Racism, secularism, and "secularism"

I recently wrote a post containing a strident but brief critique of a position by a Progressive Blogger named Anh Khoi Do, whose writings I had only just encountered.  I critiqued primarily his desire to copy the behaviour of certain European countries in what is to him an unwillingness to accomodate religious minorities in the public individual compliance with their own beliefs; in fact, I critiqued it as a form of racism, which in the present context it can only be.

Not surprisingly, I received a few irate comments from random visitors (who curiously appeared to write in a style and form very similar to each other).  One such commenter, Pipi---with the charming fake email address of [email protected] the following, apparently entirely without irony:

Moreover, a secular country doesn't entirely "make people's personal choices of dress extremely inconvenient". It only says that you can't wear religious symbols in public places. In fact, France doesn't forbid people to wear their religious symbols in religious places. By implying that European countries are racist, you definitely show an extremely weak analysis.

Of course, I believe that any robust analysis would demonstrate that European countries all have components of racism, as racism is ubiquitous, and recent former imperialists must necessarily have more racism than their fair share. 

But let's look at this odd comment more seriously.  I definitely contend that these sentiments are well contained in any serious and robust understanding of racism, in particular this individual's concept of "secularism", which appears to be congruent with that of the works of Anh Khoi Do.  In order to do this, however, we need first to define our terms, in particular, racism and secularism.

Racism

First of all, it must be immediately understood that a standard English dictionary is totally insufficient for giving us definitions of overtly political concepts like racism.  A dictionary serves as a guide for those unfamiliar with terms to gain a grasp of what they are reading; it cannot encompass a term like racism.  The act of racism emerged in a particular and evolving social context.  The description of racism continues to evolve with that act.

When most people think of racism, they first and foremost think of skin colour, as this is how it emerges in North American society in particular (but also elsewhere, of course).  It is not hard to see how the differentiated treatment of individuals based on their skin colour leads to a concept of race as a biological characteristic.   (The act of that differentiation---the act of racism---creates the concept of race in a real way.) 

But when we look at history, biology as the marker of race and the trigger of racism is insufficient.  In relatively recent and shamefully long-running European history, the act of being Jewish was frequently made criminal to the point that the death penalty was imposed on millions for that "offence."  We remember most recently that this was justified due to biology, but it was earlier justified due to the cultural characteristics of Jews.  Fairly innocent Jewish beliefs and rituals were retold to the masses as lurid, disgusting fabrications in the service of what we call now anti-Semitism. 

But even those who did not follow those rituals, of course, were subject to the stigma.  Consequently, racism is not defined in terms of biology or even culture---it can only be best encompassed by a relation between identity and culture.  To be racist is to laud or enact oppression on the bases of that identity.  Thus it is a racist act to discriminate based on an identity and, by implication, on the visible display of that identity.

There is an implied ingredient in a robust concept of racism that I have not yet directly exposed: that of privilege.  This ingredient is essential.  For an act to be a racist act, it must be an exertion of power from a position of privilege, in addition to being an attack on individual (and perhaps collective) identity.

One of the most common forms of privilege is that which accrues from being a member of---or incorrectly imagining that one is a member of---the majority identity.

Secularism

Like racism, secularism is a present-day political concept that is best treated by direct analysis of present-day events in the context of history rather than by dry prescription from a dictionary text.  As an English word, it reflect the ideology that the state should be neutral on matters of religion.  American idiom often cites the "separation of church and state" as the mark of secularism.  By this, it means that the state should not interfere in the practice of religion by its individual members.  It is easy to extend this concept using the principle behind it: the state should be neutral on the matter of identity and the expression of identity.  This is the same principle that underlies the Canadian government's present-day attitude towards those of the homosexual persuasion as prescribed by the courts. 

There is another concept, laïcité, that is often considered to the French equivalent of secularism.  It emerges, I am given to understand, from movements in France and in Québec to decenter the power of the Catholic Church. which stood as a colossus on the neck of political dynamism.    It is not quite the same as secularism, because it appears (from the present day debates ongoing in francophone media) to encompass the possibility that society may choose to decenter the church by diminishing or abolishing its public identity.

"Secularism" as racism

Now we return to the question of the comments made by Pipi and, by extension, the ideology of Anh Khoi Do that they appear to reflect.   For convenience, I reproduce the words of Pipi yet again:

Moreover, a secular country doesn't entirely "make people's personal choices of dress extremely inconvenient". It only says that you can't wear religious symbols in public places. In fact, France doesn't forbid people to wear their religious symbols in religious places. By implying that European countries are racist, you definitely show an extremely weak analysis.

