Advertisement

They Only Listen When We Bash Our Culture

  • Leah Bassel
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter explores debates over gender, culture and religion, for example headscarves and the use of religious arbitration (so-called ‘sharia tribunals’) in France, England and Canada. Minority women, most visibly Muslim women, are often only audible when speaking as ‘victims’ or ‘entrepreneurs’. Norms of audibility shaped by a binary division of ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ mean minority women are selectively audible: when conforming to racist stereotypes of victimised Muslim women or, under austerity in third sector spaces, when speaking as social entrepreneurs, a neoliberal language which comes at a cost. It is a struggle to connect listening to politics and be heard on one’s own terms, to engage with others as equal, interdependent peers, when speaking both to the state and horizontally to ‘fellow citizens’.

Keywords

Minority women Laïcité Veiling ‘Shari’a tribunals’ Religious arbitration Secularism Anti-racism Austerity 

References

  1. Allen, K., and Y. Taylor. 2012. ‘Placing Parenting, Locating Unrest: Failed Femininities, Troubled Mothers and Riotous Subjects’. Studies in the Maternal 4(2). http://www.mamsie.bbk.ac.uk.
  2. Amara, F., and S. Zappi. 2003. Ni putes, ni soumises. Paris: La Decouverte.Google Scholar
  3. Amara, F., and S. Zappi. 2006. Breaking the Silence: French Women’s Voices from the Ghetto. (Translated with an Introduction by) Helen Harden Chenut. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, B. 2013. Us and Them? The Dangerous Politics of Immigration Control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson, A.R., and R. Smith. 2007. ‘The Moral Space in Entrepreneurship: An Exploration of Ethical Imperatives and the Moral Legitimacy of Being Enterprising’. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 19(6):479–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bakht, N. 2004. ‘Family Arbitration Using Sharia Law: Explaining Ontario’s Arbitration Act and Its Impact on Women’. Muslim World Journal of Human Rights 1(1):1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bancel, N., F. Bernault, P. Blanchard, A. Boubeker, A. Mbembe, and F. Vergès. 2010. Ruptures Post-coloniales. Les nouveaux visages de la société française. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  8. Bassel, L. 2014. ‘Contemporary Grammars of Resistance: Two French Social Movements’. Sociology 48(3):537–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bassel, L. 2016. ‘Intersectionality’ In Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Gender and Sexuality Studies, edited by Nancy Naples. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Bassel, L., and A. Emejulu. 2014. ‘Solidarity Under Austerity: Intersectionality in France and the United Kingdom’. Politics & Gender 10(1):130–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bassel, L., and A. Emejulu (forthcoming). Minority Women and Austerity: Survival and Resistance in France and Britain. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bayart, J. 2010. Les études postcoloniales; un carnaval académique. Paris: Karthala.Google Scholar
  13. Blanchard, P., N. Bancel, and S. Lemaire (Eds.). 2005. La fracture coloniale. La société française au prisme de l’héritage colonial. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  14. Bouamama, S., and Femmes du Blanc-Mesnil [Women of Blanc-Mesnil]. 2013. Femmes des quartiers populaires. En résistance contre les discriminations [Women from the Popular Neighbourhoods/Quarters. In Resistance Against Discriminations]. Paris: Le Temps des Cerises.Google Scholar
  15. Bouzar, D., and S. Kada. 2003. L’une voilée, l’autre pas. Le témoignage de deux musulmanes françaises. Paris: Albin Michel.Google Scholar
  16. Bowen, J. R. 2007. Why the French Don’t Like Headscarves: Islam, the State, and Public Space. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Boyd, M. 2004. ‘Dispute Resolution in Family Law: Protecting Choice, Promoting Inclusion’. Attorney General of Ontario. http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/boyd/fullreport.pdf.
  18. Canadian Lawyer Magazine. 2005. Religion and Arbitration. Canadian Lawyer Magazine.Google Scholar
  19. Carby, H. 1997. ‘White Woman Listen! Black Feminism and the Boundaries of Sisterhood’. In Black British Feminism: A Reader, edited by H. S. Mirza. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Castles, S., and M. Miller. 2009. The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the Modern World (4th edn). London: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  21. Cavarero, A. 2000. Relating Narratives. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Choudry, A., and D. Kapoor (Eds). 2013. NGOization: Complicity, Contradictions and Prospects. London: Zed.Google Scholar
  23. Choudry, A., and E. Shragge. 2011. ‘Disciplining Dissent: NGOs and Community Organizations’. Globalizations 8(4):503–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Couldry, N. 2010. Why Voice Matters: Culture and Politics After Neoliberalism. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Crenshaw, K. 1991. ‘Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics and Violence Against Women of Color’. In The Public Nature of Private Violence, edited by M. Albertson Fineman, 93–118. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Defourny, J., L. Hulgård et al. (Eds). 2014. Social Enterprise and the Third Sector: Changing European Landscapes in a Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Dhaliwal, S., and N. Yuval-Davis. (Eds.). 2014. Women Against Fundamentalism. Stories of Dissent and Solidarity. London: Lawrence and Wishart.Google Scholar
  28. Diochon, M., and A.R. Andersons. 2011. ‘Ambivalence and Ambiguity in Social Enterprise: Narratives and Values in Reconciling Purpose and Practices’. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 7(1):93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Djavann, C. 2003. Bas les voiles!. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  30. Dustin, M., and A. Phillips. 2008. ‘Whose Agenda is it? Abuses of Women and Abuses of “Culture” in Britain’. Ethnicities 8(3):405–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Emon, A. 2008. ‘Islamic Law and the Canadian Mosaic: Politics, Jurisprudence, and Multicultural Accommodation’. The Canadian Bar Review 87:391–425.Google Scholar
  32. Evans, B., T. Richmond, and J. Shields. 2005. ‘Structuring Neoliberal Governance: The Nonprofit Sector, Emerging New Modes of Control and the Marketisation of Service Delivery’. Policy and Society 24(1):73–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fassin, E. 2010. “Homosexuels des villes, homophobes des banlieues? (1 December 2010).” Retrieved. http://www.metropolitiques.eu/Homosexuels-desvilles-homophobes.html - nb5. Accessed 2 December 2010.
  34. Fernando, M.L. 2013. ‘“Save the Muslim Woman, Save the Republic: Ni Putes Ni Soumises and the Ruse of Neoliberal Sovereignty’. Modern & Contemporary France 21:2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Guénif-Souilamas, N. 2004. ‘Ni pute ni soumise ou très pute, très voilée. Laïcité d’en haut et féminisme d’en bas’. In Le Foulard Islamique en Questions, edited by C. Nordmann, 81–8. Paris: Editions d’Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  36. Guénif-Souilamas, N. 2005. ‘La réduction à son corps de l’indigène de la République. La fracture coloniale’. In La société française au prisme de l’héritage colonial, edited by P. Blanchard, N. Bancel, and S. Lemaire, 199–208. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  37. Hancock, A.-M. 2007a. ‘When Multiplication Doesn’t Equal Quick Addition: Examining Intersectionality as a Research Paradigm’. Perspectives on Politics 5(1):63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hancock, A.-M. 2007b. ‘Intersectionality as a Normative and Empirical Paradigm’. Politics and Gender 3:248–54.Google Scholar
  39. Hill Collins, P. 2000. Black Feminist Thought. Knowledge, Consciousness and the Politics of Empowerment. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Indigènes de la République. 2005. “Nous sommes les indigènes de la République ! Appel pour des Assises de l’anti-colonialisme post-colonial.” http://lmsi.net/Nous-sommes-les-indigenes-de-la. Accessed 15 February 2012.
  41. Institute of Race Relations. 2016. ‘Submission to the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee on Hate Crime and its Violent Consequences’. 1 September. http://www.irr.org.uk/news/submission-to-the-house-of-commons-home-affairs-committee-on-hate-crime-and-its-violent-consequences/
  42. Kamat, S. 2004. ‘The Privatization of Public Interest: Theorizing NGO Discourse in a Neoliberal Era’. Review of International Political Economy 11(1):155–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. LexTimes.fr. 2012. Le terme ‘souchien’ n’est pas une injure raciale, 28 January.Google Scholar
  44. Lindgaard, J. 2007. ‘L’appel des Indigènes de la République. Contestation ou consécration du dogme républicain? Étude de cas’ In La République et ses Démons: Essais de républicanisme appliqué, edited by V. Bourdeau and R Merill, 123–35. Paris: Collection Chercheurs d’ère.Google Scholar
  45. Lotem, I. 2016. ‘Anti-Racist Activism and the Memory of Colonialism: Race as Republican Critique After 2005’. Modern & Contemporary France 24(3): 283–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Martens, K. 2002. ‘Mission Impossible? Defining Nongovernmental Organisations’. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organisations 13(3):271–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mohanty, C. 1988. ‘Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourse’. Feminist Review 30:61–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. National Police Chiefs’ Council. 2016. ‘Hate Crime Undermines the Diversity and Tolerance We Should Instead be Celebrating’. 8 July. http://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/hate-crime-undermines-the-diversity-and-tolerance-we-should-instead-be-celebrating-1
  49. Ni Putes Ni Soumises. 2005. Retrieved 15 February 2013, from http://www.niputesnisoumises.com/
  50. Okin, S. M. 1999. ‘Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?’, In Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? edited by J. Cohen, M. Howard, and M. Nussbaum. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Otokoré, S. 2005. Un conte de fées républicain. Paris: Robert Laffont.Google Scholar
  52. Patel, P. 2002. ‘Back to the Future: Avoiding déjà vu in resisting racism’. In Rethinking Anti-Racisms. From theory to practice, edited by F. Anthias and C. Lloyd, 128–48. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. Patel, P. 2014. ‘Flying by the Nets of Racism, Patriarchy and Religion’. In Women Against Fundamentalism. Stories of Dissent and Solidarity, edited by S. Dhaliwal and N. Yuval-Davis, 52–66. London: Lawrence and Wishart.Google Scholar
  54. Pereira, I. 2010. Les grammaires de la contestation. Un guide de la gauche radicale. Paris: La Decouverte.Google Scholar
  55. Phoenix, A. 1987. ‘Theories of Gender and Black Families’ In Gender Under Scrutiny, edited by G. Weiner and M. Arnot, 50–63. Hutchinson: London.Google Scholar
  56. Phoenix, A., and A. Phoenix. 2012. ‘Racialisation, Relationality and Riots: Intersections and Interpellations’. Feminist Review 100:52–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Puar, J. 2007. Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Razack, S. 1995. ‘Domestic Violence as Gender Persecution: Policing the Borders of Nation, Race and Gender’. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law/Revue Femmes Et Droit 8(1):45–88.Google Scholar
  59. Razack, S. 2007. ‘The “Sharia Law Debate” in Ontario: The Modernity/Premodernity Distinction in Legal Efforts to Protect Women from Culture’. Feminist Legal Studies 15(3):3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Razack, S. 2008. Casting Out. The Eviction of Muslims from Western Law and Politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  61. Ricoeur, P. 1995. ‘Reflections on a New Ethos for Europe’. Philosophy and Social Criticism 21(5–6):3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Robine, J. 2006. ‘Les ‘indigènes de la République’: Nation et question postcoloniale Territoires des enfants de l’immigration et rivalité de pouvoir’. Hérodote 120:118–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Saghal, G. 2014. ‘Knowing My Place – The Secular Tradition and Universal Values’. In Women Against Fundamentalism. Stories of Dissent and Solidarity, edited by S. Dhaliwal and N. Yuval-Davis, 83–98. London: Lawrence and Wishart.Google Scholar
  64. Samantrai, R. 2002. AlterNatives: Black Feminism in the Post Imperial Nation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Sennett, R. 1977. The Fall of Public Man. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Siddiqui, H. 2014. ‘My Life as an Activist’. In Women Against Fundamentalism. Stories of Dissent and Solidarity, edited by S Dhaliwal and N. Yuval-Davis, 141–54. London: Lawrence and Wishart.Google Scholar
  67. Somers, M. R. 2008. Genealogies of Citizenship: Markets, Statelessness, and the Right to Have Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Sommerlad, H., and P. J. Sanderson. 2013. ‘Social Justice on the Margins: The Future of the not for Profit Sector as Providers of Legal Advice in England and Wales’. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 35(2): 305–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Spivak, G. 1988. ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’. In Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, edited by C. Nelson and L. Grossberg, 271–313. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stoler, A. L. 2011. ‘Colonial Aphasia: Race and Disabled Histories in France’. Public Culture 23(1):121–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. The Guardian. 2016. ‘Nice Becomes Latest French City to Impose Burkini Ban’, 19 August. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/19/nice-becomes-latest-french-city-to-impose-burkini-ban
  72. Ticktin, M. 2008. ‘Sexual Violence as the Language of Border Control: Where French Feminist and Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric Meet’. Signs 33(4):863–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tyler, I. 2013. Revolting Subjects: Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain. London, UK: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  74. Vakil, A.C. 1997. ‘Confronting the Classification Problem: Toward a Taxonomy of NGOs’. World Development 25(12):2057–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Yuval-Davis, N. 2012. The Politics of Belonging: Intersectional Contestations. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  76. Bassel, L. 2012a. Refugee Women: Beyond Gender versus Culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leah Bassel
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Media, Communication and SociologyUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations