Why the French Don't Like Headscarves: Islam, the State, and Public Space

by John R. Bowen

The French government's 2004 decision to ban Islamic headscarves and other religious signs from public schools puzzled many observers, both because it seemed to infringe needlessly on religious freedom, and because it was hailed by many in France as an answer to a surprisingly wide range of social ills, from violence against females in poor suburbs to anti-Semitism. "Why the French Don't Like Headscarves" explains why headscarves on schoolgirls caused such a furor, and why the furor yielded this law. Making sense of the dramatic debate from his perspective as an American anthropologist in France at the time, John Bowen writes about everyday life and public events while also presenting interviews with officials and intellectuals, and analyzing French television programs and other media.

Bowen argues that the focus on headscarves came from a century-old sensitivity to the public presence of religion in schools, feared links between public expressions of Islamic identity and radical Islam, and a media-driven frenzy that built support for a headscarf ban during 2003-2004. Although the defense of "laicite" (secularity) was cited as the law's major justification, politicians, intellectuals, and the media linked the scarves to more concrete social anxieties--about "communalism," political Islam, and violence toward women.

Written in engaging, jargon-free prose, "Why the French Don't Like Headscarves" is the first comprehensive and objective analysis of this subject, in any language, and it speaks to tensions between assimilation and diversity that extend well beyond France's borders.

Some images inside the book are unavailable due to digital copyright restrictions."

Genres: Islam, Nonfiction, Politics, Religion, Anthropology, France, Sociology

304 pages, Kindle Edition

First published September 25, 2006

About the author

John Richard Bowen

Librarian Note:
There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.

Reviews

[Kelly · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was introduced to the Elgin Marbles controversy when I was thirteen years old. (Yes yes, this is still the review about headscarves, you're in the right place, stay with me.)- in a romance novel set in the Regency period. I had very little idea of what they were, nor any idea of what they really meant- all they were to me was a key to a code. A bad guy could be recognized by the fact that he thought the marbles should be in the British Museum, and a good person recognized by their outrage at the VERY NOTION! Since then I've read a great deal more on the issue, enough so that each time the subject is raised again in the press, I can pretty much anticipate the arguments that will be made on both sides, and find them likely to lead to the same stalemate as ever, and move on.

However, I came across one argument that during the most recent round of articles (after the opening of the museum below the Acropolis) that really resonated with me. It was a quote by an apparently quite well known Greek author, which articulated the complexity of the whole problem to me so perfectly that I must reproduce it in full here:

“It’s the fault of a German,” Mr. Dimou said about Greek pride in this cause. He was referring to Johann Winckelmann, the 18th-century German art historian whose vision of an ancient Greece “populated by beautiful, tall, blond, wise people, representing perfection,” as Mr. Dimou put it, was in a sense imposed on the country to shape modern Greek identity.

“We used to speak Albanian and call ourselves Romans, but then Winckelmann, Goethe, Victor Hugo, Delacroix, they all told us, ‘No, you are Hellenes, direct descendants of Plato and Socrates,’ and that did it. If a small, poor nation has such a burden put on its shoulders, it will never recover."

"It will never recover." God, what a perfect way to explain 19th century Europe, isn't it? All that striving, all that dreaming, all that storytelling of nationalism by passionate men who had no idea of the consequences of their actions- what happens when you convince someone else that your version of their story is true and then they buy into it. Hard. Completely. Structure a society around it, a culture, an education system, a reason for a bunch of people to live together in a community, draw borders and call it theirs. Once you've done that to someone, how COULD you deny them the one thing you told them made them worth anything in the world? It's too hideously cruel for words.

In the weeks since I've finished Bowen's book, I've struggled with exactly how to articulate the ultimate thing I learned from this book, but now I know: France turned its peasants into Frenchmen, and the country has never recovered.

