How has the Female Body become a Site of National Identity Construction and Representation in contemporary France?

(1)

MA Thesis in European Studies Identity & Integration Track Graduate School for Humanities Universiteit van Amsterdam

Eilidh McCann 11314060

Main Supervisor: Dr. Krisztina Lajosi-Moore Second Supervisor: Dr. Marleen Rensen

(2)

Acknowledgements

I would like to extend my thanks to all those who assisted me in the completion of my MA thesis.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Krisztina Lajosi-Moore for all her words of wisdom and encouragement. I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Alex Drace-Francis for his assistance to my peers and I in the development of our MA thesis projects. Thanks goes out to all the staff of the University of Amsterdam European Studies department.

I would like to express my gratitude to my superiors who I have reached out to at University College Cork, for all their interest, perspective and encouragement.

(3)

Preface

This essay was written as part of the Master of Arts programme of European Studies: Identity and Integration. Citations have not been translated because of the prominence of the French language in Europe. Moreover, specific terminology like laïcité does not have a direct English translation therefore, for clarity, certain terminology remains in its original form. Not for lack of effort, I have been obligated to cite secondary sources for certain images and media sources due to geographical remoteness and lack of accessibility to foreign language sources.

This research question was inspired by my essay that was written for the module of Cultures of Nationalism, as part of my Master of Arts degree in European Studies: Identity and Integration. This essay was entitled ‘The Contested Perception of Marianne: Reflections of a Contemporary France?’

My bachelor dissertation featured a similar line of inquiry regarding laïcité. It focused on an in-depth analysis of the judicial process of the Baby Loup case in France between 2010 and 2014. The dissertation was entitled, ‘Baby Loup: An Exceptional Case? An analysis of the Nature of Laïcité in Contemporary France.’ 

(4)

Acknowledgements………..……… 1

Preface………..………..……… 2

Contents Page………..………..…………. 3

I. Methodology & Theoretical Background………. 5

I.i Introduction & Background………. 5

I.ii Discourse & Media Analysis..……… 7

I.iii National Identity..……….………. 9

I.iv Perspectives & Approaches……….………. 10

I.iv.a Gender & Feminism………..………… 11

I.iv.b Multiculturalism……….……….….. 12

I.v. Case Studies: Marianne & the Veiled Muslim Woman……..……….. 15

II. Contextualisation: Female Symbolism within the French Republic………. 19

II.i Marianne………..……… 19

II.i.a Evolutive History……… 22

II.i.b Interpretations & Confusion..………..………….………..… 24

II.ii. The Veiled Muslim Woman……….… 26

II.ii.a The Nation’s Other……… 28

(5)

III. French, Feminine & Feminist?………. 35

III.i Burdening the Body………. 35

III.i.a Femen……… 36

III.i.b The Real & the Idealised……….. 39

III.ii Cultural Framing: Burkinigate……… 41

III.ii.a Femininity à la Français………..…42

III.ii.b Mothers of the Nation………..… 46

IV. Feminism versus Multiculturalism……… 50

IV.i. The Burqa Ban………. 50

IV.i.a The Face of the Other……… 53

IV.ii Identity Politics……… 55

IV.ii.a Immigration……….……….……… 58

IV.iii The Racialisation of Marianne……….……….…………. 61

IV.iii.a The Ethnicisation of Marianne……… 62

V. Conclusion………..… 64

V.i Veiling Marianne……….. 64

V.ii An Engendered & Racialised Identity of the Nation………..………. 65

Appendix ……… 67

(6)

I. Methodology & Theoretical Background

I.i. Introduction and Background

The proliferation of events where French national identity was being projected upon the female body often involved the enforcing – or reinforcing – of certain ideals surrounding not only national identity but, equally, female identity in contemporary French society. Moore (2012) indeed insists that ‘[f]emale bodies have stood as perpetually re-deployable symbols of the French Republic throughout its history’. The de-veiling of Algerian women as a 1

means of demonstrating success in the French colonisation process; the presumptuous 2

premise that Marianne must be depicted as having a bare breast alongside; and the de-robing of Muslim women on sunny beaches in Nice in 2016; all indicate the significance of the female form in public and political discourse concerning national identity in France.

Historically speaking, studies have shown that laïcité – a distinct form of separation of church and state - was imposed significantly less in colonised countries than in the French metropole. Reflecting upon the infamous de-veiling of Muslim women in order to demonstrate the success of the French colonisation project, one could assume that this act was therefore not religiously motivated but culturally and politically motivated. The pattern of cultural and political motivation is reaffirmed by Patrick Weil (2008) who notes how the label of ‘Muslim’ in late 1880’s, colonised Algeria maintained an ethnic-political – not merely a religious – character. He goes on to underline how a decision made by the court of appeals in 1910 Indochina is often cited in order to reflect the situation of Algerian Muslims at the time: ‘in their nationality, they resemble citizens; in their personal status, they resemble foreigners.’ In contemporary France, the term ‘Muslim’ is not only built upon religious 3

Alison Moore, ‘Historicising Sexual Symbols.’ Chap 1 in Sexing Political Culture in the History of France, ed. Alison 1

Moore (Amherst, New York: Cambria Press, 2012), 2.

Pierre Tévanian, ‘A Conservative Revolution within Secularism: The Ideological Premises and Social Effects of the March, 2

15 2004, ‘Anti-Headscarf’ Law’ in Frenchness and the African Diaspora: Identity and Uprising in Contemporary France, eds. Charles Tshimanga, Didier Gondola and Peter Bloom (Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2009), 198.

Patrick Weil, How to be French: Nationality in the Making since 1789, trans. Catherine Porter (Durham; London: Duke 3

(7)

foundations but can equally be defined as a ‘neo-ethnic term’ to describe immigrants with an Asian or African background. 4

The complexity of contemporary political and public discourse vis-à-vis Islamic headscarves in France mirrors the perceived transformation of laïcité into ‘un ethos social de la communauté’. This proclamation stems from the suggestion that there exists a ‘jarring’ with 5

another culturally based phenomenon: female emancipation and, more generally, gender equality. These are consequently used to legitimise policies that seek to ‘de-veil’ Muslim women. In short, la ‘ “question nationale” est, singulièrement en France, liée à la fois à des enjeux de sexe et des enjeux de race.’ 6

In France, an idealised rhetoric has been used regarding ethnic minorities which combine with certain ideals of national and female identity. These ideals are expressed through discursive prompts which accumulate to form a particular, ethnic-gendered discourse. This piece of research will focus predominantly upon discursive and visual representations of national identity in order to explore their effects upon the maintenance – and construction – of French national identity along the lines of gender and ethnicity. An exploration of national identity construction and representation will be built upon the consideration of the localisation of the female form in national, visual and verbal discourse. Specifically, it will entail an exploration of contemporary perceptions and tensions surrounding two contested female forms: firstly, that of Marianne – the allegorical figure of the French Republic – and secondly, that of the veiled Muslim woman. In summary, the research question will read as follows: How has the female body become a site of national identity construction and representation in contemporary France?

