so theoretically, the state cannot interfere with that. Anyone can practice any religion they want, and everyone should do so.

It's different in France. The French Republic was founded on the idea of protecting the people FROM religion. They wanted to change the old monarchial system of declaring a "standard" religion; instead, they wanted to protect people from pressure to subscribe to any religion. Instead of promoting religious expression, the French Republic protects its people by trying to diminish it. Therefore, the veil could be seen as a kind of pressure, and again, a disruption.

When you consider the issue from the French point of view, then, it's easier to understand. That doesn't make it right, but it is easier to understand where they are coming from. I was talking to my professor about this, and he told me that one of his French friends put it like this:"Imagine trying to talk to a classmate who had a swatzika stamped on his forehead. Would you be able to engage in an objective, intellectual conversation with that person? That's how we feel about the veil."

Now I doubt that this friend of my professor's is a bad guy. It's all a matter of perspective, so certainly the French can, to an extent, defend their position here. When it comes down to it, though, if it's a question of right and wrong, I think ultimately the veil law is wrong. And I think a lot of French people agree that it's wrong. But hey, that might just be the American in me.