Here's the story that the generations that fought the first and second World Wars learned from the staunchly nationalistic, secular public school system of the Third Republic: France is 1000 years old- a figure based on how long it has had a centralized government. We are a powerful country- we always have been and always will be- the world looks to us for our opinion on how to proceed. The French will always have their say. We fought numerous wars of religion and eventually we fought to free our government and ourselves from the dominion of the Catholic Church (who had had control over much of the schooling of the country- infecting the minds of children before they were old enough to know better, in the view of the secularists- solved with laws in 1901 and 1905), and we are a secular republic. You do not take your freedom, the state will regulate it, legislate it, give it to you, and then monitor it to see it is observed in the fashion we feel is correct. Have a grievance? Let's have a rally in Paris! Need to solve that problem? Let's make a law. Read your Rousseau, scorn the Anglo-Saxon heroes Locke and Spinoza, and you will see the light. Ultimately, though, in the end, it came down to what all 19th century nationalism needed desperately for us all to accept: We are one country- you are from France, not Brittany, not Bordeaux. There is a thing called France, and here it is.

And here's what they actually got: They limp the fuck in from the 19th century, smarting from a Prussian ass-kicking, two revolutions, a few shitty ass kings and overspending emperors, a commune, and a knock-down drag out fight with the Catholic Church that still hadn't really finished. And then the fun really starts! They (and the rest of Europe) get punched in the face with WWI and aren't great militarily, lose ONE MILLION men, depression, rising racism and fascism, followed by UTTER STUPIDITY, INCOMPETENCE, and collapse in WWII, more racism/fascism and Vichy collaborators and de Gaulle and the deportation of Jews, followed by Algeria and Indochina and loss of all empire, followed by 1968, and, to quote a great Sorkin character, that was followed by.... followed by... followed by. It is a century so gross with disappointment, loss and shame that sections of it are barely admitted, much less discussed, MUCH LESS allowed into the conscious framework of what makes up the idea of France. As far as most discussion goes, everyone in France was a member of the Resistance- Vichy's members might as well have been nonexistent. It's as true as Spain's Pact of Silence about the Franco years- even if there is no official name for it.

Did you make it through that? Would you like to stop and have a cigarette? Go ahead. I'll wait.

Back? Brave soul!

So, to explain, and actually, you know, get to the book itself:

I'm sorry for dumping all that history on your head, but this book is just a minefield of it. Bowen gives it all to you because he has to. From the very beginning to the very end of his research, Bowen cannot get anyone to discuss the 2004 French law against headscarves in school without getting a lecture in French history.

It's exhausting hearing these French people pour down centuries upon centuries of history on you- and they kick it old school. In trying to understand France's relationship with religion in general before even moving to Muslims in particular one lady goes all the way back to Henri IV ("Paris vaut bien une messe") to justify why they do what they do:

"She explained to me how laicite was not the same as the "Anglo Saxon" idea of freedom of religion. In Anglo-Saxon thinking, in Locke or Spinoza, it is the concrete individual who has rights; freedom of conscience is the foundation. In our tradition these liberties are guaranteed through political power, which guarantees a public space that is neutral with respect to religion. You see this with Henry IV, Protestants were in state positions."

... there's more of the same throughout the book. It's fascinating. Reaching into history justifies everything- here is why we are the way we are, and therefore, this is why we do what we're about to do. Voila. No room for argument- it's all very logical. A proceeds to B, proceeds to C. This is what makes sense for us given what we are taught is our culture- do you think we're wrong? Well, you are an Anglo-Saxon who has not lived through what we have, so you don't know what we know. After all we've been through, how could you dare take our Elgin Marbles away?

Bowen does a fantastic job of contextualizing the French headscarf law: he shows us what the headscarf means as a symbol to various groups of people, how they arrived at that decision, and what background pushed them to it. His approach is especially wonderful for someone coming from one of the "Anglo-Saxon" democracies- we get to hear the finer points of why French democracy is different from ours. He takes us through applicable history, through the immediate years prior to the passage of the veil, gives a detailed look at the hearings on the veil and the marches and rallies and various causes involved or not, and especially takes a great, long, really revealing look at the role of the paranoid tabaloid press and what they were telling people.

