France’s Abaya Ban in Public Schools: The Argument for Cosmopolitan Conduct as an Alternative Outlook on French Civic Solidarity to Laicite
By Raihan Choudhury
In September 2023, the French Ministry of National Education and Youth implemented the ban on wearing abayas in public schools, a long dress worn by female-identifying Muslims for religious modesty, after successfully fighting legal challenges to the policy. The government justified the ban based on laicite. Laicite is the legal principle that a nondiscriminatory society would uphold religious neutrality in the public sphere. The idea is that removing the display of ethnic and religious identities of individual persons will allow for all citizens to unite under a parochial identity (becoming "French"), eliminating markers that are barriers to upholding equal dignity of all persons within a polity. French President Emmanuel Macron himself has argued that since the abaya is an Islamic symbol, it undermines secularism in schools, which is viewed as a principle of French public life. Rejecting expressions anthemic to "French" secular identity supposedly makes it easier to cultivate solidarity. Removing non-neutral symbols of expression is meant to make it easier to form a standard connection to cling to.
In contrast to lacite, in the 2002 book For Love of Country, philosopher Martha Nussbaum advocates in the opening chapter against patriotism in favor of cosmopolitanism, succeeded by a series of chapter essays providing examination reconciling the criticisms of patriotism to which she then offers a concluding reply. Whether one buys Nussbaum's argument or not, a worthwhile insight of exploration in the concluding reply of For Love of Country is that an essential component of human solidarity is upholding the "diversity of persons." "Diversity of persons" is the idea of equal recognition of what it means to be human from all walks of life. Banning the abaya goes against this as it violates people's right to choose expressions of life that fit with their moral consciousness.
Respecting different religious expressions in the public sphere is critical for valuing diversity. Nussbaum argues that this is essential because it normalizes the idea of allowing everyone liberty to live in the skin that fits one's sensibility.
Depriving people of the right to express religious sensibilities not only undermines their right to freedom of conscience but, more importantly, violates what it means to be a person. In the For Love of Country essay chapter, “Must We Choose Between Universal Reason and Patriotism,” philosopher Hillary Putnam describes how people rely on cultural anchors to make meaning of a lived experience that fits with what people think is a good life. Our ability to recognize moral sentiment and organize our lives under such understanding gives us agency in the first place, an idea central to attaining a just society in a liberal regime.
In the For Love of Country chapter essay “Cosmopolitan Patriots,” NYU Professor of Philosophy Kwame Anthony Appiah states that a core tenet of liberal governance requires protecting individual rights from state intervention. For a self-proclaimed liberal regime such as France, the abaya ban is a clear violation of this as a restriction premised on intruding on the freedom of religious expression intrudes on the right of free speech as it prevents the free circulation of ideas by individuals. In liberal regimes where diversity of thought is supreme, forcing cohesion through stifling pluralistic expression erodes each individual's liberty to express harmonious living. As Princeton Professor Emeritus of International Law Richard Falk articulated in the Love of Country essay chapter on “Reimagining Cosmopolitanism,” the "logic of conformity," or the obsession of wanting to get people to adhere to uniform exchange, is especially harmful as it can erode the humanness of a society.
In Love of Country, Nussbaum also points out that when local communities actively target symbols of a person's identity, it fuels "a politics of difference," creating a sense of disunity, which is the opposite of what the French government intended to transpire with a policy of laicite. Lingering disunity in the long-term only gives way to pathological hate for the out-group who lives in the same community that refuses to respect one's right to expression.
Preventing female-identifying Muslims from wearing the abaya exacerbates differences that intentionally create a sense of alienation from non-Muslim women and other persons based on religious identity as a point of losing one’s dignity. As political theorist Benjamin Barber argues in Love of Country chapter essay “Constitutional Faith,” the dignity of natural citizens can only be protected if one has pride in their local community; otherwise, a community is prone to “fractiousness,” which he believed is created not by being different but by the attempt of the state to force everyone to be more similar, with real-world consequence. Following the death of 17-year-old Moroccan immigrant Nahel Merzok in June 2023 by a French police officer, which many commentators attributed to pent-up frustration after years of policies (like the 2014 ban on Muslim women wearing burkinis on public beaches), there was a wave of violent police riots, which ended up further marginalizing Muslims at large from the rest of French society that many see as having fueled resurgent xenophobia by candidates in the legislative election earlier this summer in June to July. Instead of forced conformity, aspirations towards cosmopolitan conduct on religious expression may be a prudent step toward genuine national solidarity.
In the concluding reply of For Love of Country, Martha Nussbaum leaves the reader pondering the idea of cosmopolitan conduct as respecting all citizens' humanity without having moral domination or subordination of different identities. On the policy of religious expression within a polity, this would mean allowing individuals to have other religious expressions (like wearing the abaya) out in public as a point of engagement. Allowing for open and accessible interaction ensures that there is not an exclusive division of living out one's consciousness between "relations [those who identify with your dispositions]" and "non-relations" [those who do not share your disposition]," which philosopher Amartya Sen justifies in his essay “Humanity and Citizenship” as the basis for eliminating causes for discrimination according to. When one removes the expression of religious identity as a barrier to engaging in public life, one opens up the open exchange of ideas, which in a liberal regime builds affection for the 'Other,’ which philosopher Hilary Putnam argues comes from having affection for others. By better understanding the symbolism of the abaya, people from outside the Muslim community can genuinely understand the cultural value embedded in the expression.
As philosopher Martha Nussbaum's colleague at the University of Chicago, Micheal McConnell, puts it in the Love of Country chapter essay “Don’t Neglect the Little Platoons,” more respect for those of a different identity and even one's background comes with greater understanding. Only then can there be a foundation supporting the development of a unique civic identification within national polities of a liberal disposition. Instead of using the abaya as a public symbol in the culture war to determine what goes against making a person French, a unique blend of expressions of faith in France defines what it means to identify as French.
