War and the Muslim Fashion Week
Last week can be called Islamic fashion week: three events put on the news map the dress norms adopted by some Muslim women: the Germany-Egypt volleyball game at the Olympics, and the burkini prohibition on the beach in Cannes, and then in Corsica after some altercations.
Cannes Mayor decreed a burkini ban (swimsuit that matches traditional Muslim clothing rules) on the city’s beaches. The mayor of the French Riviera based his decision on the law enacted in 2004 in France, the veil law that prohibits “the wearing of ostentatious religious signs on school premises” (not public). The law refers to any religious signs, but the veil is by nature blatantly visible (“ostensible” is the French word). In 2010 the law was followed by the banning of clothes that hide the face in public areas (by defaukt the burka and the niqab, the only Islamic garments that do this, but also any cagoulas for example, but not the veil).
Photos of the beach volleyball match Germany-Egypt at the Rio Olympics sparked a viral social media phenomenon, the commentators being divided between the clash of civilizations and the friendship. Some rush to highlight a supposed “huge” clash of cultures, in their view vizible with the naked eye by the way the female body is exposed or not by clothing.
Others prefer to emphasize that Germany and Egypt are playing the same game, despite differences in clothing. In this way, we can agree that they’re actually sharing the same values: fair play in competition, sportsmanship, beauty of the game, the joy of performing together in front of the whole world.
The third newsworthy event was one that turned into violent clash between men on a beach in Corsica, sparked by a row over pictures taking on the beach. Some men who were accompanying women wearing Burkina tried to tried to drive out the photographers by throwing objects at them. Violence has escalated and made victims. Consequently the mayor banned the burkini.
The dispute over Muslim dress in France is not new, it dates back 25 years. It started with the reaction of a school teacher in Creil in the early 90s, when he sent two girls home because they were wearing headscarves. This incident evolved into so-called “the veil affair” which generated discussions, social movements and eventually the legal regulation of the muslim dress by laws mentioned above: one in 2004 banning the wearing of “signs of ostentatious religious signs in school” and the Law 2010 banning face coverings in public except for “force majeure” (eg medical), explicitly targeting the niqab and burka.
French lawmakers explain the decision to ban headscarves in schools by the secular tradition based on the principle of separation of religion and state. As school is the main place for citizen formation, it is argued that its space should be religiously neutral. On the other hand, the law is formulated so that the wearing of other religious signs, such as the crucifix, is not sanctioned due to the fact that it is not always “ostentatious”, ie visible.
The 2010 law which targets niqab and burka (garments that completely cover the face) has to do more with the security paradigm: covering the face is actually a hindrance in identifying people in the public space that has become in 15 years an area of generalized surveillance through the ubiquitous system of cameras.
Veil: Submission or brand sign of protest?
The conversation on the veil is imbued with implicit references to cultural values. Those who claim a “pure” Western culture see the headscarf as a sign of women’s submission.
The unspoken and interesting corollary is that the exposure of women body becomes a sign of liberation. The arguments aroun the volleyball game in Rio are contrued around this structure.
The truth is somewhere in between and always contextual.
There are moments when the veil is indeed an object of submission, as there are times when it is a sign of liberation and protest.
Paradoxically, the very banning of the veil transforms an object sign of traditionalism in one with possible political value of affirmation of identity and opposition to policies of assimilation (for France) or forced secularization (in the case of Egypt during the military regime before the Arab spring).
Many young women who choose to wear the veil do so out of conviction and not because they are forced, sometimes even against the wishes of the parents (as is the case of the second generations of Maghrebini French in the 90s, using the veil as a sign of disagreement with their parents who have embraced the French dream of cultural integration, currently in a deadlock).
The display of the body is also double-edged, it can be a liberating as in the movements of the ’60s or the newer “free the nipples” movement directed towards the freedom to not wear a top cover in public for women (as it is now the case with men), as it can be a clear sign of male dominance, especially visible in advertising and entertainment industry.
The analysis becomes even more complicated if we think that Christian women, traditionally wear their veil. This custom was lost in many places, but is still alive in many villages in Southern and Eastern Europe. Weairng a veil is common not only upon entry into a church but also when a woman comes out of the yard. In most cases women’s reflex to put a headscarf when crossing gate into the street is not even questioned.
Returning to recent events (volleyball and beaches of Southern France), there are some important things to remember:
- The veil has become a political object of dispute (sometimes direct as in the case of Corsica) and it is profoundly charged with significations. The veil itself and practices related to it can only be understood from within, from the perspective of the wearer, but efforts in this respect are mostly in done by academics and they hardly reach the general public.
- Veil disputes are mostly among men, be they politicians, sports public, or tourists on the beach, because they really are arguments for access to women’s bodies. Those disputes are the expression of two different types of patriarchalism, one that is legitimized by a discourse of modesty inspired by religion, the other wrapped in a myth of liberation.
- The current slippage toward giving headscarves only one meaning, that of “irreconcilable cultural differences “ is very dangerous because it legitimizes xenophobic speeches such as those equating the veil with allegiance to terrorism, position already expressed verbally by Thierry Migoule the Responsible of Municipal Affairs in Cannes, “We are not talking about banning religious signs on the beach … but about ostentatious clothes that refer to loyalty with terrorist movements that are at war with us. “
In conclusion, the veil is in the eye of the beholder and only a careful look can reveal the short-circuits in thinking that lead us to conflict, be it armed with harpoons (as the one in Corsica) or with sophisticated weapons of the new asymmetric warfare.
For more, please check out Paris Chic, Tehran Thrills. Aesthetic Bodies, Political Subjects.
