What We Don’t See
What was that I was saying only a day or two ago about smelly little orthodoxies and the hijab? This article from the BBC certainly gives a good illustration of what I mean. Two mentions of Muslim opposition to the ban, and no mentions at all of Muslim support for the ban. If you don’t already know a little about the subject, and read that article, you’ll be left with the impression that Muslims who have any opinion on the matter are opposed. But that is simply not true. Forty percent of Muslim women support the ban, according to news reports I’ve seen.
Most of France’s political parties, and around 70% of the population, support the ban which some Muslim leaders say risks being perceived as intolerant…Some French MPs, backed by Muslim leaders and rights groups, have warned that the new law could be seen as intolerant and undermine the integration of France’s Muslims. They say young Muslim women are being forced to wear the headscarf, though the few hundred who have turned out for demonstrations against the new law say they wear it of their own free will. Many governments and human rights groups have criticised the bill – including the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights and the US-based advisory group, the Commission on International Religious Freedom.
That’s it, those are all the places the word ‘Muslim’ is used. It says ‘some’ Muslim leaders in that first sentence, but doesn’t bother to point out that other ‘Muslim leaders’ are not merely indifferent or neutral or not bothering to say anything, but are in fact in favour of the ban. Sly, subtle, sneaky, and not a very forthright form of reporting, I would say. Though it may not be deliberate. The malodorous orthodoxy may be so well internalized that the reporter wasn’t even aware of giving a partial (incomplete) account. It may be so taken for granted that all Muslims love the hijab, and that a school dress code is an interference with religious freedom, that the fact that some Muslims don’t see it that way simply fails to register. As does the fact that many of the people who favour the hijab and oppose the ban are not just nice pious people but extremely reactionary, are well to the right of your Jerry Fallwell and your Pat Robertson, are in fact the kind of people who beat up and rape women for not ‘covering up.’ That’s how smelly little orthodoxies work, isn’t it, they just get dug in until people stop noticing them and stop being able even to see alternatives. A good reason to point them out then.
I’ve seen that forty percent figure as well but I have no idea where it comes from. I think I might have read it in the context of “some polls suggest that up to…” which implies the true figure is much lower.
If we say the figure is 20% and assume that men are even more in favour of the hijab than women (a pretty safe bet I reckon) then most Muslims are opposed to the ban, even if we accept the 40% figure then its probably over 3/4s of muslims against the ban. And being against the ban doesn’t necessarily imply that you like the hijab, you may just regard the ban as unfair singling out of your religion.
When writing about a conflict between two groups with differing views it is pretty rare to look for the few exceptions – the few Tories that like the Labour government’s policies on something or vice versa…it doesn’t inform on the substance of the disagreement.
Although…to be honest, from this distance, we really can’t judge the mood of France or French muslims.
Hmmyes, as you probably spotted, I couldn’t remember exactly where I’d seen the forty percent figure either, hence vagueness of reference. But on the other hand I don’t think it was as vague as ‘some polls suggest that up to’ – though I can’t be sure until I find it again.
One, I think it’s crucial not to lump together all Muslims, but rather to consider women separately, for several blindingly obvious reasons (which I will spell out if they’re not obvious). To put it another way, I really don’t care whether Muslim men favour the hijab or not. Slaveowners favoured slavery, too. N’importe.
Two, yes, you may regard the ban as unfair singling out of your religion, but since others of the same religion or religious background don’t regard it that way – that’s relevant too.
These aren’t ‘few’ exceptions. It is a conflict between two (or more groups) with differing views, just as you said, but the BBC article simply left out one whole large crucial group. Tories (and Labour) do of their nature and for reasons of necessity try to speak with one voice – that’s what whips are for, that’s what party discipline is for. But the fact that Muslims in fact do not speak with one voice on this issue is absolutely central to the whole thing, so really ought not to be left out of the coverage.
Perhaps we can’t judge the mood of France or French Muslims. But we can judge, for instance, the quality of the coverage in Anglophone countries. We can find it oddly biased and one-eyed. And we do. And Muslim-background women of my acquaintance agree with that take. They’re not delighted to see their point of view ignored and obliterated, as if it did not exist.
Here’s one reference to 40%:
“About 70% of French people back the controversial law – and even 40% of Muslim women, according to some polls.”
http://tinyurl.com/2rtsm
Which I think is closer to my interpretation than yours. But what I’m trying to suggest is that you are placing disproportionate weight on a view that is in a minority among French Muslim women – and that is probably more like 20% than 40% from my reading of how these sorts of statistics go. So we have something like 60-80% of French Muslim women against the ban – if the true figure against is say 70% of women and adding in the Muslim men then you’ve got a pretty overwhelming view of what Muslims think – most are against the ban, so many you can start saying that Muslims oppose the ban.
You said
“Two mentions of Muslim opposition to the ban, and no mentions at all of Muslim support for the ban”
so I think in this case we -can- lump together all Muslims, men and women because you were talkig about the presenting of differing views of Muslims, that “you’ll be left with the impression that Muslims who have any opinion on the matter are opposed” – whereas it seems to be the case that the majority of Muslims are opposed, which is pretty much the same thing in this argument – they’ll always be -some- exceptions.
It is important and interesting that so many Muslim women are in favour of the ban, and why they are helps us understand the debate but i don’t think you always have to include the minority view in your report – particularly, and I think this is important, if you are considering it as a question of state oppression of Islam as a religion in France for populist means – and I get the impression it is quite possibly the motivation behind it (interesting article in Prospect about the odd French sense of civic secularism). So while if we are thinking of the issue as one of the oppression of women, which clearly you do, what Muslim women themselves think is important, or even crucial (although i still think that stat is a bit suss), from another perspective it mightn’t be.
Tyranny of the majority…that’s not very liberal…;-)
I may be incorrect on this (it happens). I look to a transatlantic reader to put me right if I am. Am I correct in thinking that the wearing of gang colours (or colors) and logos is illegal in some parts of the US? The French ban just seems to be an extension of that concept.
Good on the French for not tolerating the intolerable.
(Sorry OB, I will pull my finger out regarding that book review.)
Yeah Chris hurry up willya! :- )
Colour is fine, I mostly spell UK anyway, just to confuse people.
I don’t actually know, about the gang colours; I’ve been wondering that. I don’t think it would be actually illegal in any case, but it could be forbidden in school without being actually against the law. And I think it is in a lot of places; I’m fairly sure it is; but I don’t know specifics. I was talking about this (in the actual real world) with a fellow-blogger the other day. School dress codes are just not all that unusual, and not such a terrible imposition. In some ways they’re actually liberating (from the dictates of fashion and peer-pressure, for example) rather than constraining. And you’re right, the French ban is closely related, because in both cases there are tensions created that teachers then have to deal with. And they have better things to do – like teaching!
As an oblique aside, I have noticed that often the same person will one moment demand the right to express themselves however they like in their appearance, then the next proclaim that society shouldn’t judge people by appearances! What’s the point in expressing individuality or identity if it’s then said people shouldn’t judge others by their appearance?