untitled

NOTES TO PAGES 473–77

is heavily indebted to Schrager’s essay. On the historical and contemporary precedents for Du
Bois’s use of this trope, see also Dickson D. Bruce, Jr., ‘‘W. E. B. Du Bois and the Idea of Double
Consciousness,’’American Literature64, no. 2 (June 1992), 299–309.

57. Schrager, ‘‘Both Sides of the Veil,’’ 554–55.


58. Ibid., 556.


59. Sam Gill, ‘‘Territory,’’ inCritical Terms for Religious Studies, ed. Mark C. Taylor (Chicago:
    University of Chicago Press, 1998), 300.

Yolande Jansen, Laı ̈cite ́, or the Politics of Republican Secularism

note: Epigraphs to this chapter are from the following sources: Talal Asad, ‘‘Reflections on
Laı ̈cite ́and the Public Sphere’’ (2004), available at http://www.ssrc.org/publications/items/v5n3/
reflections4.html, accessed on June 2, 2005, p. 4; Olivier Roy,La Laı ̈cite ́face a`l’islam(Paris: Stock,
2005), 167; Henri Pena-Ruiz,Qu’est-ce que la laı ̈cite ́?(Paris: Gallimard, 2003), 112. Here and in all
following quotations, where no published translation exists, the translation is my own.

1. The law was adopted in response to ongoing conflicts about the wearing of headscarves in
   public schools, but it prohibits all ‘‘conspicuous religious signs,’’ including ‘‘large crosses’’ and
   kippas. I translateostensibleas ‘‘conspicuous,’’ following Asad, ‘‘Reflections onLaı ̈cite ́and the Public
   Sphere.’’


2. The law separating state and church, dating from December 9, 1905, has two central articles.
   Article 1: ‘‘The Republic ensures the freedom of conscience. It guarantees the free exercise of reli-
   gions with some reservations owing to the safeguard of ‘public order.’ ’’ Article 2: ‘‘The Republic
   does neither recognize, nor pay nor subsidize any religion.’’ (Pena-Ruiz,Qu’est-ce que la laı ̈cite ́?,
   109 ;English translation Jean Baube ́rot, ‘‘Two Thresholds of Laı ̈cization,’’ inSecularism and Its
   Critics, ed. Rajeev Bhargava [Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998], 117.) Since 1946,laı ̈cite ́has
   been explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. In the latest version of the Constitution, from 1958,
   it is stated that ‘‘France is an indivisible, secular, democratic, and social Republic.’’


3. Ce ́cile Laborde, ‘‘On Republican Toleration,’’Constellations9, no. 2 (2002): 167–83.


4. For recent examples, see: Asad, ‘‘Reflections onLaı ̈cite ́and the Public Sphere’’; Roy,La
   Laı ̈cite ́face al’islam; Esther Benbassa,La Re ́publique face ases minorite ́s(Paris: Mille et une Nuits,
   2003).


5. This was especially so in the colonial context. There, the doctrine oflaı ̈cite ́was accompanied
   by strong state intervention in religious matters. See: Achi Raberh, ‘‘La Se ́paration des E ́glises et de
   l’E ́tat a`l’e ́preuve de la situation coloniale: Les Usages de la de ́rogation dans l’administration du culte
   musulman en Alge ́rie (1905–1959),’’Politix17, no. 66 (2004): 81–106; and Edward Webb,‘‘Turkey’s
   France, Syria’s France:La Laı ̈cite ́in Two Ottoman Successor States’’ (2005), available at http://
   histoire-sociale.univ-paris1.fr/Collo/Migrations/Webb.pdf; accessed on June 10, 2005.


6. See Pierre Birnbaum,The Idea of France(1988; New York: Hill and Wang, 2001).


7. Please note that the use of ‘‘nation’’ in this context differs significantly from the internation-
   ally most common one, in which nation and ethnic origin are closely linked. The political nation
   has been understood by Ernest Renan as the result of a ‘‘daily plebiscite.’’ Both concepts of nation
   imply their own nationalisms.


8. Ferdinand Buisson, ‘‘Le Devoir pre ́sent de la jeunesse,’’La Morale sociale, ed. Emile Bou-
   troux (Paris, 1899); quoted from Ge ́rard Raulet,Apologie de la citoyennete ́(Paris: Cerf, 1999), 30.
   Buisson was director of primary education from 1879 to 1896 and edited theDictionnaire de pe ́da-
   gogie et d’instruction primaire, which Ge ́rard Raulet calls the ‘‘bible of republican educators at all
   levels in the Third Republic’’ (ibid., 16).

PAGE 759

759

.................16224$ NOTE 10-13-06 12:34:30 PS