|
Islam,
Hijab and Inter-Cultural Dialogue in France *
|
|
|
François Bourga
|
The theme of this interview was originally “inter-cultural
dialogue,” but the current crisis
regarding the hijab in France
dominated the discussion and shifted the focus towards examining the rationale
that governs the way the French deal with Islam and related issues, especially
the hijab.
In
the beginning, we attempted to answer the following questions, which relate to
inter-cultural dialogue:
Does
using the cultural approach to analyse and deal with international conflicts and
tensions help to achieve inter-cultural understanding and contribute to reaching
political solutions? Or is
inter-cultural dialogue used to gloss over political problems? How can we
distinguish between political and cultural issues? What is the intellectuals’
role in this dialogue?
Later,
we dealt with the following questions, which relate to cultural diversity: What
are the boundaries of cultural diversity? How do we view the current debate on
hijab in France? How can we view the Francophone
movement, international events and the issue of boycotts in the context of
cultural diversity and inter-cultural dialogue? What will help us understand the
cause of the French people’s sensitivity towards Islam?
Our
guest, François Bourga, is a French researcher specialized in Islamic movements
and one of four leading scholars of the French Orientalism school of thought,
which, for the past three decades, has focused on studying the modern Islamic
phenomenon—the other scholars being Olivier Rwa, Alan Rosion, and Jill
Kebell.
Bourga’s
important works on the Islamic phenomenon include Political Islam: the Voice
of the South (in the 1980s), The Islamic Movement in
North America (1994), and Face to Face with Political Islam (2003). He
also co-authored (with John Espozito) Updating Islam: Religion in Middle
Eastern and European Public Domains (2003).
Masking
the True Nature of the Conflicts!
Given
actual political practices and the reality of current international relations,
how can inter-cultural dialogue exist? In other words, how can a dialogue take
place against a backdrop of hegemony? What are the boundaries of inter-cultural
dialogue?
Analysing
and handling international conflicts and tensions through the cultural,
religious or civilizational approach, often masks a rejection or inability to
grasp fully the simple and true nature of these conflicts, which is purely
political. Efforts to ensure cultural and religious harmony are important;
nonetheless, the world today is more in need of mechanisms that will ensure a
better dispensation of political resources. What is needed is greater
international justice, or at least less injustice. Cultural understanding
undoubtedly contributes to reaching a political settlement but cannot replace
it.
This
is where inter-civilizational dialogue can play an important role. The sphere
should be clearly defined, and inter-civilizational dialogue should not be
confused with inter-faith dialogue, whose limitations were noted in recent
history. The desire to bridge the gap between various faiths places the
“believer” in a position where he grapples with offering real
concessions—without negating himself—to a “believer” of another faith,
and can only provide the few common elements that religious adherence permits.
But
we find that the political dimension dominates inter-civilizational and
intercultural dialogues, thus complicating the issues between the two parties or
between the East and the West. Often the West is viewed by the East as a simple,
monolithic entity, without distinguishing between the political, cultural and
epistemological.
Sometimes
inter-civilizational dialogue is used as a cover-up to hide underlying political
concerns. If we are convinced of the importance of cultural dialogue then we
should define its objectives. In my opinion, the problem lies in the fact that
when dealing with cultural differences it is often pointed out that the these
differences are not only cultural but also civilizational and value-related—a
dangerous reference because it validates the concept of the “clash of
civilizations.” We should not confuse the positive aspects of multiculturalism
with those that are negative. It is impossible for us to integrate into a single
globalized culture. We need to preserve our peculiarities; this, in my opinion,
does not mean that there are major contradictions in our value systems—an
opinion, I realize, that is not largely accepted by parties on both ends of the
spectrum.