Riva Kastoryano and Angéline Escafré-Dublet, ‘France’ in Addressing tolerance and diversity discourses in Europe: A 4

Comparative Overview of 16 European Countries, eds. Ricard Zapata-Barrero and Anna Triandafyllidou (Barcelona:

CIDOB/GRITIM-UPF, 2012), 38.

Romi S. Mukherjee, ‘Marianne voilée’, Histoire, monde et cultures religieuses 2, no. 34 (2015): 83. 5

Clare Hancock, ‘Le corps féminin, enjeu géopolitique dans la France postcoloniale’, L’Espace Politique 13, (2011): para 1. 6

(8)

I.ii Discourse & Media Analysis

In this thesis the focus will be on the public and political debate regarding national identity in France. This will be assessed by means of discourse and media analysis. May (2016) states that ‘[m]edia content is an ‘artefact’ of social discourse’; therefore the two analyses will be 7

introduced in combination. Equally, the analyses will be synthesised throughout this thesis in order to make the research as coherent as possible.

The importance of this type of methodological approach is supported by May (2016), who conducted a discursive analysis of the usage and response to the term ‘multiculturalism’ in French newspapers between 1995 and 2013. May emphasises how essential it is ‘to analyse the national press because it is one of the “loci” from which discursive strategies are elaborated and influence the public debate.’ Media analysis is extremely informative for 8

gaining insight into public perceptions as it holds significant power in terms of framing and ‘steering’ national discourse.

It can be argued that the influence of the media is particularly poignant in France. This poignancy is partly due to national legal frameworks and the French Republican ideology represented by Article 1 of the 1958 Constitution. The first article states that ‘La France est une République indivisible, laïque, démocratique et sociale. Elle assure l'égalité devant la loi de tous les citoyens sans distinction d'origine, de race ou de religion’. This article signals 9

that, for example, no official statistical data can accurately account for the number of practicing Muslims or the number of Muslim women who wear the burqa or other face veils. Such circumstances cannot be accurately counted because there exist no reasoned, 10

official figures. That being said, estimates have been made, but there is much difficulty in

Paul May, ‘French cultural wars: public discourses on multiculturalism in France (1995-2013)’, Journal of Ethnic and 7

Migration Studies 42, no. 8 (2016): 1335.

Paul May, ‘French cultural wars: public discourses on multiculturalism in France’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 8

42, no. 8, (2016): 1336.

‘Constitution du 4 octobre 1958’, Legifrance, last modified December 1, 2009. 9

For a visual explanation of the variations of Muslim wearing see André Gerin, ‘Rapport d’information en application de 10

l’article 145 du règlement au nom de la Mission d’Information sur la pratique du port du voile intégrale sur le territoire nationale’, Assemblée Nationale, January 26, 2010, 26.

(9)

assessing such information. Therefore, the French media can freely participate in what Bottici (2014) terms the fabrication of the political myth. 11

As an example, one can reference Le Figaro’s 1991 cover depicting, controversially, a veiled Marianne. [Figure 1] Inside the paper an entire section was dedicated to the issue of immigration in France in which the paper utilised particular scare-mongering strategies in regards to people originating from Muslim-majority countries. A similar image appeared more recently in a 2013 Valeurs Actuelles cover. [Figure 2] The cover greatly contributes towards a rhetoric that perceives a weakening or failure of the Republic in response to multiculturalism. In turn, the return of religion – specifically Islam – violates the French principle of laïcité, according to Valeurs Actuelles. The aforementioned examples demonstrate how French media can, and does, contribute to the sensationalisation of minority cultures. The French media can use a multitude of journalistic strategies to sensationalise an issue, for example: by providing a greater number of pages to a certain issue – as demonstrated above in Le Figaro – or accentuating political discourse or news stories with poignant imagery and/or political commentary. The media can also contribute towards the construction of ‘reality’ simply by elevating certain issues to the status of ‘news’ or by deeming them ‘problems’.

In a similar vein, political and public discourse will be analysed, in conjunction with media analysis, in a variety of forms including, but not limited to, political speeches, political manifestos and parliamentary reports. The media analysis is based upon four major French newspapers. The appropriately named magazine Marianne will be addressed alongside Valeurs Actuelles, Le Figaro and Le Monde. Le Figaro was added latterly to the list following the reading of May’s discourse analysis study which demonstrated the importance of the paper in the larger public debate, often thanks to its controversial nature. These papers have been chosen because of their political orientation and the balance of these orientations: Le Monde is, arguably, centre-left/non-partisan, Valeurs Actuelles and Le Figaro are right-wing whilst Marianne magazine is left-wing. Together this selection of media constitutes a balanced and well-rounded framework upon which the media analysis will be conducted.

Chiara Bottici, Imaginal Politics: Images Beyond Imagination and the Imaginary (New York: Colombia University Press, 11

(10)

I.iii National Identity

In Imagined Communities (1991) Anderson recognises that the nation is not necessarily something primordial but a social construction along cultural, political and imaginary lines. Anderson’s work focuses on the horizontal details of nationalism (individual to individual) rather than the vertical (state to individual): ‘the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship’. By contrast, this study predominantly assesses the vertical 12

relationship. This vertical-relationship-based approach is taken primarily because visual representations and symbols are often enacted – or affected by the limitations placed on them – by state authorities. That being said, an exploration of public perceptions and media responses to the state’s imposition of national representation will be integrated into this research in order to inform all influences upon the formation of French national identity.

In his discussion of nationalism and religious affiliations, Anderson (1991) underlines the similar mentalities inferred within both, and consequently, the potential ideological clash. Anderson traces the origins of nationalism and national identity and thereby notes that in order to understand these concepts, one should acknowledge sacred communities’ visual representations because we exist in a world in which ‘the figuring of imagined reality was [and still is] overwhelmingly visual and aural.’ Similarly, Guibernau (2013) underlines that 13

the importance of symbolism for national and religious belonging is based upon ‘providing them with distinct attributes destined to highlight their unique character’. In short, one can 14

assume that visual and symbolic representations play ‘a critical part in collective life’ no 15

matter what notions they may be based upon, whether of nationhood, religion, gender or race.

Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism, rev. ed. (London: Verso 12

Editions, 1991), 7.

Editions, 1991), 22-23.

Montserrat Guibernau, Belonging: Solidarity and Division in Modern Societies (Cambridge, UK; Maiden, USA: Polity 14

Press, 2013), 92.

Montserrat Guibernau, Belonging: Solidarity and Division in Modern Societies (Cambridge, UK; Maiden, USA: Polity 15

(11)

Anderson (1991) goes on to consider the major historical influences on the ‘imagined community’ in terms of visibility including the novel and, latterly, the newspaper. Another example of visual influence upon the ‘imagined community’ was the colonised state that was used to condition ‘a human landscape of perfect visibility; the condition of this visibility was that everyone, had (as it were) a serial number’. In this research both the newspaper - and 16

the wider media sphere - as well as the colonial history of France are highly significant areas to the formation of contemporary national history. However, with the decrease of illiteracy amongst developed nations, visual communication may be questioned: has visual communication become less valuable to nation-building today? Exploration of the visual representation and symbolism of the French Republic and the French people will demonstrate the continued value of visual communication in nation-building - and thereby provides an interesting and valuable area to study. This is further emphasised by the consideration of the increased dependency on visual and social medias. Visual representation of the nation remains crucial to our understanding of the ‘imagined community’, and is seen by some as increasingly important than ever before. 17

I.iv Perspectives & Approaches

The following section, relating to national identity, will focus on the interaction between gender and national identity studies whilst the second section will discuss the politics of recognition and studies regarding multiculturalism. The demand for recognition often takes one of three forms: actors of minority groups, feminist groups, or by means of multiculturalist politics. Multiculturalist and feminist perspectives will be integrated into this study of French national identity in order to reflect critically on how French identity has been constructed and how the nation has been imagined along gender and ethnic/racial divides.

Editions, 1991), 185.

Valerie Behiery, ‘Bans on Muslim facial veiling in Europe and Canada: a cultural history of vision perspective’, Social 17

(12)

I.iv.a. Gender and Feminism

Women, States and Nationalism: At home in the nation? (2000) provides considerable inspiration for the research approach taken in this thesis - specifically the linkage between gender and national identity. In addition, the categorisation by Yuval-Davis and Anthias (2005) of the manner in which women participate in ethnic and national processes is also useful. One category proved particularly significant and relevant to my research. It considers the role of women as ‘signifiers of ethnic/national differences - as a focus and symbol in ideological discourses used in the construction, reproduction and transformation of ethnic/ national categories’. 18

This categorisation ties in with the theory of Ranchod-Nilsson and Tétreault (2000), who argue that a form of ‘cultural war’ is being ‘fought on the terrain of women’s bodies and life circumstances’. The centrality of the female form in French national discourse - in the 19

political and public spheres as well as across the mediascape - is a subject worthy of further study because, as Ranchod-Nilsson and Tétreault argue, both ‘idealised images and real bodies of women serve as national boundaries’. In consideration of the use of female forms, 20

the use of idealised and real female bodies as a point of conflict within the national context, rather than in comparison to other nations needs to be assessed. The reference to both ‘idealised’ and ‘real’ bodies is also relevant to my analysis of Marianne as a symbolic, idealised notion of nationhood as well as womanhood, in contrast to – but not limited to – the figure of the veiled Muslim woman: the real, ‘unidealised’ citizen. This juxtaposition brings into question the nature of national visual representation. Should national visual representations reflect national realities, or should they embody the ‘idealised’ form? What assumptions are made when female national representations and symbols are utilised?

Sexing Political Culture in the History of France (2012) gives a detailed and fascinating account of how ‘gender and sexual imagery have played a uniquely symbolic role […] at no

Floya Anthias and Nira Yuval-Davis, Racialised Boundaries: Race, nation, gender, colour and class and the anti-racist 18

struggle (1992; repr., London; New York: Routledge, 2005), 7.

Sita Ranchod-Nilsson and Mary Ann Tétreault, eds., Women, States, and Nationalism. At home in the nation?, (2000; repr., 19

London, New York: Routledge, 2005), 1.

Sita Ranchod-Nilsson and Mary Ann Tétreault, eds., Women, States, and Nationalism. At home in the nation?, (2000; repr., 20

(13)

time more obvious than it is at the beginning of the twenty-first century’. The volume gives 21

a plethora of examples regarding the role of sexuality and gender throughout French history. My thesis does not constitute a study of sexuality in general but rather the ‘particular use to which gendered and sexual symbols have been put in the service of the nation’. Moreover, a 22

secondary aim is to articulate the tensions that arise at both the political and the public level due to these engendered symbols.

Finally, the symbolisation of female bodies and how they are confined solely to the role of political or national symbols in contrast to actors at political, national level has maintained its potency to questions of national identity. Indeed, Maurice Agulhon, the French historian renowned for his in-depth, socio-historical works on Marianne, is dismayed at the idea that men receive ‘le pouvoir réel (notamment politique)’ and women, simply, ‘les fonctions de représentations’. Over a decade later, Moore (2012) considers whether women receive 23

‘purely symbolic appreciation’. My thesis will seek to develop this line of argumentation in 24

order to explore whether the use of engendered visual representations and symbolism contribute to the agency of women in contemporary French society.

I.iv.b. Multiculturalism

The controversy regarding veiling in the public and, increasingly, even in the private sphere has resulted in numerous legal cases as well as policy documents, parliamentary recommendations and reports. The cultural assumptions and frameworks from which these circumstances have arisen directly affects how the French Republic deals with ethnic minority populations. These communities predominantly originate from previously French-colonised countries. In light of the migratory and colonial undertones to ethnic minority relations in France, multiculturalist approaches and debate must combine with Feminist study

Moore (Amherst, New York: Cambria Press, 2012), 1.

Maurice Agulhon, Les Métamorphoses de Marianne (Paris: Flammarion, 2001), 257.

