Optique

I had an interesting discussion the other day with two British girls who are also language assistants in Nantes. We were talking about how the French idea of laïcité is different from the separation of church and state as defined by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. My understanding has been that the American version of separation forbids the government from favoring any religion or propagating any religious doctrine. This approach, in my mind, is clearly flawed because it is nearly impossible to eliminate all bias in an individual, let alone an entity as massive as the U.S. government. This can be seen in references to "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and to the supposed "slurs" that Barack Obama is a "secret Muslim" (which Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh seem to see as inherently bad, or at least obviously unacceptable for an American president).

The French system avoids this pitfall by ignoring the existence of religion or race among its citizens. Students are not allowed to wear crosses or other symbols of their religion in public places. This has created a heated debate over whether Muslim girls whose religion proscribes that they cover their face an hair in the presence of males, should be allowed to wear their veils to school. The other English assistants I was discussing this with saw no problem with veils being forbidden as long as crosses and Stars of David were too. I am less sure. My fear is that by forbidding the veils, the French government is preventing the free practice of a religion by the followers of that religion. One point that my two colleagues and I seemed to disagree on was whether a Muslim woman would really choose to wear a veil, or whether it was forced upon her by her society, and specifically the men in her society. This becomes a very complicated issue of what constitutes a basic human right and of where the line can be drawn between individual choice and social construct. Similar ireeconcialable disagreements arrise in other debates where the line between respect for human rights and an individual's ability to give up those rights are blurred. This makes these debates almost impossible to resolve if two parties differ on such an integral point.

I read a quote in an article on the New York Times website today that I found enlightening and relevant to the discussion I had so recently had. The quote is from a reporter named David Rhode who was held by the Taliban between Afghanistan and Pakistan for 7 months. It pertains to the opinion of his captors regarding women's rights and what constitutes respect for women.

"One evening, Abu Tayyeb declared that the Taliban treated women better than Americans did. He said women in the United States were forced to wear revealing clothes and define themselves solely as sex objects. The Taliban protected women’s honor by not allowing them to appear in public with their faces unveiled."

While this perspective may seem strange to a westerner, to me it demonstrates a lot of things. It shows how two people's interpretations of the same event or phenomenon can be diametrically different as a result of their cultural backgrounds. It shows how propoganda and misinformation can lead to confusion and misunderstanding on both sides. It also makes me wonder how I can possibly be so arrogant as to think that I'm right, almost ever.

I just wanted to share that. I guess it didn't take me too many blog posts before I got up on my soap box. I just couldn't resist the power of mass communication any longer. I'll have to do some research on cultural norms and societal constructs when I'm in Turkey next week. More to follow.