Here are the main arguments and explanations of stances against the veil:

1. French religious policy is based around France's relationship with the Catholic Church. And by relationship, I mean the ridiculously long, combative struggle the French state and the Catholic Church fought over the control of public services, a struggle that CENTERED on the schools and the freedom of young French minds. Part of the accomodation reached was no public signs of religion- all should be private, behind closed doors. The other part was that government would be totally secular now, adopting a position of "laicite" -though the government supports all kinds of religious activities- just, it supports all religions equally and no longer favors the Catholic Church (at least, in theory, though in practice they receive a huge subsidy in the form of the government paying for the upkeep of a number of old churches that have been placed on the historical register). With the influx of large numbers of Muslims during and after the colonial period, France never really adjusted it's policies or mindset to accomodate other religions- specificially the needs and requirements of Muslims:

"...Islamism is redolent of an older Catholic project of infusing society and the state with religion- and some of the fear of the former comes from the memory of the latter. French references to Islamism often qualify it as "integriste", using the word borrowed from Spanish in the early twentieth century to designate consevative and dogmatic Catholicism, the defense of "integral" Christianity against the project of modernity. This use suggests that underneath the worry about radical Islam lie longer-term concerns about preserving freedom of choice in the religious sphere."

In practice, the French state has tried to create a "French Islam" several times throughout the years. They supported the construction of the Paris Mosque- though those who run it have come to be seen as state poodles. Also, this "French" Islam has been created through foreign imams and foreign built and funded mosques. France consults with the governments of three big former Muslim majority territories (Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria) on policy. They tried to set up a council of Muslims to consult with the government on questions of Islam when needed, but it is widely seen as illegitimate and compromised by cooperation with the secular state.

I think my favorite quote in this section comes from one of the author's friends, after they listen to a radio report about Muslims asking for special foods in public hospitals, saying: "Why can't they just say 'I don't eat pork' rather than 'I am Muslim'? Why can't they keep that fact private?" I don't know about anything else, but does that remind anyone in the US of some squeamish peoples' reaction to seeing gay couples kissing in public? I found that similarity of place in the psychological landscape between being gay in the US and being religious in France to be hilarious and somehow, just perfect.

2. Feminism: The veil is a symbol of oppression. Especially in France where, and this might be a cliche, but according to Bowen it is also kind of true: people express approval or disdain for you through their comments on what you wear. (And not only women- there's a hilarious paragraph where Bowen quotes from Bernard Henri-Levi, a legit public intellectual/philosopher, who "in an attempt to be the second Tocqueville" wrote a series of articles for the Atlantic in which he expressed his distaste for various Americans through their clothing choices.) It's a big deal- a woman's attire is considered a big statement on her place in society. There are numerous times throughout the book where girls who wear headscarves are described (by French people against the veil) as being "robbed of their femininity" by ghetto boys who intimidate and harrass them into wearing the veil so they can be left alone. There's a great tie in to how scarves were also worn by traditional catholic women in the 20th century and how the scarf also ties into the memory of Catholic oppression of women, too, and how long and hard women had to fight against that- they only got the vote in 1945, remember. It hasn't been that long.

There's a great phrase that apparently a lot of French people use with relation to the headscarf: "cela m'agresse," which means "that assaults me". Which means that something can be so pushy to the viewer that it is seen as an aggressive assault on the other person's very being- the headscarves, for example, are seen by some as proclaiming that they are more pious than other people, or to others as supporting the oppression of women or violent fundamentalism. So the wearing of the headscarf is therefore a disturbance of the public peace, a declaration of values that should not be talked about in the secular space of the Republic.

3. Islamism in the world: I think we all already know this one. Headscarves means you support the terrorists. Headscarves mean you are backwards and oppressive and hate all things modern and want them to die. Opposition to the headscarves flared up at key moments when Islam was in the news for one reason or another: 1989's fatwa against Salman Rushdie coincided with the first headscarf affair, the next flare-up in 1993-1996 coincided with the Algerian war, the next was after the 2001 World Trade Center bombings. Headscarves mean something then that they don't always mean at other times. There's a really revealing part in here where two girls who were expelled for wearing headscarves protest that they wear the scarves by their own choice, and not a single member of the panel interviewing them will give them credit for that.