23

Alison Moore, ‘Historicising Sexual Symbols.’ Chap 1 in Sexing Political Culture in the History of France, ed. Alison

24

(14)

in order to successfully analyses the tensions that are mirrored within, and projected upon, the veiled Muslim ‘immigrant’ woman. In the French public sphere, the veiled Muslim woman is regularly perceived as a postcolonial subject originating from the North African Magreb region. Perceptions are important as Simon (2011) emphasises by noting how immigrants from North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa (as well as Southeast Asia) note ‘substantial mismatch between their feeling French and the perception of their otherness.’ 25

Multiculturalism and The Politics of Recognition (1994) underlines the importance of recognition for the identity of an individual. The identity of the individual has been given increasingly greater significance from the eighteenth century onwards. Taylor (1994) emphasises how ‘non-recognition or mis-recognition can inflict harm, can be a form of oppression, imprisoning someone in a false, distorted, and reduced mode of being’. His line 26

of argument combines a feminist perspective with a multiculturalist rhetoric by underlining their comparability which is derived their similar motivations; ‘contemporary Feminism […] race relations and discussions of multiculturalism are undergirded by the premise that the withholding of recognition can be a form of oppression’. Taylor’s argumentation lends 27

legitimacy to the approach of this essay and its combination of both multiculturalist and feminist explorations, with visual and media analysis, of ethnic-gendered political and public discourse in France.

As discussed earlier, this research will not explore the horizontal relations within a nation but rather the vertical relations such as: the state’s imposition of visual representations and the citizenry’s response(s). Again, the relations between the individual and the state may differ slightly. The most controversial aspect of public debate in France is based not upon the relation between individual and state but upon the relation between the individual and the ethnic community to which he/she belongs. In turn, this sort of relation causes tensions with regard to the principle of universality that underlies French Republicanism. This principle is

Patrick Simon, French National Identity and Integration: Who belongs to the National community? (Washington, DC: 25

Migration Policy Institute, 2012), 14. Paper commissioned by the Transatlantic Council on Migration for its seventh plenary meeting, Berlin, Germany, November 2011.

Charles Taylor, ‘The Politics of Recognition’, in Multiculturalism and ‘The Politics of Recognition’: An essay by Charles 26

Taylor, ed. Amy Gutmann. With commentary by Amy Gutmann et al. (Princeton: Princeton university Press, 1992), 25.

(15)

based upon the aforementioned first article of the 1958 French Constitution. The article states that no discrimination based on race or religion - neither positive nor negative - is permitted by French authorities. The relevance of this phenomenon to the question of this thesis is 28

confirmed by May (2016) who states that multiculturalism is ever-present in French public debate which often results in the criticism of French authorities due to it’s assimilationist character and ‘difference-blindness’ policies. Accordingly, Addressing tolerance and 29

diversity discourses in Europe (2012) confirms that the fact that French authorities do not 'recognise the intermediate level of a group or a specific community based on origin’ has prompted a surge of criticism against the French Republican model. 30

Amongst Western scholarly and political actors, the French Republican model is increasingly perceived as an impractical means of dealing with the national realities of contemporary French society, which is of a highly multicultural and multi-racial demographic. Laborde’s (2006, 2008) contextualisation of the hijab controversy in French political thought is a nuanced and critical questioning of the French Republic and its liberalist self-legitimacy. Laborde follows a similar line of questioning to Taylor (1992) as she strives to assess how liberal - or illiberal - the nature of politics of blindness and difference is in French society. However, Taylor questions even the existence of ‘difference-blind’ politics; ‘[t]he claim is that the supposedly neutral set of difference-blind principles of the politics of equal dignity is in fact a reflection of one hegemonic culture.’ Here, Taylor raises a key issue of conflict that 31

is often raised by critics of laïcité in contemporary France as seen in La Laïcité Falsifiée (2012). According to radical advocates of the politics of difference, laïcité exists as an example of ‘blind’ liberalism, which is itself ‘the reflection of particular cultures’. This 32

controversy co-aligns with issues originating from France’s colonial history. Taylor provides

‘Constitution du 4 octobre 1958’, Legifrance, last modified December 1, 2009. 28

Riva Kastoryano and Angéline Escafré-Dublet, ‘France’ in Addressing tolerance and diversity discourses in Europe: A 30

Comparative Overview of 16 European Countries, eds. Ricard Zapata-Barrero and Anna Triandafyllidou (Barcelona:

CIDOB/GRITIM-UPF, 2012), 28.

(16)

a link by recognising Fanon’s Les Damnés de la Terre (1961) and noting how the coloniser’s most hazardous weapon was the imposition of the image on the colonised, subjugated community. This study recognises this phenomenon in today’s France. A multitude of questions emerge from such studies including: what does the invisibility of racial and religious difference mean for visual representations of the French Republic and nation? The laïc character of the French Republic means that, ultimately, both ethnic and religious difference are confined to the private sphere and thereby contribute to the invisibility of an entire demographic in contemporary French semiotic politics.

I.v Case Studies: Marianne & The Veiled Muslim Woman

French ethnic-gendered discourse can be personified in the image of the veiled Muslim woman who is used to illuminate tensions and contradictions within the current framing of national identity in the French Republic. Different interpretations and modes of representation illuminate various tensions and contradictions in Marianne, the allegory of the French Republic; most of the time from a critical perspective. Indeed, French gendered nationalism remains prominent within gender and sexuality analysis in French politics and ideology. The veiled Muslim woman – similar to the Marianne who is representative of the 33

national community in France – is often chosen as a representation of the larger immigrant demographic; ‘[c]omme avec l’orientalisme colonial, la femme voilée est choisie comme le symbole ou le signifiant pour un ordre socio-religieux entier, la communauté des immigrés’. 34

Alison Moore states in Sexing Political Culture (2012) that ‘[t]he modern national phenomenon produced new habits that specifically relied upon identification with the reproduction of past antecedents as the site for the imagination of the tradition.’ Moore’s 35

argument resembles Chabal (2017), who also identifies the significance of immigration and colonial history on today’s French identity politics which continues to battle with its colonial

Moore (Amherst, New York: Cambria Press, 2012), 21.

Cited in: Romi S. Mukherjee, ‘Marianne voilée’, Histoire, monde et cultures religieuses 34 (2015): 95. 34

(17)

past and, by consequences, the relations between colonial-heritage French citizens and immigrants.

