Looking at the French Context

Today was the second day of sessions for our 2013 HIA Fellowship in France. We discussed a variety of issues including the French and US constitutions, the abstract citizen, and ethno-racial statistics.

I felt the “Antiracism Without Races” reading by Erik Bleich was relevant on these issues in a number of ways.

France and the United States have distinct policies and as a result they have unique political issues and challenges. A fundamental difference is that the French state has a color blind or race neutral model vs. US and Britain’s ethnicity conscious models. France’s race neutral model works in two respects. 1. It’s taboo to target policies or undertake research based on markers of race or ethnicity 2. Instead of looking at issues of ethnic pluralism through the lens of race France uses the alternative lens of social divides associated with culture, class, geography, and citizenship status.

This difference in the lenses used in the respective countries seemed to be an important and recurring topic in our discussions today. Oliver Richomme who spoke on ethno-racial statistics mentioned how when examining the same video of riots in France, Americans immediately saw race and French immediately saw class.  I thought this was fascinating and a product of the different models we have for approaching issues of identity.

I agree with Bleich that the color blind state is desirable but it also comes with its costs. There are two reasons why it’s desirable. Obviously, any state that recognizes race may reinforce those divisions among its citizens. The other reason, which we didn’t bring up today is the problem of backlash. There is often bitterness from those who don’t benefit when the state enacts policies to benefit specific groups and this bitterness/backlash doesn’t exist when the state avoids theses policies. Growing up in an upper-middle class family in the United States I have noticed this backlash throughout my life. For example, people often say they feel antagonism towards minorities for receiving preferential treatment in college admissions. Regardless of how valid the arguments that support backlash are, backlash/bitterness creates genuine antagonism and emotion which is ultimately the source of racism itself.  So in the end these policies strengthen the root cause of racism by reinforcing division.

Based on this I would argue that a color blind state is more preferable than we gave it credit for in discussions today and that ethno-racial statistics can be detrimental to fostering equality. I also agree with Oliver Richomme that ethnic/racial categories are largely open to interpretation and not based on Science which I find problematic.

Obviously the practical problems with a color blind state were articulated by many people today. For example, Eeva mentioned the inability of French people to talk about their ancestral background. So there is a balance where a color blind state should still acknowledge the fact that we do not all have the same ancestral background. We should be able to talk about differences without taboos.  Also tonight’s film showed that racial consciousness most definitely existed on the French colonies and throughout French colonialism so even if we don’t talk about it, it has existed in French history.

Lastly, I agree with the first speaker on constitutional law that many of the differences between French and US views of these issues can be traced to the French and American revolutions. The French revolution instituted a logic of equality before the law with nothing disrupting the connection between individual and state and this is the basis for the notion of abstract identity as a French citizen. In contrast racial issues have been central in the US since the American Revolution.

Feel free to disagree with me on anything and everything I said.

Bonne Nuit!

Faheem Fazili (US Fellow)