We
will arrive at discussing the applications of the concept of inter-cultural
dialogue later. With regard to the political dimension of this dialogue—and I
apologize for what I am about to say—can inter-cultural dialogue be seen as
the cry of the disempowered and not as a value? We don’t hear this call being
made by those who are culturally or politically dominant. Even in France, when one talks about the enjoyment of
cultural exclusivism, one can detect the French people’s fear of the
domination of the US lifestyle over theirs. There is also
the political fear: France
is the weakest link in the European
Union, and its differences with the United States of America are well known. However,
France mimics the
US ’s unilateral attitude in looking
down on other European democracies; France
is also desperately seeking to restore
its empire through the alliance of the Francophone countries.
Like
many intellectuals, I have clearly expressed my objection in this regard and
cannot do more. I would like to ask the Arab intellectuals, who are critical of
the western intelligentsia for their ineffectiveness in changing the political
policies of the West, why they have not succeeded in changing the policies of
the Arab regimes that fund and support US hegemony? Our ability to influence the political situation is very limited. 
Representing
the Culture of the "other"
I
am not talking about your own stance, but I would like to understand the
cultural debate in France, particularly with regard to the position of the French vis-à-vis Islam.
The
French people’s dilemma over Islam is clear: for them, Islam represents the
culture of the “other”, which is not just any “other”, but their own
neighbours south of the Mediterranean
. In the 1930’s, when the West dominated the culture of the “other”, there
was no problem and we didn’t fear Islam. Today, the sensitivity of the French
towards Islam is undoubtedly attributed to losing the ideological hegemony over
the “other”, which we enjoyed a century ago. There is an objection to a
non-western culture playing an equal role to that of western culture.
The
definition of the establishment of the public school system in
France is also a factor, as secular schools were
established after winning the battle against the clergy. Therefore, the
justification publicly cited by the French is that they removed their
religion from the school system, so how can they now allow other religions? This
is the rationale behind their discourse, which rejects any culture they view as
alien.
In
inter-cultural dialogue it is difficult to separate the political from the
cultural. How can we confront the rationale of the reductionists who see history
as a blackboard: they record
whatever they like and erase what they do not. This logic justifies the call for
the much discussed “redrawing of the map” and other motions that are based
purely on political arguments, which disregard cultural considerations.
We
in the West should strongly oppose the absence of international justice and the
lack of a formula that governs international politics. The international
political system lacks fairness and relies on illegal regimes that have been
imposed on the people.
This
lack of justice leads to a racial perception of the “other”. Many in the
Muslim world hold the western culture responsible for westerners’ lack of
respect for their values. Although problematic, this perception is based on the
same rationale behind another misconception held by the westerners who view
Muslim freedom fighters as being responsible for the violence orchestrated by
the Palestinian resistance movements, calling them fundamentalists and
attributing the violence to their religion and culture.
What
is surprising is that the reductionists’ argument against the “other” is
fraught with rhetoric. They use terms such as backwardness, lack of democracy
and concern for women’s rights as opposed to modernism and its concepts, as if
these concepts were simple, monolithic and universally accepted.
I
agree with you to a certain extent, but I believe that there are common values
among various cultures. For example, I reject the notion that women’s rights
differ in essence from one culture to another; I believe that common values do
exist, but the points of departure that validate these values differ from one
culture to another. If you see a person fall then you will give him a hand, and
so will I; however, our motives for assisting him may stem from different
cultural or religious points of departure. We both agree on the action but our
source of motivation might differ.
I
am not talking about the basic values that we share as human beings; when it
comes to cultural issues, we are all different.
Both
the Muslim world and the West don’t differentiate between the essence of the
values and their points of departure. We are defending the notion that cultural
differences are limited to a domain of codes, i.e. the historical, mythical,
secular, and religious sources or references that cultures base their values on;
thus cultural differences don’t apply to the values themselves. Differences in
practices and rituals among various cultures have constantly been generalized
and unduly portrayed as indicative of major differences in the value systems of
these cultures, not only in their practices and rituals.
