CNLY THE OPPRESSED The new French legislation banning the wearing of 'ostentatious symbols of faith' in schools in the name of secular education has divided the left and feminists alike, both in France and Britain. Jane Kelly argues that rehearsing some of the debates between black and white feminists in Britain in the 1970s and 1980s may remind us of how the left should respond to the demands of the 'As a feminist I know that the revolt of the oppressed rarely takes support and solidarity amongst its members gave them a a form that will please the oppressor. I can even say: it will never strength to continue the struggle. Furthermore because of CAN DECIDE oppressed including in the debate on the wearing of the hijab. year started it looked As the new French school if the controversial law banning the wearing of the Islamic hiiab would be contested. In the event the taking hostage of two French journalists in Iraq with the demand that the French Government rescind the law backfired completely. Far from the government backing down, the majority of the French Muslim population and its leaders, supported the government and there was little if any opposition to the ban. A short, sharp lesson on the futility of such terrorist actions. However this debate is unlikely to go away. While Marxists have always viewed religion as reactionary and oppose any link between the state and religion, we nonetheless support the right of individuals to free religious expression. Why then has this new law and the expulsion of some young women from school for wearing the hijab been so controversial on the left and amongst feminists? Many on the left in France argue that banning religious symbols in schools is part of a defence of secular education, that France is a special case because of the long fight against the dominance of the catholic church to separate religion from the state, not finally achieved until the beginning of the twentieth century. But apart from the fact that there are still some Catholic schools, for example in Brittany, this confuses the fight against a state religion and against religious education with the right of individual religious expression. Perhaps a look at the history of some similar debates in Britain can help untangle these issues. Different Oppressions In the late 1970s and early 1980s there was a confrontation between black and white feminists in Britain over analysis of the role of the family in the oppression of women. While many in the early Women's Liberation Movement (WLM) had argued, correctly in my view, that the nuclear family was at the centre of women's oppression and would therefore have to be overthrown and replaced, black women replied that for them the family was also a place of refuge for the most oppressed from racist society, where 12 immigration laws they had to fight for the unity of their families that were often forcibly divided. Certainly, they argued, black men in their lives treated them in a sexist manner, just like white men, but they both - black women and black men - were also victims of racism, so that when, where and how to take up sexist behaviour was related to this other united against racism. Some white working class women implicitly adopted a similar view on the fight against class oppression. The double or even treble forms of oppression many women experienced made the forms of resistance more complicated. This complication over different oppressions led to the further development of the idea of autonomy - the right of any oppressed group (whether of black women, lesbians, gays, the disabled, etc.) to meet together to determine for themselves which issues to take up, what demands to make, the better to build a broader alliance to fight together with others, including the organised working class which was mostly dominated by white men. The idea of the right to autonomy effectively overcame the unhelpful notion of a 'hierarchy of oppressions' - for example, that sexism is more important than racism, or sexual orientation is more important than women's oppression or class exploitation. It also countered the equally divisive strategy of separatism - to organise and fight only with the similarly oppressed - which influenced some black movements and radical feminists at the time who saw white power or patriarchy as the primary cause of oppression, rather than having an integrated analysis of the questions of class, race and the family, as did socialist feminists. Some left groups opposed such autonomous organisation amongst the oppressed altogether, or opportunistically used such groups as fronts for their particular organisation. But the alliances between the miners' support groups, miners and Women against Pit Closures with black groups, lesbian and gay groups and feminists during the 1984-5 strike, proved the usefulness of autonomy. Black (and white) supporters demanded the miners dropped racist chanting (which they did) and feminists demanded they stopped sexist chanting (which they did). In addition the miners and the NUM took up the demands of the oppressed. Thus,