4. Communalism: Communalism is the ultimate devil. This one came up again and again as the big bogeyman, and also the most affecting argument that does seem to speak to a particularly French interpretation of democracy. Communalism is defined by Bowen as: "the closing in of ethnically defined communities on themselves, a repli communataire (literally, "a folding-in") and the refusal of integration. Communalism threatens the direct communication between the state and its citizens that underlies French political philosophy. It separates citizens by valuing their affiliation to communities over their collective participation in the nation."

The French system is based off the idea that the state has direct and sole control over it's citizens- there should be no intervening organizations that people feel deserve their loyalty more than the state. This a big problem the French state has with guilds and with religions: "In the eyes of Revolutionary eleaders and Republican thinkers alike, guilds and religious orders shared three objectionable features. They were communalist, separating their members from others in the society and giving them illusions of superiority. They constrained their members, preventing them from enjoying the freedom that the state had fought to bring them. Finally, they laid claim to authority independent of the state, forgetting that in Republican theory, the state was part of civil society. They were attacked as erecting 'states within a state.'"

Some French have a fascination with these 'intervening' organizations- look no further than their obsession with the Freemasons, and... well, all those secret organizations who run the world in Dan Brown books. (If you're looking for a horrifying example of this, witness the case of the duping and brainwashing of aristocractic family the de Vedrines- just insane. Seriously. Look it up.)

Now, while this particular philosophy might seem rather constraining, controlling, and possibly a little reminiscient of why some people think that government can be too involved in people's lives... I honestly had a lot of sympathy for this particular point, from a certain point of view. It was actually a really silly example that got me thinking. At the hearings on the headscarf law (at which, by the way, only one woman wearing a headscarf and only one Muslim man were invited to testify), a French schoolteacher had this to say on why allowing any kind of religion in school is shocking:

"Everything starts on the first day of school. On the first day of a nursery school, the principal asked the teachers to inquire of the parents as to which of the children would be eating in the cafteria and who would not be eating there, and who could eat pork and who could not- and that was the first day of school!This topic became the main subject of discussion among pupils, and at three years of age! You can imagine what that does to the pupils: 'oh, you eat pork and I don't..."

In case you weren't clear on what he means by this: "...He (the teacher) reminds the assembled teachers how such lists have been used "in history," a reference to the practice under Vichy and Nazi occupation of posting lists of Jews.'"

Any pointing out of difference is dangerous. That's what the 20th century taught France- any acknowledgement of anyone as anything other than a citizen was offensive to the point of being criminal and is likely to lead to oppression and violence. Reading this, Bowen made me think that the suppressed legacy of collaborationist Vichy probably has a whole lot to do with this whole bit. This part always makes me really sad to read, because, really, can you blame them? And yet... in the end, it's wrong. It was just... the wrong lesson to learn for what the 21st century has now become. In the end, it is the French refusal to recognize the challenges that come with diversity that has made diversity a problem when it wasn't necessarily in the first place- it has allowed their state philosophy to be used by racists and xenophobics to punish others for their own fears and created unrest and backlash against the French state that wasn't there before. It's a painful irony that's gone terribly wrong.

In exploring these major issues, Bowen speaks to a lot of people: French government officials, teachers, his wide circle of friends in a cross-section of professions. He talks to Muslim girls who wear headscarves and those who don't, attends a town meeting on the subject of Islam in public life, meets with mayors of towns with Muslim populations, and feminist organizations. We get so many wonderful voices that the French government didn't bother to consult, something that makes the book useful and valuable beyond it's wonderful analysis and breakdown of all the issues surrounding this law. He also does a great dissecting of the media coverage of these things: he translates through interviews with pivotal players in the headscarf drama, breaks down documentaries shown at the time, influential articles written, talks given, discussions of public intellectuals and feminists alike. What French people were being told at the time was pretty extreme and crazy- most of the articles tended to take all the embedded fears above and combine them into one long series on WHY WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE AND ITS THE MUSLIMS' FAULT. It's sadly not that unfamiliar- anyone who has been following the hullaballoo over the Arizona immigration law in the US right now will recognize the apocalyptic tone of the dialogue.