So Pipi equates a "secular" country with one that prevents the wearing of religious symbols in "public places" (by this I assume he/she/it means "public institutions"), but, ever so kindly, permits them in religious places.  Religious symbols, however, are often an expression of religious and cultural identity, an identity that often happens to differ with that of the majority community that often controls the state.  Given that it is necessary to make use of public institutions in order to be a functioning member of society, it is doubly clear that Pipi's injunction permits the majority to use its racial privilege (given that religious and cultural symbols are subsumed under racial identity) to exert power via the identity of the minority community.  This is racism.

Pipi also offers us a standard majoritarian objection:

A secular country is a country that strictly separates religions from the state. Therefore, religiously accommodating minorities is a complete violation of the principle of secularism. In fact, while the state refuses to accommodate Christians, it grants prerogatives to religious minorities. As a result of that, the only way to treat people equally is to copy France, which means that nobody is to be treated on religious consideration by the law.

But far from granting "prerogatives to religious minorities"---a hilarious phrase that brings to mind images of religious minorities eating bonbons in bed fed by long-suffering Christians---"religious accomodations" merely acknowledge that the majority community's privilege is that it lives in a society that is thoroughly defined by its history and identity, and that to force this identity on others is a racist act.  As such: an act of illegitimate power.  Even applying the history of laïcité to the present context is an expression that power: the power to apply what was necessary for majority society steeped in Catholicism to what are recent immigrant communities.  And make no mistake; that's what this is all about.

It must be noted that Pipi's views are contained strikingly well in what has been expressed on Anh Khoi Do's blog, which furthermore appears to express a racist ideology that minority identities should be subsumed by the majority, which can only happen because the majority is privileged.  And both in France and in Canada (and elsewhere) this issue has come up in a certain context: the context of Muslims.  Consequently, it is fair to say that this ideology is inescapably racist against Muslims, because it cannot be held in this present context without that logical consequence and connection. 

(It is fascinating that a subsequent commenter and apparent supporter of Anh Khoi Do, again very similar in style to Pipi, writes,

I agree with Inaritu and Pipi. It looks like you're an offended Muslim who is desperately looking for attention, Mandos. If Anh Khoi Do was so racist, he would tell Muslims to leave.

By the way, stop playing with the words. Anh Khoi Do is not an "extremist", because he never said that he wants to kill people for a "Holy War".

This commenter seems to set a very low standard for Anh Khoi Do.  For him to hold a racist and immoral view, it would require for him to advocate the worst kind of violence, clearly encoded in the phrase, "tell Muslims to leave."  Also fascinating is his association between the words "extremist" and "Holy War", when the English language---both in common usage and in the dictionary---requires no such association.  I leave what this means as an exercise for the reader.)

A caveat

I have spent most of this post discussing why Anh Khoi Do's views and the views of a couple of commenters are actually racist opinions.  Now I would make one final cautioning statement: nowhere in this post have categorically denied that the collective sometimes has an interest in limiting some of the practices of its individual members; it should go without saying.

Comments

[JF]

Excellent post, this sums much more eloquently than I could have put it why I, after giving it some thought, I support reasonable accomodations and why I believe the assault against it in Quebec is actually just a form of racism disguised in left-wing terms to fool people into thinking they can still be progressive while imposing their values.

[Adorable Girlfriend]

I agree, very nice post. So often people want to get caught up in the words, rather than the acts. You did a nice job of joining the two.

[Craig]

I too was puzzled by the comments on the first post.

[AradhanaD]

Mandos, I just wanted to say this was an excellent post - and I agree that this type of intolerance for minority religions is RACIST.

I too have sufferred racist religious intolerance (though I am not a 'believer') so I understand what you mean. However, France's (and recent controversies in Quebec) guidelines on 'religious clothing' come of course 'coincidentally' when religious intolerance for muslims is at an all-time high.

Sorry, I didn't chime in before...

[Josh Gould]

Agreed, Mandos. I'm rather interested to know what sort of "public places" require this sort of secularism. Hospitals? Universities? Malls? The street corner? If anything, this sort of policy could radicalize minorities, actually inhibiting integration, and otherwise showing them that the "majority" at best doesn't tolerate people who look somewhat "different" and at worst fears or hates them.

[Mandos]

Well, in France, I am given to understand that they have been attempting to ban the hijab in schools, and doing so by a completely transparent act of sophistry: banning crucifixes too.