In this research, Marianne will be reconsidered in an academic framework as a means to examine the visibility of contemporary French national identity and what it means for the French ‘invisible minorities’. Indeed, the relevancy of Marianne to the current situation is emphasised by Mukherjee (2015), who describes how ‘elle n’est pas un projet du passé, mais de l’avenir’. As confirmed by Hobsbawm and Ranger (1983), the re-imagination of 36

traditional or historically- centred forms is constant as ‘nations frequently look to craft their imagery from an imagination of traditional forms’. 37

Although extensive research has gone into plotting the history and integration of Marianne (Agulhon, 1979; 2001,2003, 2006; Agulhon and Bonte, 1992 and; Mitra and König, 2013) and the national rhetorics of the French Republics through history, relatively limited attention has been paid to Marianne’s significance in contemporary French society. Even less scholarly work has sought to compare the image of the veiled Muslim woman - including her utilisation and appropriation by various political actors and the media - as a type of ‘counter’ example to the French Republican, feminine ideal that is Marianne. The representative image of the veiled Muslim women as the centre of a myriad of issues in today’s France parallels the appropriation of Marianne, as a symbol of the French Republic, to address the same issues. In a 2014 interview, Maurice Agulhon confirms that the debate concerning Marianne is, in itself, a direct manifestation of the debate concerning the future of the French Republic. 38

Mukherjee (2015) suggests that ‘la géopolitique et les angoisses politiques de la France projettent et se négocient alors à travers les corps féminins’ which can be applied either to 39

Marianne or to the veiled Muslim woman, or to both. Along with Winter (2009) Mukherjee

Romi S. Mukherjee, ‘Marianne voilée’, Histoire, monde et cultures religieuses 34 (2015): 105. 36

Sophie des Desserts, ‘Quand Maurice Agulhon nous racontait l’histoire du buste de Marianne’, Le Nouvel Observateur, 38

May 30, 2014.

Romi S. Mukherjee, ‘Marianne voilée’, Histoire, monde et cultures religieuses 34 (2015): 97. 39

(18)

provides the most significant contribution to this particular area of study, which seeks to contrast official national images with Muslim and/or immigrant presentations of France. Moore (2009, 2012) provides a wealth of research into issues that touch upon laïcité and post-colonialism along with notions of gender and sexuality. Moore’s final chapter in Sexing Political Culture (2012) demonstrates an enduring usage of racialised women as a means of steering national rhetoric. The extent to which these two contrasting images are utilised and appropriated across the political sphere and mediascape supports the claim that the nation exists as ‘a daily plebiscite’. Although, arguably, this phenomenon may only refer to the 40

idealised image of Marianne, that is not to say that the veiled Muslim woman has a lesser effect on the nation and national identity.

Here, it is useful to look at Baycroft (2008) who follows a similar line of thought to Renan (1990), as well as Hobsbawm and Ranger (1983). Baycroft underlines how national ideals are repeated on a daily basis,

‘Individual representations of the nation, from anniversaries and heroes through to Marianne (the female incarnation of the Republic) […] are made familiar to the nation through commemoration, repeated representations in statues, street names, on postage stamps and in school lessons in such a way as to encourage an automatic mental link to the abstract nation with each new viewing, constant reminders of what the nation is held to stand for.’ 41

An extremely important point to note in Inventing the Nation (2008) is how symbolic representations are not always official. However, if and when an image is constantly claimed as the epitome of ‘Frenchness’ it can, consequently, claim the ‘symbolic associations’ of the nation. In other words, a symbol may not begin as official but may become a symbol with 42

quasi-official status thanks to its frequency and a certain significance, and a similar process can occur with claims of ‘non-Frenchness’; as is the case with the veiled Muslim woman. The

Ernest Renan, ‘What is a nation?’ in Nation and Narration, ed. Homi K. Bhabha, trans. Martin Thom (London, New York: 40

Routledge, 1990), 19.

Timothy Baycroft, Inventing the Nation, (London: Hodder Education, 2008), 170-171. 41

Timothy Baycroft, Inventing the Nation, (London: Hodder Education, 2008), 171. 42

(19)

identity of the veiled Muslim woman is forever bound to a ‘historic and cultural status as [those] who have been formerly colonised’. In turn, the image attaches to itself or, more 43

fittingly, has imposed upon it her non-French status, thus becoming an ‘anti-symbol’. This process demonstrates how the ideas, images and/or characteristics upon which French national and feminine identity is constructed has major implications for those ideas images and/or characteristics that are deemed to constitute the French antithetical and intra-national ‘Other’ as explored by Said (1978). 

Timothy Baycroft, Inventing the Nation, (London: Hodder Education, 2008), 200. 43

(20)

II. Contextualisation: Female Symbolism within the French

Republic

II.i Marianne

Since the establishment of the French Fifth Republic, Marianne, the slogan Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité and the office of the President have constituted the fundamental Republican emblems. The relationship between the first and final emblem is significant due to the 44

established separation between the state and the authoritative voice which emerged following the overthrow of the monarchy during the French Revolution. Previously, the King was the state: L’état, c’est moi and thereby constituted its main visual representation. However, with the establishment of the Fifth Republic, an anonymous visual representation of the state had to be invented. Since her genesis in 1792, Marianne, the allegorical icon of the French 45

Republic, has maintained a strategic function: to reflect the value system of the French state, namely based upon liberty and equality. The allegory of the Republic is depicted or represented across the French territory in tribunals, city squares, police commissions, schools and city halls. Visual representations ‘participent à la construction d’une image au sens figuré, d’un imaginaire politique qu’elles contribuent à révéler, exprimer et traduire sous une forme frappante’. These representations thereby contribute towards a process of 46

identification amongst French citizens and, equally, an acknowledgment of French national identity abroad; ‘une reconnaissance immédiate sur leur territoire comme à l’étranger.’ 47

Paul Trouillas (1988) argued that Marianne has ‘un double mystère: celui de son nom, celui de l’organisation de son image’. The latter ‘mystère’, meaning the plethora of visual 48

interpretations and representations of Marianne and the ‘imagined community’, is

Blandine Le Cain, ‘Les emblèmes de la République : sacrés mais sans existence légale’, Le Figaro, August 4, 2014. 44

Marina Warner, Monuments and Maidens: The Allegory of the Female Form (London: Pan Books, 1985), 74. 45

Bernard Richard, Les emblèmes de la République (Paris: CRNS Éditions, 2012), 15. 46

Cloé Fontaine-Pitiot, ‘Les codes graphiques dans les documents officiels, de la Troisième République à nos jours’ in La 47

République et ses symboles: Un territoire de signes, eds. Gérard Monier, G. and Évelyne Cohen (Paris: Publications de la

Sorbonne, 2013), 376.