All in all... this is a fascinating, thorough account of why this law happened. It is filled with understanding, endless patience and excellent dissection of issues on a very rational level... but at the same time even Bowen cannot conceal his impatience towards the end of the book with the French interpretation of what is necessary to maintain a functioning democracy. The last lines are a plea for greater understanding, and a hope that despite everything, someone will be able to recognize when it is time to change.

[Will · Rating 4 out of 5]

The concept of laïcité, conflictingly defined as the state's official ignorance of all religion, ethnicity, and non-French culture, the creation of a French citizen from a common secular education given to all French children, and the separation of religion from public areas, is one of the most polarizing aspects of modern French society. The headscarf case, a 2004 law that bans the use of "large" religious symbols in France's public school, which this book centers on, is often mentioned in American media without the greater implications that the French media, many demographic "experts," and French politicians used public sentiments against Muslims, especially the most visible of them: women wearing head-coverings, to cry that laïcité was under attack by Muslim influences. This outcry came after several girls came to school with head-coverings they decided to don on their own accord, sometimes even going against the wishes of their secular families for both religious and safety reasons. However, as Bowen points out repeatedly through many case studies, the views of the veiled women themselves were often ignored in the lead-up to the 2004 law in lieu of views by anti-veil feminists, "moderate" Muslims, and French "experts" on laïcité.

In America, where secularism is slightly different, only viewed as a separation of church and state (a separation I would argue is under attack), barely anyone argues that it is not the right of a Muslim girl to go to school or be in public with a headscarf on, even as the American public, exacerbated by the media, is increasingly against Muslims. Bowen clearly states that this issue needs to be seen through a uniquely French perspective.

Recommended to anyone interested in Islam in Europe today.

[Rahma · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very insightful deconstruction of the French discourse on the headscarf that preceded the ban on religious symbols in public schools passed in 2004, showing how understandings of secularity, citizenship and public space are central to France's modern political culture and yet always contested. Historical struggles between the Catholic church and the state over education and dominance of the public sphere have produced an ideal of Republican citizenship that demands the absolute surrender of all cultural, religious, and even gendered idiosyncracies to the neutrality of the public space. This is where the problem with headscarves arises, further amplified by the interrelated fears of communalism, Islamism and Sexism; the three interrelated themes Bowen identifies as central to public discourse. Although France's concept of secularism is unique in Europe, antipathy towards Muslims and an increasing tendency to cure social ills through legislation is not, so one does end up wondering what it is exactly that makes French discourse on Islam unique and in how far it should be understood in the context of wider European trends--a point which the author does not address.

[Lauren]

Among the best ethnographies I've read on xenophobia. France's haughty brand of exclusion is no better, if not worse than, the United States' (cf. Arizona). At the same time, France carries a philosophical legacy of eschewing religion: explaining just one of the several historical processes that shape such legislation.

[Lynn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read this in one sitting today—super interesting and clear. Unlike many other polisci books, this one felt surprisingly straightforward & substantive and proved that excessive, verbose rambling isn’t necessary for something to be considered academic and meaningful.

[Barry · Rating 4 out of 5]

I agree with Doctor M, who reviewed this book. Mr. Bowen provides the reader with background on the headscarf issue back to the laws of 1901 and 1905 and into the nineteenth century, but a link to the riots and turmoil in the suburbs would add a richer context. As is, the book presents the French policy of laicité fairly and helps the reader understand that this issue does not exist in a post 9/11 context alone. At the same time, the reader can see that the French have their own blindspots and rigid thinking, especially when the issue becomes a political football. By the end of the book, I came to understand the principles upon which the French base their actions. When the hue and cry settles, one can see that the stance on the scarves was influenced by present conditions, but at its base is a deep belief that one may be a member of a variety of organizations as a private person but must be a citizen of France in the public sphere. However much this principle may puzzle the non-French, their stance on the scarf is not merely a matter of situational ethics.

[Michelle · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was very helpful in understanding the history of the headscarf law and the sentiments against le voile in 2003-2004 so that I can better understand the ongoing debates about laïcité in France today. I finished wishing there was another volume to explain what has happened in 2004 to the present.

