Sample Analysis

Why France Still Insists on Cultural Assimilation
By William Pfaff

PARIS The proposed ban on Islamic head scarves in French state schools has provoked considerable foreign comment, much of it hostile. In some Islamic countries it has been taken as an attack on the Islamic religion, which it is not. It is a defense of the impartiality of the state with regard to religion, and of the cultural authority and autonomy of secular education in France.

The usual European or American criticism is that the French are rejecting multicultural society, held to be modern and liberating.

Multiculturalism seems generous, but in practice has produced mixed results for both society and immigrants. It is still new, its eventual consequences on a national society relatively untried.

A usually neglected point is that it does not demonstrate self-confidence in the host society. It comes out of a period of deep self-doubt in American political society and American culture, exported to other countries.

Like so many other unhappy things, it comes from the Vietnam War. Until Vietnam, American immigration policy was cultural assimilation: the same policy that France is following today.

The universal assumption of Americans had always been that immigrants came to the United States to become (or see their children become) culturally assimilated Americans. Americans took for granted that assimilation was essential to national unity.

A basic function of the American public school had always been to “Americanize” foreigners.

With the Vietnam War, a significant number of Americans ceased to be proud of the United States. A significant number of others decided that the Americans who were against the war were little better than traitors. Outside the United States, a significant number of people decided that the United States was an “imperialistic” society – not the land of opportunity and freedom.

The political, psychological and cultural consequences of the Vietnam War for the United States are far beyond examination here, but one of them was that the United States ceased to demand cultural assimilation from immigrants. A new political correctness became dominant that said the cultural assimilation of immigrants was cultural “aggression.”

The United States no longer demands undivided loyalties or cultural assimilation. This represents an historic change in American national belief.

Britain and much of Atlantic Europe saw in multiculturalism a response to their own immigration problems with culturally distinct minorities. Multiculturalism meant that immigrants did not need to be integrated. They were assumed to be happier living in their own linguistic and cultural communities.

One result in Europe of large and unassimilated immigrant populations has been populist reaction against them, accurately characterized as xenophobic and violent. The flamboyant populist political figure who emerged during the 1998 Netherlands national election, Pim Fortuyn (assassinated during the campaign), said simply, and not unreasonably, “The Netherlands are full.”

The British cling to the multicultural principle, doing their best to make it work, with real if still inconclusive success. Germany – which traditionally has held nationality conveyed by birth, and has one of the lowest rates of natural reproduction in the world – now confronts a crisis provoked by its pretense, during the last half century, that its residents of foreign origin were “guest workers’ who planned to go home. (They are 9 percent of total population, the highest percentage in Europe.)

The French position has always been that nationality is indifferent to race or origin, but is cultural and can be acquired. It has been the European country most open to immigration, but the most insistent on assimilation. The national school system has been a machine for assimilating Corsicans, Bretons, Basques, patois-speakers from other regions, and then East European Jews, Poles, Spaniards, Italians, Portuguese, Vietnamese and sub-Saharan Africans.

However, the machine has not worked in the same way for Algerian, Moroccan and Tunisian Muslims, which is the reason there is a head scarf controversy.

The positive result of the controversy is that it has inspired a huge debate in France over how to promote social ascension and cultural integration of Muslims. It has even introduced the hitherto taboo (because discriminatory) notion of affirmative action.

Integration nonetheless remains the model and the goal. The advantage the French have is that they still believe in themselves and the power of their culture. Multiculturalism is the recourse of those who no longer possess that confidence.

Analysis of ?Why France Insists on Cultural Assimilation?

A Lee Student (used with the author’s permission)

Assimilation is the gradual process whereby a minority is taken into another culture by adopting that culture?s customs. Cultural assimilation takes place in many countries, including the United States. However, in most countries the minority is not forced to change; assimilation is strictly optional. The article ?Why France Still Insists on Cultural Assimilation? discusses the potential ban of headscarves in public French schools as an indicator of how the French are guarding their culture against change by foreigners. The thesis of the article is the last lines: ?The advantage the French have is that they still believe in themselves and the power of their culture. Multiculturalism is the recourse of those who no longer possess that confidence.? Although the thesis is clearly stated, the argument is neither well developed nor cogent.

This article?s author sees the ban as ?A defense to the impartiality of the state with regard to religion.? However, it is one thing to want religion to be optional for everyone; it is completely another to force a rule on people who would consider that rule morally wrong. One would assume the author of this article had never considered what it must be like to be a Muslim in a country where one?s beliefs are not accepted by the majority of the people. Furthermore, he has no convincing argument of why the removal of headscarves would be beneficial to the schoolchildren in France who are not Muslims. He sees multiculturalism as a dangerous idea with consequences that are yet to be seen and a threat to the nationalism of France. Yet, the author never really establishes his ethos. Who is he that his ideas are so important? What study has he done that will lead him to a cogent conclusion? What truly moral base does he have? None of these questions are answered in his essay.

This dangerous idea of multiculturalism, he says, goes back to when the United States entered the Vietnam War. The war did not change the view of Americans as far as multiculturalism is concerned; America has always been a country made up of different peoples and cultures. If America had changed its views on Vietnam, Pfeff provided no examples to show those changes. It seems as though the Vietnam War was thrown into this article to serve as a red herring because he could not come up with any reasonable arguments to prove his opinion. In fact, the article only mentions France in five out of the fifteen paragraphs. Thus, one may see that the author really has no logos.

After he finished discussing the Vietnam War, Pfaff goes on to another theory that the result of ?unassimilation? in Britain and Western Europe was violence. He also states that Britain and Western European countries thought that immigrants would be happier not being integrated. He didn?t provide any reasonable explanation as to why these countries have this belief or, other than an assassination that may or may not have been related to foreigners, any specific examples of violence that were the result of these countries? multiculturalism.

In discussing Germany?s foreign population, the author did not prove anything. While the the Germans have the highest ?guest worker? population in Europe, Pfeff failed to demonstrate why that group of people was a problem or how it has negatively affected the country.

The way the author relates the way French schools assimilate minorities to a machine is disturbing. The ?machine? didn?t work the same way when integrating Muslim individuals. This failure of the system is supposedly the reason behind the scarf ban. One would think there would be more behind why the Muslims haven?t integrated well than what they are wearing on their heads. Here, Pfaff is guilty of oversimplification.

I understand striving to keep nationalism alive. I think Pfaff?s view that ?The nationality of France is indifferent to race or origin, but it?s cultural and can be acquired.? If nationality is something that can be acquired, it would be an option and not a forced issue. Pfaff has created a false dilemma: France could have a strong sense of nationality without changing people?s religion and the way they dress.

France is a secular nation. The word secular means not having to do with a particular religious belief. The fact that the country has a secular view is acceptable, but the people of that country should be able to choose their religion. Whether one?s religion requires one to wear specific clothing or not to eat pork should be allowed as long as one?s personal beliefs don?t infringe on the rights of another individual.

The author of this article also neglected to show proof as to why assimilation is such a good thing. He only says that it promotes nationalism. However, for example, the United States has a strong sense of nationality while also having many different cultures. In other words, we can all be different from one another and still be Americans.

Every country needs a balance between multiculturalism and assimilation, but a country does not need to have its people assimilated to some degree to be unified. A country should also strive to be multicultural for the citizens to be able to learn from people different from themselves. People should not be forced to do something that they think is morally wrong just to live where they chose or attend a public school. Integration should still be a possibility without taking away one?s individuality. Pfaff has an underdeveloped argument that is fallacious.