Of course, the symbolism of the hijab is worth discussing. And people (including, gasp, Muslims) do discuss it.

[Josh Gould]

As I imagine Catholics discuss displays of crucifixes as well. All things considered, if we want to be "secular" (read: superficially homogeneous), I suggest we talk about banning wearing the cross as a first step. After all, there are a lot more people wearing them than there are hijab-wearing Muslims, so it seems like it's a bigger problem...

Right?

[Craig]

While certainly not excluding discussions of racism and hypocrisy, it seems to me that there is a slight difference between Canadian multiculturalism and French republicanism that, in effect, renders easy comparisons between banning the hijab in French schools and banning the hijab on Canadian soccer fields somewhat problematic.

[Josh]

For that matter, holding up France as a model of a successful "melting pot" is rather at odds with reality.

[Mandos]

I'm certain that France has a different context than Canada. However, one aspect of the discussion is the desire in parts of the Québec political scene to import a more French-style republicanism, an tendency I have observed from time to time in Le Devoir, etc.

[Craig]

Such a move certainly causes problems for official multiculturalism, as you've already indicated.

[Monique Serré]

Et qu'est-ce ça dit de vous que vous ne reconnaissiez pas au dictionnaire la valeur de ses définitions et que vous présumiez la vôtre "meilleure"? "Bonne"? "La dénition"? Alors, vous vous pensez savant!? Remarque que je reconnais dans vos dires un élément d'intelligence, tout comme votre complice (!) que vous argumenter.

Et, encore, qu'est-ce que ça dit de vous que vous donniez tant d'attention aux propos de Monsieur Do (j'espère que je n'ère pas avec ce nom!?). Ils vous ont choqué? Vous avez l'esprit "guerrier"?

La faille de vos propos se manifeste quand vous utilisez le terme "musulman".

Je ne présume pas pouvoir définir le terme "racisme", "race", "raciste", etc. Je ne peux même pas dire explicitement et clairement si je suis, moi-même, raciste.

Est-ce que les juifs sont une "race"? Pour moi, c'est un groupe de gens qui professe une religion (enfin différentes versions d'une même religion). Ils ne sont pas, dans mes livres, une race.

Est-ce les catholiques sont une race? La question est carrément bête. Voyons donc!

Est-ce que les musulmans sont une race? Je ne peux pas me réconcilier, mais DU TOUT, à définir des gens professant une foi quelconque comme étant "une" race! Il y a de nouveaux convertis de par le monde, de tous les pays, de toutes les cultures... comment justifier appeler les "musulmans" comme faisant partie d'une race??? Intelligence il y a... mais à bon escient?

De toute façon, mon opinion sur la question des accommodements raisonnables est que Mario Dumont a réagit absolument correctement, en soulignant qu'il y a un problème, qu'il doit être adressé et qu'une commission est la piste à suivre pour ce faire. Et Charest a démontré un gros brin de sagesse quand il a emboîté le pas. Son choix de candidats pour mener cette commission étaient excellent. Toujours selon mon opinion.

Ceci dit, et toujours sur le qui-vive de la réflexion (comme exige la réalité qui se crée à chaque instant, et ce, partout - comme vous en faites un peu allusion quand vous présumer définir les termes) il faudra faire un post-mortem aux termes qui deviennent désuètes avec les prises de conscience au fur et à mesure qu'elles se défilent de par leurs différentes sources.

Un exemple de prise de conscience qui pourrait (lire "devrait") révolutionner notre/la/une mentalité/façon de penser: le génome humain!!! Pensez-y! 99,99% (quatre-vingt-dix-neuf virgule quatre-vingt-dix-neuf pourcent) du code génétique est partagé par T O U T E l'humanité! Comment, oh! COMMENT peut-on parler de race? La pensée qui a cru nécessaire/plausible/valable de définir l'humanité selon une "race" est du passé.

Accomodons-nous!

[Mandos]

Je vais vous répondre en bon temps. Probablement en anglais, mais n'arrêtez pas à écrire en français.

[godammitkitty]

I returned here to re-read this (most excellent) post. Just wanted you to know that I found it very helpful.

I had a strongly negative, visceral rxn to the latest news from QSWC, but I often find myself at a loss to articulate why such things are so odious. I mean, beyond merely blurting: "Gross! Racists!" ;)

Cheers--GDK

[shai]

your article resounds massively with razacks work on Muslims and the state of exception- particularly that the secular/religious distinction deployed against Muslims is simply another route to managing and regulating them, i.e. racialsied governmentality.

found this useful, thanks.
all the way from bleak London ;-(