 |
|
| 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
|