Mixing
the points of departure and the values that stem from them is not something new
and has been manifested in various forms; for example, the wearing of a hat of a
certain shape was seen by Ataturk as a prerequisite to achieving
modernism. Other forms include the reservations currently being voiced within
certain circles about the donning of the hijab in European schools, and the
tendency of various religious circles to deny the existence of a common human
denominator that cuts across all nations, irrespective of religious beliefs and
denominations.
There
are many political and religious obstacles that stand in the way of
distinguishing between values and their points of departure. Inter-cultural
dialogue could meet the challenge of removing these obstacles and exposing the
methods justified by religious beliefs to negate the ability of the culture of
the “other” to give expression to a universal point of departure.
“From
the Arab-phobia to Islamophobia”
Given
your views on the difference between values and their points of departure, how
do you view the issue of hijab in France?
My
stance on the subject has been clear since 1995, when I said that I was against
the donning of the hijab if there was any evidence that the hijab prevented
female students from reading, listening or being active. I am against any
practice that contradicts the essence of values. In my opinion, the prevalent
stance in France
is, unfortunately, a typical example of
confusing values with their points of departure—just as Ataturk did.
Can
we view the problem regarding the hijab in France as a reflection of the
radicalism of the revolutionary movement that was launched in 1789, which
attempted to achieve freedom while alienating religion and traditional
customs—a movement that paved the way for the passing of a law in 1905
separating religion from the state?
Yes.
We detect a similar notion when we read the views of those opposed to the hijab
who—as we mentioned earlier—ask, “How can we welcome another religion
after we removed our own from public schools?” This statement begs the
question “Why didn’t they do the same with the Catholic schools, which still
receive funds from the government today?
As
an analyst, I view the position of the French as an expression of their
rejection of the notion that another unpopular culture openly plays a role on
the ideological scene of the nation.
But
if I were a politician or the president of the republic, would I ban the hijab?
Here the situation is different and
politics would dictate my decision. If 75 per cent of teachers in French schools
view the hijab as indicative of rejecting the secular values that they uphold
then I may not oppose them. With regard to the committee that submitted the
report to the president, its position expresses the position of those who
formulated the committee.
Apart
from the intellectuals, why didn’t the public reject the hijab ban, which
violates the concept of freedom?
The
media reports on both sides of the issue, and the intellectual and political
battles rage on. However, those defending the right of women and girls to wear
the hijab are a minority and the current situation is not in their favour.
I’ve met with many Christians, Jews, secularists and atheists from across the
political and intellectual spectrum; they all concur that the current political
atmosphere in France is not at its best and is tainted with traces of racism. Like yourself, they
are also searching for political solutions.
At
the beginning of his article “From the Arab-phobia to Islamophobia,” which
was recently published by Le Monde Politique, the author quoted Masinion,
the prominent Orientalist, as saying, “Why don’t we embrace Muslims the way
we embrace Jews? This call, which was made in 1926, is a clear indication of how
deeply rooted the problem is.
Being
an optimist, I think that the current reaction of the French could be likened to
France’s reaction to the earlier generation of
the nationalist movement, when they started voicing their opposition to France
’s presence in Algeria. This reaction was irrational; however,
in time, the French came to accept the views of that generation. Fearing Arabs
as a race or ethnic group is now something of the past; however, this fear was
replaced by our fear of Muslims. Later, we came to accept Muslims who are not
religious.
Muslims
who are accepted in France
today are those who do not mind accepting an invitation to a bar during
prayer time. Those who refuse such an invitation are seen as fundamentalists or
puritans. Thus, integration is an ongoing process and the acceptance of Muslims
will continue. However, this process
is slow and faces many obstacles similar to those that exist in Muslim
countries, such as Saudi Arabia, which officially deny non-Muslims access
to certain parts of the country.
This
takes us back to the concept of conflict (as confrontational), that Nazism gave
rise to, and which was influenced by racial views. This concept was the
cornerstone of theories such as “The Class Conflict” and “The Conflict
Between Nations”, which gained prominence in the 1940s and 1950s. In 1947,
Arnold Twinby gave a series of lectures entitled “The Clash of Civilizations.”