Paul Trouillas, Le Complex de Marianne (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1988), 202. 48

(21)

increasingly important in the ‘post-literate world.’ The act of visually representing and/or 49

reflecting the ‘imagined community’ can be exemplified by the establishment of Une Charte Graphique in September 1999. [Figure 3] The charter – which remains in place today – 50

evolved from ‘un contexte historique, l’évolution des instruments de la culture visuelle, et en particulier la multiplication récente des logotypes’. The aim of the chart was to establish a 51

visual identity for the French state. This means of communication - by institutionalising the logo of Marianne on governmental papers, official correspondence, instances of governmental funding, and many other modes of governmental communication - establishes Marianne as a constant variable and, indeed, an ‘obsession’ of French society’. The constant and frequent usage of this ‘identifiant’ further embeds Marianne within a wider constructive process of French nation-building. 52

The extent to which Marianne is utilised through this government logo – and in many other visualisations – recalls Michael Billig’s concept of banal ‘flagging’ or ‘reminding’ in Banal Nationalism (1995). The ubiquity of this reminding is deemed ‘banal’ as the reminding is not necessarily consciously recognised by the citizen. This lack of consciousness, in turn, makes the process all the more poignant and powerful. Billig argues that ‘[t]he metonymic image of banal nationalism is not a flag which is being consciously waved with fervent passion; it is the flag hanging unnoticed on the public building.’ An example which demonstrates the 53

extent to which the image of Marianne is utilised can be found in the information posters that were erected following the ban upon face-veils in public spaces in 2010. The poster, ‘La République se vit à visage découvert’ [Figure 4], consists of the government logo in which Marianne is depicted alongside a central image of a bust of Marianne. In this instance, Marianne is doubly acknowledged - both tacitly and explicitly. By consequence, French nationhood is also doubly flagged. The two images of Marianne - the bust and the logo - act

Identities 19, no. 6 (2013): 777

See Appendix. 50

Cloé Fontaine-Pitiot, ‘Les codes graphiques dans les documents officiels, de la Troisième République à nos jours’ in La 51

République et ses symboles: Un territoire de signes, eds. Gérard Monier, G. and Évelyne Cohen (Paris: Publications de la

Sorbonne, 2013), 375.

‘Charte Graphique de la Communication Gouvernementale’, Actions de Communication: Services d’Information 52

Gouvernement, October 25, 2004.

Michael Billig, Banal Nationalism (London [etc]: Sage, 1995), 8. 53

(22)

as reminders of how she is not only significant in her role as the allegorical symbol of the French Republic but, equally, constitutes the official representation of the ideal, national citizen in female form.

In summary, just over two centuries since her first official conception, Marianne is brought to the fore of the French Republic in order to establish the visually coherence of the French governing authorities as well as the French nation. She is charged with both the power and responsibility of representation, but also with the power and responsibility to compel French citizens to follow the visual instructions of the French state. This power is reflected in the work of Maurice Agulhon, the Marianne-historian and specialist, who identifies ‘l’application d’un principe millénaire de partage des fonctions: aux hommes le pouvoir réel (notamment politique), aux femmes les fonctions de représentation, donc de charme, de séduction, d’attrait symbolique.’ However, despite the duration of Marianne’s significance to French 54

national identity, the perceptions and interpretations of this allegorical figure have remained dependent on the prevailing geopolitical circumstances, on issues of national interest and the collective memory of the nation. As a result, representations of Marianne are based just as much upon legend and memory as on are national historical accuracy. In this sense, 55

Marianne is transformed from being emblematic of the French Republic to being symbolic of the French Republic, which implies a much more convoluted and complex history to decipher concerning the development of this allegorical icon.

The historical evolution of Marianne is convoluted and complex enough to become the central focus of the academic life of Maurice Agulhon, a leading French historian. Indeed, Agulhon published a three-part study of the feminine icon: Marianne au Pouvoir (1989); Marianne au Combat (1979) and, finally, Les Métamorphoses de Marianne (2001). He also collaborated on a number of academic projects, including Marianne: Les Visages de la République (1992) with Pierre Bonte and Entre liberté, République et France (2003). By contrast, though this chapter entails a brief consideration of the historical development of Marianne, the main focus here will be the consideration of both top-down and bottom-up

Maurice Agulhon, Les Métamorphoses de Marianne (Paris: Flammarion, 2001), 257. 54

(23)

influences on Marianne and her subsequent interpretations and representations. Indeed, Marianne was and remains ‘évolutif, polysémique, conflictuel’ and is thereby worthy of 56

further study in a contemporary setting.

II.i.a. Evolutive History

Les Emblèmes de la République (2012) accounts for the first and second ‘naissance’ of Marianne as well as the proliferation of interpretations and representations that have functioned according to the celebrity status imparted - or the wealth of knowledge acquired - amongst the French political elite and the general public. Despite the numerous changes in structure, values and government of the French Republic, the imagery of Marianne has retained a sense of fluidity between each of the subsequent governmental models: ‘l’imagerie initiale de la Troisième République [puisait] largement dans celle de la Seconde, dont les principaux artistes d’ailleurs vivaient toujours’ and so on. It is generally agreed amongst 57

historians that Marianne first appeared in her approximate, current form in 1792 as established by the Convention, the newly-declared Republican government. Delacroix’s 58

1830 tableau entitled ‘Liberté guidant le peuple’ was swiftly followed by the adoption of Marianne as the official symbol of the French Republic in 1848. [Figure 5] Since the installation of Marianne as an official symbol there has been a near constant confusion and/or amalgamation of Marianne with Delacroix’s Liberté in public and political discourse.

This phenomenon of contrasting and competing Marianne imagery has existed since the nineteenth century. This phenomenon has most often taken the form of government-run competitions. In 1883 the Third French Republican government headed a competition for the installation of a statue of Marianne to be situated on the Place de la République. A similar competition was held in 1889 with the prize of installation upon the Place de la Nation. In 59

Maurice Agulhon, Marianne au Combat: L’Imagerie et la Symbolique Républicaines de 1789 à 1880 (Paris: Flammarion, 57

1979), 209.

Bronwyn Winter, ‘Marianne goes Multicultural: Ni putes ni soumises and the Republicanisation of Ethnic Minority 58

Women in France’, French History and Civilisation 2 (2009): 229.

