Salty Current went to the PEN forum on Charlie Hebdo and challenges to free expression yesterday, and reports on it at her blog.
What she says about the difference between French secularism and US “secularism” is exceptionally useful. Bolding mine.
The conversation covered important differences between US and French law and culture, specifically between secularism as practiced in the US and laïcité in France and between US and French laws surrounding freedom of expression. Critics of the magazine in the US often seem to ignore the difference between US secularism (or “secularism”) and French laïcité. Laïcité as they described goes beyond the separation of church and state – it understands the public sphere and political discourse as a common space in which religion has no role or status, and outside of which religion (for some) is practiced, and respected, privately. In this context, religion is seen as intruding on the public sphere and publicly mocking religious iconography and practices as political targets is acceptable. This can be difficult to understand here in the US because our system is so different in theory and in practice. The US system wasn’t really discussed at the forum, but as I’ve argued many times it’s based on a bogus sort of compromise in which institutionalized religion is (in theory) kept separate from the state, but religious claims and identities suffuse political discourse and public policy, all while people are expected to refrain from criticizing or mocking religion because it’s an allegedly personal and emotional matter. Whatever the problems with laïcité in practice (and Berenson hinted at some, although unfortunately there wasn’t time to return to them), the US system with its tradition and practice of deference to “personal” religion even as religion colonizes public life is ridiculous and anti-democratic.
Thatty that that.
Read it all; it’s outstanding.
Heh. I had just been struck by exactly that same passage, and had said so there (it’s in some queue, I guess). Jinx. Or something.
It’s more than a bit of a problem, this whole ‘dinner party politeness’ rules thing people insist upon exporting beyond dinner. Yes, no talk of politics nor religion, outside, perhaps, allegedly safely anodyne phatic homilies, apparently, there being certain parties you’re told that just won’t fly. Right. And maybe not, not at certain dinners, in company where the dinner is going to be very ruined, if so. But dammit, it’s really gonna have to be opened up somewhere. It’s not like what people believe about this stuff has no impact, no importance, somehow exists in some magical vacuum.
I’ve long also figured that ‘rule’ serves systems of thought already very dominant, often subtly, nearly invisibly so, keeps them keeping on despite their cruel, arrogant absurdity precisely because they face no real challenge when the rule is, effectively, you just don’t. Anywhere. And there’s an incredibly stifling quality to the reality of living where it’s so enforced. You will desperately need to scream ‘bullshit’ with all the force your diaphragm can muster, after a while, living under that rule, and is it any wonder people did so as vocally as they did the moment there were fora where they could escape that constraint, possibly anonymously, possibly just outside their home community?
Good piece, SC, and I agree with our bloghost that that’s an admirably pointed way of framing the current role of religion in US life.
Thanks, Ophelia.
You did! I posted it just before coming over here. (All comments at my blog go into moderation.)
And one thing I consistently find amazing is that many of the people most protective of religion are among those most harmed by its political influence.
“Laïcité as they described goes beyond the separation of church and state –”
One significant expression of that doctrine is that only civil marriages have legal status under French law, how civilised and secular.
The passage is absolutely correct. The presence of religion in public life in France is treated as rather offensive and disgusting. Another interesting difference between the US and France is that in France people discuss their religious (and political) beliefs or non-beliefs quite freely at parties and dinner table conversations, whereas I’ve been told this is a bit of a gaffe in the US. Does it seem paradoxical? I’m so used to it, I sort of take it for granted.
In reference to discussing religious beliefs at dinner parties, etc. I don’t know about others, but this appears to be honored in the circles I travel in only if you are anything other than standard Judeo-Christian background. It is not uncommon for one member of the party (usually one with some level of authority over the rest) to grab hands and insist that everyone bow heads and pray.
At nearly every dinner party I have attended (except atheist ones), one member of the party will either be asked to lead the prayer, or will choose on their own volition to grab hands and say “May I?” This is clearly understood, and almost no one would be rude enough (or stupid enough, if that person is your boss) to say no. Prayer is assumed. Religion is assumed. Worship is assumed.
Maybe this is because of where I grew up (Oklahoma) and it’s different in other parts of the country. Maybe there are places where discussing religion at dinner parties is considered bad form. I hope so. But my experience has been the only bad form is disagreeing with whoever brings up the subject; whatever religion happens to be mentioned by a person who is devoted enough to mention it, that’s the religion everyone at the table practices (whether they do or not).
iknlast, I’m glad you brought that up. We Americans have a thoroughly parochial temperament—we act shocked to discover that people living in other countries or regions of our own country don’t automatically engage in the same social rituals we do. My starkest lesson in that was moving to rural Virginia in my 20s after having been raised in the Northeast. The God culture was everywhere. But more, people I met were genuinely stunned (as in, the possibility didn’t even live in their minds) that this was considered rude, intrusive, and inappropriately personal-in-public where I came from.
Anywhere I grew up or went to school in the Northeast, announcements of prayer at a dinner party or similar never occurred. That’s the sort of thing that would stop people mid-chew while they squirmed and tried to figure out how to respond to a really squirmy social gaffe without being rude themselves.
If you prefer, you can now watch the video of the forum.
Oh, excellent.