These arguments took place in very different political Many on the left have been unconsciously influenced by hijab is a symbol of women's oppression and should be a site of intimacy, love and support. The simple demand not only solidarity with the strike was forged, but also the beginnings of a potent alliance of all the oppressed, which could challenge the rule of the bourgeoisie. This was an added reason why the bosses had to defeat the strike. Another issue of the WLM - reproductive rights - went through a similar process. The early demand of 'free abortion on demand' was criticised by black women who countered that they had little difficulty in being offered abortion for racist and possibly eugenicist reasons and further were often the subject of experimental contraception such as Depo Vera. Rather black women wanted choice - whether, when, where and how to have children. The slogan 'A woman's right to choose' was therefore a broader and more inclusive one. This debate led to an unfortunate and probably unnecessary split in the main pro-choice campaign the National Abortion Campaign (NAC). Demonisation of Islam circumstances from the present situation. but the debate over the hijab shows that we still need an approach that 1) acknowledges the value of autonomy, 2) recognises the role of imperialism and racism, and 3) understands that in order to forge unity between various struggles, we have to keep in mind that oppressions are multiple, intersecting and contradictory. The current reactionary French legislation banning the wearing of the hijab in schools was passed in the repressive atmosphere of the so-called 'war on terror' unleashed by Bush after 9/11. Terrorist legislation. police round-ups, racism in the media and on the streets. especially directed against Moslem people but also catching asylum seekers and other members of ethnic minorities in their wake, have demonised anyone assumed to be of Islamic faith, and constructed them as potential terrorists. The response by numbers of women to this repression and racist attack has been to militantly adopt the cultural symbolism of their religion and culture, the hijab or scarf - to embrace their Islamic identity. This has led to confusion and sometimes antagonism on the part of many feminists and those on the left who argue that the opposed - whatever the young women themselves think. At an abstract level we can all agree that as Marxists we oppose religion as 'the opium of the people'. and cultures that demand that women cover their heads, their bodies, are repressive; the idea that women have to be covered and controlled and lose their liberty, so that unfettered male desire can be curtailed. is reactionary and should be opposed. We can also agree that governments such as that of the Taliban in Afghanistan, or the Saudia Arabian regime, that force women against their will to wear certain clothes, such as the burka or the chador, and that deprive women of access to education or medical care, should of course be opposed. We should perhaps remember though that, closer to home, Catholic women cover their heads before entering a church, that some Orthodox Jewish women shave their heads - these misogynist practices are not confined to Islam. In any case the Koran does not demand that women be covered up in this way (only the breasts), it was a later practice adopted from Christian communities. The description of the young women by Chirac as 'aggressive' is obviously linked to western attacks on Islam, but how can we explain the confusion and even repulsion that has greeted the wearing of the hijab by the left and by feminists? It is common ground amongst cultural theorists that the meaning of all symbols - religious or otherwise - is neither universal nor incapable of change. Thus a crucifix worn by a Christian nun has different connotations to one worn by Madonna. The meaning of a hijab adopted by choice is different to that of one worn by a woman against her will. But perhaps there is a deeper problem, more closely associated with colonialism and imperialism. Islamic Stereotypes preconceived stereotypes of Moslem women - stereotypes inherited from centuries of colonial oppression. Images in paintings and later photographs of the passive 'Odalisque', or groups of sexually available women in a harem, appear in works by Delacroix, Renoir and Matisse - the so-called masters of French painting Offensive images of this nature have indeed long been part of the general currency of Western painting. popular culture and film. Vocal and active young women dressed in the hijab - protesting against the war in Iraq for example - contradict and challenge these inherited images, exposing the racist and imperialist basis of the stereotype, leaving confusion. confident and active, with strong views on politics and culture, undermine the notion of passivity commonly associated with a veiled woman. socialists condemn outright the adoption of the hijab as a badge of identity. how can we have a dialogue and discussion with these young women - on the hijab or anything else? The debates between black and white feminists on the nuclear family led many to accept that it was a place full of contradictions - both the centre of women's oppression and simultaneously that the family should be overthrown took none of these contradictions into account. Perhaps it is this concept of 'contradiction' that can inform the left's understanding of the wearing of the hijab by young Muslim women. For while it is a symbol of extreme oppression in some societies, its meaning is culturally relative. Its adoption in Western Europe is part of a desire for religious and cultural identity, an identity under attack by imperialism and racism, an identity many women are proud to assert. With their religion and culture demonised by western 'democracies', Muslim women wear the hijab with pride as a rejection of this oppression. Who better than the oppressed themselves to decide how to deal with the conditions that face them? As the Irish Marxist James Connolly pointed out ninety years ago: None so fitted to break the chains as they who wear them. none so well equipped to decide what is a fetter. 13