Bronwyn Winter, ‘Marianne goes Multicultural: Ni putes ni soumises and the Republicanisation of Ethnic Minority 59

(24)

post-war France, ‘Miss Marianne’ competitions emerged paralleling global beauty pageants which attributed a female representative to each country. Furthermore, in 2003, Ni Putes ni 60

Soumises coordinated with the French authorities to construct a photographic campaign entitled ‘Les Mariannes d’Aujourd’hui’. [Figure 6] The exhibition consisted of fourteen photographs of fourteen young females of North-African origin in order to produce incarnations of the iconic Marianne. These fourteen photographs were later exhibited on the exterior of the Palais Bourbon. Most recently, a competition was led by François Hollande 61

to decide upon the imagery used for his presidential stamp.

However, despite the involvement of French governments across history in the erection of Marianne as its allegorical symbol, no official legalisation has been implemented. This has meant that ‘[l]a Marianne s'est peu à peu diffusée, sans que jamais l'État ne l’impose’. In 62

light of this, it is somewhat surprising that Marianne has remained such an integral feature of French national symbolism. I would argue that Marianne remains so significant to national belonging thanks to this lack of official, legislative framework. ‘Il n’existe aucun texte législatif ou réglementaire déterminant l’effigie de la République. La fabrication et la vente de ces bustes sont donc laissés à l’initiative privée et chaque municipalité dispose du libre choix du modèle’. By lacking such a framework, Marianne thereby belongs both to the 63

public and to the private sphere as a representative of the French Republic, which often involves the absorption of differing interpretations of national identity according to certain political or special interest groups or, most often, by the media.

Such occurrences began in 1881 with the establishment of the Freedom of the Press. From then on, Marianne was subject to a plethora of caricatures and interpretations often merging with ‘la polémique quotidienne’. Similar to what Agulhon correctly observed, Marianne 64

belongs not only to French political elite but, equally, to what the public perceives as true: ‘…

‘L’Assemblée nationale, ultime étape de la Marche des femmes des quartiers contre les ghettos et pour l’égalité’, 61

Assemblée Nationale, July 12, 2003.

Maurice Agulhon, Entre Liberté, République et France - Les Représentations de Marianne de 1792 à nos jours (Réunion 63

de Musées Internationaux, Paris: Éditions Hors Collection, 2003), 64.

Maurice Agulhon and Pierre Bonte, Marianne: Les visages de la République (Paris: Gallimard, 1992), 69-70. 64

(25)

elle appartient tout autant à l’histoire de nos conceptions et de nos institutions politiques’. 65

Richard (2012) parallels this line of thought by attributing Marianne’s constant conservation of authority to the openness in terms of her interpretation and representation by others.

II.i.b. Interpretations & Confusion

Unsurprisingly, in light of the myriad of interpretations and the variety of media in which Marianne is permitted to be depicted, confusion frequently emerges surrounding the allegorical figure, at both the political and public levels. In order to understand the lack of consistency and, at times, confusion surrounding her depiction, it is necessary to discuss what Marianne should signify and what she should not – at least historically speaking.

Richard (2012) states that Marianne exists as ‘une figuration impersonnelle d’un modèle politique idéal’ and as ‘une figure anonyme puisqu'elle représente la République’ et ne 66

saurait être associée au comportement d'une égérie’. Equally, Agulhon (2001) underlines 67

that ‘Marianne, c’est la République, idéal respectable, en principe parfait. Donc on ne peut la faire représenter par une personne vivante, nécessairement non parfaite’. Furthermore, the 68

Assemblée Nationale’s website confirms: ‘Récemment, la mode a voulu qu'on donne à Marianne les traits d'artistes célèbres, mais elle a eu bien d'autres visages, aimables ou sévères, et toujours anonymes, comme en témoigne cette exposition.’ In light of both the 69

historical and political limitations noted above, Marianne is, above all all else: anonymous; idealistic and representative of the French Fifth Republic. However, given that representations of Marianne are founded upon no official limitations she exists simultaneously in a somewhat ‘official’ form and, equally, in an unofficial form. This results in constant confusion amongst the political elite, the media and even historians.

‘Les bustes de Marianne’, Assemblée Nationale. 69

(26)

Les Métamorphoses de Marianne (2001) maps the ‘évolution tranquille [de Marianne], d’époque en époque, d’Eugène Delacroix à Brigitte Bardot’. Here, Agulhon comments upon 70

the transformation of Marianne, but the irony of this phrase is based on the fact that neither Delacroix nor Bardot should, indeed, represent Marianne. Firstly, this is due to Delacroix’s tableau depicting Liberty, not Marianne, whilst Bardot is a personal and non-idealised representation, thereby not aligning with the limitations placed upon not only Marianne but essentially all similar national allegories. [Figure 7]

Nevertheless, this confusion is easily understandable. It is not surprising that Marianne is consistently confused with Liberté guidant le peuple. Especially seeing as, at the time of her creation, the French Fifth Republic was being established as ‘un système de valeurs’ within which liberty (and equality) were of fundamental importance. Secondly although the 71

amalgamation of Brigitte Bardot and Marianne are not compliant with the aforementioned limitations, Bardot is often perceived in the French media and public discourse as the epitome of French femininity; she exists as a sort of idealistic version of personal – rather than anonymous – ‘Frenchness’.

After having briefly contextualised the historical and scholarly development with examples of both historical and contemporary interpretations, it is valuable to note what this information reveals. Most obviously, it implies that Marianne does not exist outside of internal and external influences. She exists in a world of competing symbolic visions of French ideals in an official yet simultaneously non-official paradigm. Furthermore, it shows that Marianne is consistently appropriated as a means of representing the French nation rather than the French Republic itself as she is consistently pulled between representing the French ‘ideal’ to the French reality. Mitra and Konig (2013), however, define Marianne as an icon and define icons as ‘simplifying mechanisms that capture what ardent nationalists would like their nations to embody ideally.’ Mitra and Konig complicate this discussion once again 72

by inferring that Marianne should represent the nation (rather than the Republic) but should

Subrata K. Mitra and Lion König, ‘Icon-ising national identity: France and India in comparative perspective’, National 72

(27)

do so idealistically rather than realistically. By representing national identity along realistic rather than idealistic lines, Warner (1985) foresees a great challenge for the nation, since ‘[t]o place a real woman in the place of the ideal challenges the ever-elusive character of the ideal itself’. 73

II.ii The Veiled Muslim Woman

As Marianne came to be presented as directly reflecting or realistically representing the nation, it is not surprising that she is often utilised in the media to represent present-day political tensions or societal controversies at the national level. Her integration into the 74

media sphere parallels the entry of the veiled Muslim woman - and the immigrant population for which she is representative - as a ‘mediatised phenomena’. But why are iconography 75

and, more generally, visual stimuli - such as Marianne and the veiled Muslim woman - used so frequently in both Western media and political spheres? Richard (2012) states that;

‘Au sens littéral, les images s’adressent à la sensibilité, aux émotions, à l’imagination plutôt qu’à l’intellect, à la raison: elles n’en ont pas moins un impact direct sur le public visé - et touché. Par là, elles jouent un rôle important dans la vie politique et entrent en résonance avec la société.’ 76

In this sense, Richard (2012) accounts for the merging between the national image and political circumstance within the media sphere. Once again, it is useful to underline how Marianne is often placed in opposition to the veiled Muslim woman – although, at times, the two figures do merge rather than being contrasted. Macdonald (2006) accounts for how the mainstream media are obligated to achieve a reconstruction of difference structurally and along aesthetic and visual lines.

Marina Warner, Monuments and Maidens: The Allegory of the Female Form (London: Pan Books, 1985): 287. 73

Maurice Agulhon, Les Métamorphoses de Marianne (Paris: Flammarion, 2001): 238. 74

María Martínez Lirola, ‘Positive aspects of women of different cultures: an analysis of two multimodal covers’, The 75

Poster 1, no. 1 (2010): 78.

(28)

Indeed, the importance of the visual media or use of visual clues within the media system is important to underline in this brief introduction to allegorical symbols, specifically Marianne. This becomes particularly important when considering the importance of visualisation to human understanding in Western, Christian cultures – it is certainly not a phenomenon exclusive to the media. This was stressed in the Rapport d’information en application de l’article 145 du règlement au nom de la Mission d’Information sur la pratique du port du voile intégrale sur le territoire nationale by Nadeije Laneyrie-Dagen, a Modern Art historian at École Normale Supérieure who stated that;

‘grâce au double héritage de la Grèce et de Rome, où la figure humaine est au centre de la culture et de l’art, donc de nos références, le visage et le corps sont investis en Occident d’une force et d’une reconnaissance qui n’existent probablement pas dans autres cultures’. 77

As mentioned above, the image remains or, indeed, is increasingly important in the ‘post-literate world’. Then again, according to Laneyrie-Dagen, the image remains equally 78

important thanks to the cultural emphasis upon the visualisation of human form in Christian culture, particularly when one makes the comparison between Christian culture and Islamic culture according to which calligraphy is perceived as superior to the icon. It is significant 79

that Marianne remains important to the representation of French national identity in the twenty-first century thanks to European cultural – as well as national – historical factors. This cultural and civilisational remains all the more so important to the study of Marianne especially when considering her cultural contrasts with the veiled Muslim woman.

André Gerin, ‘Rapport d’information en application de l’article 145 du règlement au nom de la Mission d’Information sur 77

la pratique du port du voile intégrale sur le territoire nationale’, Assemblée Nationale, January 26, 2010, 32.

Behiery, V., ‘Bans on Muslim facial veiling in Europe and Canada: a cultural history of vision perspective’, Social 78

Identities 19, no. 6 (2013): 777.

(29)

II.ii.a The Nation’s other

So far, Marianne’s transformation has been mapped: from representation of the Republic to representative of the nation. This transformation has been analysed by Agulhon (2001) who forewarns of the importance of choosing who or what Marianne does in fact represent; ‘Marianne représentait le peuple, ou la Nation, et qu’il fallait donc choisir bien - en l’occurence mieux choisir - la catégorie de Françaises qui serait présumée typique’. 80

Agulhon goes on to suggest that, since representing the nation insinuates that Marianne constitutes a basis for national identity construction, it is equally important to discuss who is Marianne’s, and thereby France’s, Other. Of course, national identity is based just as much upon what it is as what it is not. In turn, Marianne, as a ‘signe d’identité d’une nation opposable aux nations voisines’ must retain recognition as representative of French national 81

identity by the French national community itself as well as those abroad in order to maintain her authoritative significance.

This ability to be recognised has been re-instilled by the implementation of the aforementioned Charte Graphique in 1999. Indeed, if one agrees with the hypothesis that Marianne remains to be connected with the French national identity, the veiled Muslim woman, by contrast, is often utilised to convey the national Other. In fact, the veiled Muslim woman is depended upon to such an extent that she is utilised to convey a problematising of Islam regardless of relevancy. In other words, the veiled Muslim woman is used to 82

represent a myriad of controversies which encompass an Islamic or immigrant theme because she - and specifically the symbol of the burqa - is consistently produced as the Other in modern Euro-American self identity. This is achieved by way of consistent and frequent utilisation of the veiled Muslim woman in politico-media discourse and imagery. 83

Identities 19, no. 6 (2013): 777.

(30)

This will be discussed much further throughout the course of the third and fourth chapters but it is important to underline here, as it is connected to the cultural history of visualisation of national identities. Marianne remains a significant area of research but it has been fairly limited in scope, either assessed from a historical perspective or, ultimately, deemed no longer significant to contemporary national identity in France. Moreover, there is an extremely limited amount of research contrasting the figure of Marianne with the figure of the veiled Muslim woman. Despite this lack of scholarly focus and an ever-changing Marianne, the figure remains a consistent site of reference – both visually and discursively – in contemporary French discourse; especially in the consideration of national identity. By considering such developments in the symbolism and representation of the French Fifth Republic, this piece of research will seek to map important developments in contemporary French society.

II.iii Laïcité & A Veiling History

In order to understand the potency of the imagery and discourse utilised in politico-media contexts - and the developments in contemporary French society that they reflect - it is important to understand the historic and contemporary ideologies and events from which this imagery and discourse evolve. Of course, the aim of this piece of research is not to consider the legal or policy constraints imposed by the French Republican model, be it historically accurate or not. Rather, the focus will be on the construction of national identity to which the utilisation of female forms contributes. The impact of laïcité and the historical background to controversies such as the burqa ban and the burkini scandal is crucial in order to effectively analyse and assess the uses of these female forms. Here, a contemporary reading of the history of veiling controversies, through the lens of laïcité, will be addressed in order to situate the most recent controversies (the the burqa ban and the burkini scandal) in the religious/laïc paradigm.

In essence, laïcité exists as the cornerstone of the French Republic. Laïcité is highly influential - if not synonymous with - French national identity. The dynamism between laïcité and national identity accumulates in French responses to issues which involve le voile