Later Huntington built on these lectures, although there are those who are of the opinion that
he based his theory on an earlier statement by Bernard Louis. What is important
here is the fact that Twinby viewed history as being built on conflict, at the
heart of which was religion.
The
“clash of civilizations” theory leads one to hold the culture or religion of
the “other” responsible for political differences. This theory is not only
widespread in the West; it is popular throughout the world, even among Muslims.
I
meant to refer to the fact that ethnic conflict was replaced by a religious one.
Focusing
on French history, I’d say that people from south Mediterranean countries were
the target of racism. As time passed, the target shifted from the race to the
religion, and finally the devout became the target. Based on this, I am
optimistic that this trend would lead to increased integration.
Let’s
look at another example that will give us a clearer understanding of
inter-cultural dialogue. Many in the
Arab world view St. Valentines Day, International Women’s Day, International
Labor Day, and other such celebrations as a “cultural invasion” that
promotes the western model and supports the concept of western centrality,
portraying these celebrations, which
are specific to the West, as an
expression of universal values.
I
fully agree, but with regard to women, I think that it’s a women’s right,
for example, to play sports. If
someone says that this is a cultural specificity then I would disagree, pointing
out that the clothing worn could be a cultural specificity.
Here
is another example from everyday life: During the recent boycott of US goods,
most people in the Muslim world abstained from eating hamburgers—here I am not
talking about the economic dimension of the boycott but the cultural one.
Some say that we should abstain from eating hamburgers (a meal viewed as
modern and superior) because it symbolizes US control over the lifestyles of ordinary people throughout the world and
represents US cultural hegemony.
I
am in full agreement; when it comes to food I am a fundamentalist and defend my
cultural specificity, rejecting
the globalization of food. Like some Israeli groups who say that Macdonald’s
logo is similar to one of their religious symbols, I reject the Macdonald’s
hegemony and share the views of many who see the hamburger as symbol of
US
hegemony.
Debates on the Francophone movement
Another
example deals with the language usage in the Arab world, where Arabic sentences
are interspersed with French or English words.
How do you see this? Is this
multi-culturalism?
It
is true that we need to preserve our cultural peculiarities; however, going to
the extreme would lead to cultural isolation, which is unacceptable. As for
maintaining our linguistic identity, it is entirely justified. We fully
understand the position of the Arabs who defend their language against the
domination of other languages, just as we in
France
defend the French language.
I
am not talking about the inclusion of terminology; but since we are discussing
linguistics, let us refer to the debate on the Francophone movement and
Francophilia, as some Moroccans prefer to distinguish between them. How can we
put this issue in context?
In
my opinion, the avid supporters of the Francophone movement are those who go
beyond the linguistic barrier in cultural exchange and master the Arabic
language. Let me give you an
example. In some French cultural
centres in the Arab world, you don’t find Arabic books, not even Arabic
translations of French books. I disagree with this.
In fact, I feel that it is necessary for all of us to know a second
language. In contrast with most western intellectuals, who master only their own
language, the majority of Arab intellectuals have knowledge of a language other
than their own.
I
am critical of the parochial understanding of the Francophone movement and feel
that it is used as a justification for not
learning the language of the “other”. Those who respect the
“other” are those who know them, and those who reject the language of the
“other” are at a disadvantage. Learning the language of the “other” does
not contradict our rejection of the dominance of their language, which is quite
valid in my opinion.
I
wish to refer here to a particular example. What enabled the Israelis to muster
support is their ability to relate to most cultures because of the repression
that they suffered at the hands of most European nations. Now, however, many
Israeli youth don’t speak any language other than Hebrew. In contrast, many
Palestinians in the Diaspora are interacting with various cultures the way the
Israelis did before. This makes me more optimistic about the future balance of
power in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
*
The Arabic
original of this article appeared in islamonline.net (Arabic Section),
January 7, 2004.
**
Syrian researcher and writer
|