[Brad · Rating 4 out of 5]

Adventures in the perils of secular modernity. Makes a good companion to Nostalgia for the Modern by Esra Ozyurek, also about the anthropology of public reasoning firmly situated in a "modern, secular, republic."

[Madison Bemis · Rating 2 out of 5]

this review is not to say that the book doesn’t have good info - just a little too dense for light reading.

[Faizal · Rating 3 out of 5]

France and racist Islamophobe bigots, you do not accept Islam the consequences will soon come to you.

[vivi]

awesome i love finals

[Ronan Cloney · Rating 3 out of 5]

I had to read this in 48 hours for Uni. It was alright but I didn't love it. the end

[Rosa Boyd · Rating 4 out of 5]

So I read this whole book in the manchester uni library in about 2 hours and I did really enjoy it. It's a 4 really just because I was expecting something perhaps more surprising or experimental, but instead found it a bit underwhelming. This is probably just because I knew a lot about the subject matter anyway and I'd read some of the book online so maybe I'm being unfair.

So he's writing about laïcité and the banning of le voile in schools, government buildings etc. Bowen basically explains that the fixation of French lawmakers specifically on headscarves is because multiple pertinent social issues intersect there - the fears of terrorism, communalism, and the oppression of women. His real strength is in his interviewing and his deep understanding of French society and history, and the text has a sense of real historical significance and anthropological rigour.

I really liked the final section, when Bowen discusses more widely discusses integration as a policy, and questions the French assumption that it should only go one way. It's beautifully written. He finishes with a return to Republicanism, the set of French values basically rooted in Rousseau, and explains that the real issue with le voile for French people is the way that it is a visible defiance of traditional French cultural notions, and a refusal to sacrifice faith for the sake of la vie commune. He concludes, though, that "the Republic is based not on a shared faith, but on a faith in the possibilities of sharing a life together, despite differences in appearance, history, and religious ideas." And if this is embraced then it should liberate people to properly express their identities and differences!!

[Aliya · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a very good book, which takes a very candid look at the French state and society's attitude towards Muslim immigrants. The author being an American, has employed a very objective prism while viewing the situation, which makes it a great read.

In a nutshell this book tells us that the French opposition to headscarves stems from many factors including, Islamic religious ideology being reminiscent of the (draconian) Catholic church; the threat of political Islam, which is strangely equated with head scarves; the many questions raised viz a viz feminism; and finally the issue of Laicite or secularism.

The most interesting fact for me was that the issues that Bowie touches upon are applicable to all Muslim societies, in view of growing religiosity as a response to globalization and also as a reassertion of a cultural identity in a post colonial world.

Bowie covers the treatment of religion within the legal and constitutional construct of the French secular republic. Islam, as a newest entrant after protestants and Jews, has trouble due to the divides within the Muslim community over the issue of representation, as various groups fights for political control. This fact also creates a difference if opinion viz a viz the headscarf, which creates a void when it comes to finding a unified voice that speaks for French Islam. Interestingly, this fact plagues every single Muslim community, even those in Muslim majority countries. Islam's stance on the redundancy of religious clergy, has ironically become an inhibiting factor instead of a liberating one.

As far as the issue of feminism or gender equality is concerned, the instances of harassment and in select cases even violence, directed at females to make them conform to a conservative dress code, are not unique to France. They are an outcome of poor socio-economic conditions, where male frustrations are vented out through control of their physically weaker counterparts. The issue is not rooted in the scripture.

As far as those who voluntarily wear the veil are concerned, growing religiosity is manifesting itself not in superior ethics, or in the persuit of knowledge, but in enshrouding oneself. It is happening in all Muslim societies, as people are getting polarized. The face veil seems regressive in view of the fact that those who espouse it, fail to show any other demonstrable form of social superiority, which is inherent in the religion of Islam, such as honesty, a polite demeanor, a drive for educational excellence and the desire to become helpful members of the community and society.

On an ending note, I would add that Bowie has very skilfully pointed out the double standards and hypocrisy employed in the French state's treatment of it's Muslim immigrant communities from North Africa.

I would have given this book a five-star rating if it were not for repetition.

