A Nation’s Dilemma: Party Politics and the Production of Nationhood, Belonging and Citizenship in France’s Face Veil Debate By Emily Laxer A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Sociology University of Toronto © Emily Laxer 2016 A Nation’s Dilemma: Party Politics and the Production of Nationhood, Belonging and Citizenship in France’s Face Veil Debate Emily Laxer Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Sociology University of Toronto 2016 Abstract In April 2011 – following a two-year-long nationwide debate over Islamic veiling – the French government implemented a law that prohibits facial coverings in all public spaces. Prior research attributes this and other restrictive laws to France’s republican secular tradition. This dissertation takes a different approach. Building on literature that sees electoral politics as a site for generating – rather than merely reflecting – societal meanings, it argues that the 2011 ban arose in significant part out of political parties’ struggle to demarcate the boundaries of the electoral sphere in the face of an ultra-right electoral threat. Specifically, it shows that in seeking to prevent the ultra-right National Front party from monopolizing the religious signs issue, France’s major right and left parties agreed to portray republicanism as requiring the exclusion of face veiling from public space. Because it was forged in conflict, however, the agreement thus generated is highly fractured and unstable. It also conceals ongoing conflict, both within ii political parties and in civil society, over the precise meaning of French republicanism. The findings thus underscore the relationship between boundary drawing in the political sphere and the process of demarcating the cultural and political boundaries of nationhood, belonging and citizenship in contexts of immigrant diversity. iii Acknowledgments This dissertation would not have been possible without the generous support of numerous individuals, from advisors and colleagues to friends and family. First and foremost, I thank my committee members – Anna Korteweg, Monica Boyd and Erik Schneiderhan – for allowing me the freedom to explore different pathways of research and for reining those in when necessary with key guidance and insight. I am grateful to all of you for the numerous conversations, for the drafts you read, and most importantly for providing me with such exceptional models of research and teaching. I also thank my internal examiner, Hae Yeon Choo, and external examiner, Dorit Geva, for your invaluable feedback on the dissertation. Other faculty and staff in the Sociology department at the University of Toronto have also been very generous with their time and encouragement. I am grateful for the mentorship of Jeffrey Reitz, whose collaboration has opened the door to new research sites and opportunities. Thanks also to Bob Brym and John Myles for your interest and encouragement throughout the program. Carmela Versace and Michelle Bailey, your support, advice, and assistance have been vital. Other members of the department staff – Tina Colomvakos, Jeremy Nichols, Donna Ragbir, John Richard Manalo and Sherri Klassen – also contributed in innumerable ways to my experience. You continue to make our department a positive and enjoyable place to work. Thank you. To my colleagues, Paulina Garcia del Moral, Salina Abji, and Cristian Rangel: thank you for being so brilliant and inspiring. Your friendship and support have made this dissertation possible. Thank you also to Marisa Young for being a mentor in all facets of life and work, and to Marie-Pier, Jeanette, Mark, Brenna, Liam and other colleagues for your friendship along the way. I am particularly indebted to friends and family who have helped me to balance life and work as a Ph.D. student. Natasha and Mathieu, thank you for the countless adventures, which always remind me that life is for living. Randy and Liz, your support over the years has meant a lot to iv me. An especially heartfelt thank you to my parents and siblings for helping me see my way through with your humour and patience. Our conversations are what have most shaped and inspired me. Finally, I thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council for providing the funding necessary to complete this work, and to my interviewees for generously sharing your time and your stories with me. v Table of Contents List of Appendices ........................................................................................................................ ix List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. x Chapter 1: ‘We are all republican’: agreement and disagreement in the production of France’s 2011 face veil ban .......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 The case ................................................................................................................................ 3 1.2 The French face veil ban: prevailing theories .................................................................. 7 1.3 Conceptual framework ..................................................................................................... 12 1.3.1 Theorizing boundaries and boundary formation .................................................................... 13 1.3.2 Boundary formation and the production of nationhood, belonging and citizenship .............. 15 1.3.3 Party competition and the production of boundaries around ‘legitimate’ politics ................. 18 1.3.4 Conceptualizing republicanism as a ‘category of practice’ in the French face veil debate ... 22 1.4 Data/methods ..................................................................................................................... 25 1.5 Chapter outline .................................................................................................................. 28 Chapter 2: Forging the discourse of agreement: French electoral struggles over the face veil in historical perspective .............................................................................................................. 32 2.1 Ultra-right competition, ‘issue ownership’ and the boundaries of political space ...... 34 2.2 The French Revolution: birthplace of two competing notions of nationhood ............. 37 2.3 The French electoral system and the shaping of a left-right axis of competition: the contemporary Socialist and UMP parties ................................................................................. 43 2.4 The National Front ............................................................................................................ 48 2.5 Demarcating the boundaries of electoral politics during and after the 1989 ‘headscarf affair’ ............................................................................................................................................ 52 2.6 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 59 vi Chapter 3: Party competition, the quest for legitimacy and the production of citizenship in the Gerin commission ................................................................................................................. 62 3.1 Government commissions as vehicles of state legitimacy .............................................. 64 3.2 The Gerin commission: mandate and composition ........................................................ 67 3.3 Claims to agreement in the Gerin commission ............................................................... 71 3.4 Testimonies by the Muslim community: circumventing charges of stigmatization .... 75 3.5 Feminist testimonies: characterizing the face veil as an affront to the collective obligations of republican citizenship ......................................................................................... 81 3.6 Testimonies by legal experts: establishing public order as a basis for legally banning the face veil .................................................................................................................................. 89 3.7 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 94 Chapter 4: Cracks in the veneer: debates over national belonging within France’s major political parties ............................................................................................................................ 97 4.1 Theorizing internal party tensions in the context of ultra-right conflict ..................... 99 4.2 Political struggles over the face veil in the aftermath of the Gerin commission ....... 101 4.3 Right-wing cleavages: disagreements over how to frame opposition to the face veil 104 4.4 Value-based cleavages among left-wing politicians ...................................................... 107 4.4.1 ‘Rescuing’ laïcité from its right-wing kidnappers ............................................................... 107 4.4.2 ‘Reclaiming’ laïcité as a legacy of the left ........................................................................... 112 4.4.3 ‘Rejecting’ laïcité in order to transform it ............................................................................ 115 4.5 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................