top of page
Search

How French Laïcité Laws Shape Society and Identity 



ree

Laïcité is the principle of separation from church and state, and is a particular type of political ideology of secularism, particular to the French constitution. Recently, it has sparked controversy regarding the 2004 law passed that implemented the prohibition of wearing religious symbols amongst other restrictions. Critics agree that this has evidently has different impacts depending on the religion it regards, failing at achieving total equality and not considering differences amongst them. Inevitably, discussions on the extent to which laïcité can truly achieve its aims without compromising personal identity arise, but as laws are created to implement this secular ideology, it leaves us wondering whether or not this issue is just because of the way French Law makers are approaching it, or is secularism always an infringement on our identity.  

The concept of Laïcité is rooted in the French Revolution, developing since the third French Republic. Particularly, this word has been used since the end of the 19th century to refer to the freedom of the state and its components from influence of the Catholic Church. This separation came with the 1905 Law of Separation of Church and State, effectively ending the concordat between Napoleon and the Vatican, declaring state neutrality in religious matters. Since this law was passed, many evolutions or elaborations of its effect have been created, including the most controversial and discussed one, the 2004 law prohibiting the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols in public schools, or more recently, the 2010 law, stating “No one may, in a public space, wear any article of clothing intended to conceal the face.” It becomes evident how different groups and religious minorities will be affected disproportionally, leading to the continuous oppression to the legislations.  

 

Truly, many of these laws target the usage of religious symbols particularly in public spaces, including public schools, raising many concerns. Despite the government argument that it ensures equality and a separation between state matters and religion, helping in combating the increasing racism in the country, the clear bias towards certain groups poses a threat on secularism on a whole, shaping French views and society. Racism is a very prominent issue in France, seeing a 32% increase in crimes or offences towards racial minorities, from 2022 to 2023. Nevertheless, questions arise as to whether these laws create systemic structural violence, by emphasizing an “acceptable” social norm in regard to usage of religious symbols, a principle that indivertibly affects some groups more than others. Thus, within the country, defying our human right to identity and expression.  

Many muslims have felt state enforced othering – viewing or treating people as different and alien them or one’s self - due to these laws, feeling a social unnacceptance of their own cultural and religious norms, the disproportionate effect of the ban on symbols hitting groups such as muslims to a larger scale. This conflict leads to many challenges on the effectiveness to which secularism can be balanced with equality of expression and non-discrimination. Whilst the 2004 law was initially framed as a way to protect students from religious influence, it has largely restricted Muslim girls from wearing the Hijab, reinforcing the questionability of the success in reaching the goals established by the laws. How can we guarantee that it is truly successful in protecting young students from influence, and not instead limiting the lengths to which personal identity is accepted? Is it not also true that through these laws that have differential impacts depending on the expectations and norms of a society, that we end up creating a sense of cultural imperialism, influencing students that christianity and other similar religions are favourable and the “correct” choice in French society?  

Reaction to these laws is incredibly divided. Whilst French government and supporters of laïcité argue that these policies are necessary to uphold secularism and avoid religious influence from taking over the government. Supporters also defend that they are essential to combating injustices and implementing national unity. However, many also oppose to it, arguing that there is an unfair effect on French citizens, depending on their religion and culture. International bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights also condemn the French Law.  

Despite the split in public opinions or reactions to the laws. The double standards also set by the state further create a sense of discrimination towards minorities. Whilst Muslim religious expressions are often examined from a Laïc view point and the expectation that this side is contained has been widely accepted by the French government, Christian traditions are still deeply engrained in French culture and society. Public holidays still align with christian holidays and other religious symbols are still prominent in the society, such as nativity scenes. Whilst this is justifiable, as the country’s history is so deeply rooted in christianity, why are other religions looked at under such a different level of scrutiny? The double standards underline western hypocrisy, an endless challenge between cultural imperialism and the west’s attempt to impose it, and equality. Hence, the inconsistency in enforcing laïcité is evident, questioning whether the laws are truly about achieving secularism or about targeting certain religious communities under the pretense of neutrality.  

 

However, this issue isn’t unique to France. Many other secular models around the world also struggle with this. For instance, India’s constitution declares it a secular state, aiming to maintain an equal distance from all religions. Nevertheless, the government is involved in religious affairs, such as managing Hindu temples and subsidising pilgrimages for various religious groups. Due to the Hindu nationalism growing, India’s policies have also begun favouring this religious majority. In Turkey, it’s long standing secular approach and laws that, similarly to France, banned religious symbols in school and elsewhere, have started to retreat. Under president Erdoğan, the country has shifted towards state-supported Islam. 

 

The debate surrounding laïcité remains incredibly polarised. On one side, supporters argue that strict secularism is crucial to maintaining a neutral state and ensuring that public institutions remain free from religious influence. They claim that banning religious symbols in school and public spaces are ways to protect France’s dedication to universalism and equality. Some even see this as a necessary response to the growing separation seen amongst the citizens, and to the rising religious extremism. However, critics contend that the application of laïcité like this is far from neutral and instead disproportionally affects religious minorities. The rise in racism and exclusionary nationalism further emphasises this critique, hinting that these laws rather than fostering social cohesion, may be reinforcing societal division and structural discrimination.   

Looking ahead, the future of French secularism remains uncertain. Legal challenges against the laws could arise, especially seeing as humans rights organisation and other international bodies express their concern. But also, public discourse might shift, particularly as younger generations push for more inclusive understanding of secularism. Studies even show that 52% of French High School students are in favour of “overtly religious symbols (…) being worn in schools” (Elis Gjevori, 2021). The national decreasing sense of the importance of religion is also felt amongst young citizens, showing the true long-lasting effects of Laïcité on shaping identity. So as the years pass and the younger generations grow, the hope for these laws being revoked or modified intensifies, providing even more uncertainty of the future of French Laïcité as it is.  

Ultimately, the question remains: is laïcité evolving, or is it stuck in the past? While it was constructed originally to liberate individuals from religious dominance and control, its current application risks becoming a tool of exclusion. Whether France chooses to maintain its rigid approach or adapt laïcité to better reflect the modern diversity of society will surely define the future of secularism, not just in France, but around the world.  

Sources:  

Kommentarer

Kunne ikke laste inn kommentarer
Det ser ut til at det var et teknisk problem. Prøv å koble til på nytt eller oppdatere siden.

Contact Us

Thanks for submitting!

bottom of page