[DoctorM · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have to say that, while I liked "Why The French Don't Like Headscarves", it's a book that should've had another hundred pages. Bowen's account of the French headscarf ban is well-crafted and well-done, but its length keeps it from delving more deeply into a number of areas. I do wish he'd explored the effects of the banlieu riots of 2004/05 and had a more in-depth account of fears that Muslim neighbourhoods were somehow slipping out of the sphere of French law and culture.

Nonetheless, Bowen does provide an invaluable account of the underpinnings of French views of citizenship and the public sphere and how French views of public space and "the individual" differ from Anglo-American conceptions. He also points out that the long struggle under the Third Republic between Republican secularism and the Church is as key to grasping the issue of headscarves as is the colonial experience or post-2001 fears of terrorism and "Islamism".

Bowen looks at how the French idea of laicite formed and how religious groups had negotiated with the secular state, and at how the headscarf issue evolved from a matter of schoolroom decorum into a symbol for whether the French Republic could be indivisible and secular in a world of substantial immigration and for what it means to be a citizen of the Republic. He also notes the multiple roles played by headscarves inside the Muslim community in France--- the headscarf as a symbol of intergenerational conflict and of conflict between different immigrant communities (Moroccan v. Tunisian, Algerian v. Turkish) and between different Muslim views of feminism. Indeed, Bowen spends far more time talking to Muslim informants than to Frenchmen about what the headscarf symbolises.

All in all, a book well worth reading, and all the more so now that the French government plan to expand the ban on headscarves and veils. And it opens up a whole field for discussion about what citizenship means, and about the differing French and Anglo-American view of the responsibility of the state to create and shape citizenship.

[Natalie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Aside from the ridiculous name (a bow to his editors, I image), this book was thorough, scholarly, and thoughtful. Bowen approaches the law that banned religious symbols in French public schools, among other places, from a social perspective. It's definitely an intellectual study, which I appreciated. I would have liked more interviews, though. He includes a few of Muslim women (some who wear headscarves and some who do not), but none from Muslim men or other French citizens; however, he does include brief bits of transcripts from French television shows and public debates that were occuring at the time (it was both comforting and disturbing to find that they were often as uninformed and inflammatory as their American counterparts). Otherwise, the book is extemely balanced and well done. Bowen does a great job in displaying the genuine concerns surrounding headscaves, expecially due to France's history and social construction, which is geared toward complete secularism and communalism in the public sphere, as well as demonstrating important problems which were not addressed by passing a law such as this one (i.e. increasing Muslim-Jewish tensions and the growth of anti-semitism in France - a problem which the religious symbol ban was supposed to address, but in reality probably will not, especially in the long term).

[Ashur · Rating 2 out of 5]

Please note that my reviews are by the mouse-over text over the stars; two-stars = "it was okay", not IT WAS GARBAGE! I would say it was interesting, but possibly too dense for me, due to my relative lack of familiarity with French political history. When summarized, most of the arguments seemed kind of ridiculous to me. This isn't a critique on the author (given he's merely reporting his observations) so much as really, this is what they're on about?

Very few people mentioned in this text came out looking very good.

Caveat: I am approaching this from the POV of a person from the USA.

[mo · Rating 4 out of 5]

one of the best ethnographies i've ever read, it's such an important and unfortunately ever-relevant book, particularly in the francophone context. i first read this at the height of bill 21 in quebec, and it not only looks at the domestic politics of the influence of the catholic church on france but also the history of colonization that led to the racist battleground of hijab and "ostentatious religious symbols." this is an essential read.

[Valena Arguello · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was recommended to me and surprisingly it was immensely interesting. It gives the background of this issue, the controversy surrounding veiling in France, as well as the (insane) actions the French have taken to retard this practice...

[Jason S · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting account about why headscarves became a symbolic battleground for disputes in French about immigrants. A bit technical in spots, but otherwise an interesting account that sheds much light on modern France.

[Neena · Rating 3 out of 5]

Non-fiction explanation of French political culture vs. Moslems.

[Jeremy · Rating 1 out of 5]

not good. the crappy title should have been signal enough.