Why Two Interpretations of Laïcité Exist in France; Jan. 19, 2016

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Aujourd’hui encore, une vision dite « fermée » du concept c’est-à-dire attachée à la stricte neutralité religieuse dans l’espace public, s’oppose à une vision qualifiée d’« ouverte », au contraire opposée à gommer tout signe d’appartenance religieuse.

Today again, a vision called “closed” concept is attached to the strict religious neutrality in the public sphere. In opposition, a vision of an “open” space, in contrast to erasing all signs of religious affiliation.

In France, Laïcité is one of the most controversial set of laws. Today, France’s fundamental understanding of the separation between church and state is hotly debated.

Like the title suggests, their is two competing ideas of the role Laïcité has to play in France. One vision is more open to the idea of religious symbols in public spaces and the other is not.

According to “Dimensions De La Laicite Dans La France D’Aujour’hui,” Martine Barthelemy and Guy Michelat discuss the 3 approaches to the construction of Laïcité: the philosophical ideals from the enlightenment, the historical and institutional construction of Laïcité, and thirdly, the social representations of Laïcité. These 3 perspectives portray Laïcité in a more holistic manner. It is an idea very unfamiliar to many Americans who have a different understanding of secularism.

Later, Barthelemy and Michelat attempt to illuminate the sociological factors behind Laïcité. There seems to be a divide when it comes to age whether or not you support Laicite. If you are under 40, you are more likely not to support Laïcité because of the globalization and increased immigration young people are exposed to.  While people older than 40 see Laicite as a long tradition of what it means to be french.

Le Monde is a center-left leaning paper. It has been sued before for defamation, however the likelihood of that happening in this article is close to none. The article gives equal space for promoters and dissenters. Although the article gave the opposition to Laïcité a voice, it gives final say to those opinions that agree with the strict nature of Laïcité.  Historians will find this as a very helpful article in the search for modern interpretations of Laïcité and its discontents. Because is gives equal space for both sides of the argument, bias is maintained to a minimum.

 

Aaron Brown

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *