What, exactly, is wrong with the debate concerning national identity launched late last year? What can one reply to those who say in all sincerity that a debate is always a good thing, never to be feared or avoided, and that even the most absurd or poorly put question merits a real debate?
The first problem lies in the origin of this debate and the fact that the initiative for it comes from a President of the Republic. It's one thing when commissions of experts are invited to debate a matter, as is the case in the debate over secularism. When citizens' associations (freely) get hold of a set of themes and attempt to clarify them, they are expressing the spirit of democracy. And it is perfectly natural for a Party, any party, to provide a political forum for its sympathizers, to engage in discussion and to propose solutions (all the more so since rival parties are free to refuse to enter the game or, on the contrary, offer other solutions). But for the State as such to act as a substitute for all of them, for it to wake up one fine morning, with its networks, its officials, and all the means at hand, shouting from the rooftops to "the lifeblood" of the country, "Here's the imperative debate. Here's what I, the State, have decided is suitable to debate, from now on. And what's more, this debate should be conducted within these limits, and in this tone, and until such-and-such a time," -- this is not only very strange, but unique in recorded history. A State debate. A forced debate. A directed, supervised, controlled debate, with specific boundaries on every side. We love debating, and we believe there is no generally accepted idea, no certainty, and no opinion that does not deserve to be shaken by the positive stimulus of a free debate. That is why we are compelled to refuse this false debate, this caricature, this debate where sixty million infantilized citizens are ordered, on the announced date, to hand in their papers to the Grand Examiner who will blow the whistle marking the end, not of recess, but of the debate.
A second problem lies in the fact that this State debate comes from a State that -- aggravating circumstance -- is the first in our History to have invented this republican heresy of a "Ministry of National Identity and Immigration". Unlike Badiou, I do not believe that Sarkozyism is "transcendental Pétainism." And, contrary to Todd, I do not think it is a mark of a "social pathology." And as for comparing Eric Besson to Pierre Laval [head of the collaborationist Vichy government under Philippe Pétain from 1942 on] or Marcel Déat [notorious collaborationist of Vichy], it is, quite simply, inept. But at the same time, words have a history, and language, a subconscious. And the free associations they inspire are like grenades that explode in the brain -- even, and especially, when unintended or unplanned by the pyrotechnicians who planted them there. It starts with this apparently insignificant "and" of the "Ministry of National Identity and Immigration." We begin with a bang, with the co-presence, in one significant chain, of the idea that there may be a malaise of national civilization and a problem related to the way we deal with immigration. And voilà! The movement is on its way! One step further and we have Madame Morano, in unison with the nauseating comments that have now become commonplace in every Prefecture, describing young Muslims as bad Frenchmen who are reluctant to integrate into our society. Is this a slip? An unexpected blunder? No, it is the structural effect of a scene that was set nearly three years ago, the workings of a discourse that cannot function without excluding, stigmatizing, kindling tension and hatred. It constitutes the liberation of the expression of xenophobia, even racism, that Republicans of both Left and Right have agreed to restrain, upon which all the authorities of the apparatus of a democratic State that has lost its mind have suddenly bestowed their blessing.
And finally, there is a third problem that concerns the use made of the very notion of identity. From the outset, I have suggested that, all identities considered, if there is one that is a problem for a Frenchman, an identity that isn't in working order, it is the European one. But, clearly, the very concept of identity is a philosophical trap. This past year has marked the disappearance of a great thinker, a Frenchman named Claude Levi-Strauss. Yet if those who paid him the moving and proper homage of a grateful nation had been even vaguely familiar with his thought, they would have known that one of the great combats of his lifetime was his fight against this passion, this poison, this prison of identity. In his acceptance speech upon receiving the Prix Catalunya, on May 13th, 2005, he cautioned, "I have known an era where national identity was the only conceivable principle for relations between States; we know the disastrous results." In 1978, I co-edited, with Jean-Marie Benoist, a book entitled The Identity. Already, it warned of the temptation to reduce a social system expanding in its richness and complexity to its supposed identity. In this regard, if Levi-Strauss left us a lesson, it was simply that the word "identity" applies to subjects, not to communities; it can be used in the plural, never in the singular. To forget that, to reduce a nation either to this collection of things in common or to this ossified catalogue of traits that are the two possible names of its supposed identity is to impoverish it, to kill it, all the while pretending to give it faith in its future.
For these three reasons at the very least, it would be wise to put an end to this debate. The President of the Republic has opened Pandora's box. It is up to him to close it again.
Well, most of us (Jim DeMint doesn't count).
Religion and racial characteristics are red herrings. Language may have a role in that it facilitates interaction within the community.
In the US, if you are born in America you are an American, France has the same rule "droit de sol" law but apparently its citizens haven't got the news. Hence, it was not uncommon to see comments stating that the commenter was "français pure souche" -- meaning that he or she is white with a generational ties, hence implying that people who are born in france but who lack long generational ties are not really french. Herein lies the problem, even if one wants to integrate, how can you in a society that will never accept you? By the way Sarkaozy is not really french as he has Hungarian ancestry.
I'm just glad we never really adopted the conceit of "freedom fries."
As you said, balance. Too much of something, whether immigration or diversity, will inevitably cause a backlash.
As for immigration, there are two ways to "do" it-the right way and the wrong way. Clearly Europe and the U.S. have doing it the wrong way. They are suffering the problems associated with misty-eyed foolishness-that we must be ever tolerant of alien ideas and cultures in out midst. Somehow, it will all work out. It isn't working out now, and it won't in the future.
The nations and systems that actually function must protect themselves from an endless tide of people who are fleeing from dysfunctional systems. I want all those people to have better lives and future, but they must realize these hopes by remaking their own systems. We connot solve the problems of the world by bringing everyone-and every idea-into our countries. But we can destroy our countries in the foolish attempt. Export the dream, don't import all the people.
The French are famous for trying to preserve their culture. Why stop now?
F. Haiman
The main point being negotiation. I create context and premise using language; I would assume to describe the stimulas I encounter or have already encountered. These facts give me a utility; I can negotiate my affinity to said utility which creates a basis for heirarchy, with heirarchy and utility come the stratification of roles. I would further assume these are character roles as the origins are found in sensation and expression. So then without language perhaps we can do without identity or at least a role with which we can fill with an identity.
I would like to see broader levels of identity -- who we are as thinking human beings, as sentient animals, as self-reflective minds -- take on greater importance compared to more specific identifications as members of a specific clan or cult, or fans of a specific sports team.
I would like to see broader levels of identity take on greater importance compared to more specific identifications. But I do not believe I have any right to coerce such identification, any more than I believe in France's right to impose a notion of Frenchness.
I can't speak for France, but today's "health care debate" in America ignores ideas which involve less government, such as allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines.
The "education debate" never considers that government intervention is the problem, not the solution. The government lock on most schools of education, numerous regulations, and funding of schooling for over 80% of students tends to suppress dissent more effectively than any board of censorship.
The "financial crisis debate" never considers that the Federal Reserve's easy money policies are a major root cause of the instability in the financial sector. Huffington Post recently reported that the Fed practically owns ( or rents ) a substantial portion of the economics profession.
While a plurality of Americans say they'd support "lower taxes and fewer government services", the two parties offer only "more taxes and more services" or "lower taxes and more services, ala Laffer Curve" -- the idea of actually trimming government services is totally off the table.
This is not new; Edward G Griffith documents the rigged creation of the Federal Reserve back in 1913; John Taylor Gatto documents the rigged rush to government control of education 150 years ago.
Political debate in America has been totally rigged for a long time, even when not explicitly run by the State. Perhaps we should applaud France for being honest enough to explicitly take ownership of the debate.
I believe the relevant aphorism is "elections have consequences". Deregulation won for a generation, and now it lost a couple elections. Live with it.
Here's a clue: google "regulatory capture" -- so-called "regulators" are always rented or owned by industry, and that is true for any industry you can name. Those who wish to enter insurance markets have to make it past a gauntlet of those whom they wish to compete with. Q: do we want new competitors to offer better products for less? Show of hands? The nays have it. This is why your insurance is so expensive.
Contrast this with the airlines, which actually were deregulated - by some of the smarter Democrats, by the way - which caused competition to increase and air fares to drop. Same for trucking deregulation. Again, Democrats led the charge. I have no idea why today's Democrats won't continue that excellent tradition of standing up for consumers.
Immigrants who are vetted and who show us the respect of following our requirements-jumping through our hoops-are most likely to assimilate into our culture in a healthy way, even whil adding some diversity. Also, raw numbers are important. Too many of even the best immigrants can overstress a host culture.
To say Christianity (Protestants) wasn't a major force in crating this country is just silly... Because of this and the 79% he's siting (I don't dispute) means he is accurate. To say we're a Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, non-Religious nation is silly and not even close to accurate...
Tt may shock Americans that the govt would try to initiate a debate, but it is the subject itself, national identity, that sparks controversy in France.
As for ethnic/religious bias, make no mistake about it, the bias runs both ways.
Ms Morano expressed her position on errant youth in a very awkward, if not dumb way, but only in France would someone call her racist. She wants youth to start speaking French instead of their neighborhood gibberish, especially if they want a job! I just refuse to speak to people who write me in SMS talk or in an aggressive vernacular. And I mean really aggressive and obnoxious talk!
I do NOT want to stigmatize North African, but there is a REAL problem of integration in France. Part of it is due to the lack of plentiful jobs; employers hold off on hiring because it is hard and costly to fire bad employees. But the main part is the refusal of many to educate themselves, as any public school teacher will attest.
France is the ONLY country where its naturalized citizens boo the national anthem at sports events, especially when France is playing their former country's team.
The issue of national identity is more than relevant, but it is only the beginning of a discussion that should have begun 40 years ago!!