While reading Caitlin Killian’s article The Other Side of the Veil I could not help but compare the debate
over uniforms in American School Systems. However connected the argument is regarding
self-expression through uniforms, the debate over women wearing veils in France
is much more complex. What is being dubbed the “head scarf” affair incorporates
issues of immigration and minorities in French society. What is most intriguing
about this debate it not the issue of the veils themselves but how these veils
have lead to discussions regarding the position of minorities in French society
and the issue of integration of immigrants.
The
headscarf affair reveals much about the immigration culture in France and how
age and education determine how people in France view the issue. It is a
traditional that immigrants abandon their cultural traditions and assimilate
into the French culture. However due to the increase of immigration this
assumption has been changing. Traditionalist values are being meet by new age
thinkers and opinions regarding the role of an immigrant into society. Killain
brings up an interesting point about what makes an individual’s identity,
personally I seen race, religion, upbringing, heritage, and gender, playing a
crucial role in how an individual defines themselves. In the headscarf debate,
critics are asking Maghrebin immigrants to disregard important parts of an their
identity in order to be welcome in their new society. This is a constant
discussion and the backbone to numerous issues that surround immigration and
minority populations. Personally I see an identity as extremely important and
key to what makes each person individual and unique. My friends who are
immigrants to the United States all make an effort to stay connected to their homeland
and maintain aspects of their cultural heritage, something they are rightfully
allowed to do. People expect immigrants to abandon their culture, without
realizing what that exactly means. I see the Head Scarf affair taking on
similar qualities. Much of the criticism and backlash is fuelled by the fact
that when Maghrebin women choose to wear their veils they are visibly rejecting
“assimilation” and making their heritage known. As Killian discussed, this is
not true, the veils represented more than just a desire to refute French societal
norms. The argument that these women need to “adapt or go home” struck me. This
is both a strong and aggressive idea, but is very common. As Killian presented
that this argument could be interrupted as racist, I see is more as a
misunderstanding. Critics don’t necessarily understand every custom or meaning
behind a tradition, without complete understanding criticism will never stop. Wearing
a veil is not a rejection of one culture, but really just a way to stay
connected to another culture.
The article lays out both side of
the debate, and it is clear that the heart of the issue lies in individual
expression and what it means to be an immigrant. Comparing this issue to
similar issues of immigration within the United States, I realized that like in
France the age, and education of the critics or supporters is curial to
determining a point of view. Killian observed that those who are younger or
poorly education make different arguments then those of an older generation or
educated because they are using a different “cultural repertoire”. A person’s
frame of reference is extremely important when determining their point of view.
Similarly to the United States, an uneducated teenager would have a different
point of view then an educated mother of three. I find this is extremely
important factor when understanding debates over immigration or other hot topic
issues.
Emily Hunter-Response to Carly’s Post:
ReplyDeleteI liked that Carly compared Killian’s article to the debate early on in the semester based on school uniforms, though I wish she had explored this comparison a bit more in her post. I personally see many connections such as both the veil and the uniform being physically restrictive, while also limiting the expression of the individual, as Carly mentioned. I also think there is a large parallel between the different way the uniforms were worn and the different type of religious symbols that are allowed in school. For example, when a student wore low, baggy pants, or all blue for the school uniform, they were considered to be threatening (for no valid reason), just as girls who wore head scarfs were also considered to be threatening for no apparent reason. In both situations, the type of clothes that were worn led to stereotyping and usually resulted in the exclusion of minorities.
I also like how Carly touched upon the issue of the US immigration debate. I saw many parallels between the French striving for assimilation and the ultimate goals of immigration for this country. For instance, Asians are seen as the ideal form of immigrants because they have so fully neglected their own culture and accepted the American lifestyle. On the other hand, people of Mexican descent are less like to be accepted because they strive to hold onto their culture and language, something that is not viewed positively by many Americans.
I thought Carly gave a clear and succinct synopsis of Killian's article. I agree with Carly when she says that she believes race, religion, gender, etc. are key aspects of one's identity. Thus, in France, for these women, one is already stripped away from them, physically. As others have mentioned, the head scarf was a means to control a man's sexual desire, which I find to be not only appalling, but also ABSOLUTELY CRAZY! Why does a woman have to be punished for her beauty and why are men given another means of oppressing women by making them wear a head scarf. When comparing this to the United States, women are encouraged to do almost the complete opposite - the less clothing the better. Getting a more global perspective on the idea of gender helps me develop a more well rounded perspective on social constructions of gender.
ReplyDeleteCarly, I really liked your post. I think your comment about the argument that these Muslim women need to “adapt or go home” is a very important part of the article. The French see the act of wearing a veil as rejection of their customs and cultural norms. That type of a statement is very forward and bold; in my opinion its completely insensitive to the fact that practicing a certain religion has nothing to do with being coming a member of a society. In our society in the US, freedom of religion is considered a fundamental human right; it’s interesting that some countries don’t feel as strongly.
ReplyDelete-Tina Seretta
Jenn, I am so with you on how crazy presenting the scarf as a means to control men's desires is. This is seriously insulting to men, as it implies that they are incapable of controlling themselves and are no more civilized than animals. Additionally, it creates a really uncomfortable dynamic when it comes to rape and sexual violence. Men could all too easily refute culpability in sexual crimes on the argument that they couldn't control themselves and the women should have known what was coming.
ReplyDeleteAbove was Ellie Merrell. My bad.
Delete