Abstract
Given the results of the limited and discriminatory inclusion of those who have been theoretically and historically excluded from the republican fraternity—women, the non-binary and “non-whites”—our aim is to bring out the conscious and unconscious heritage of the “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” tryptic. We focus on the public justifications for contemporary policies promoting the inclusion of “non-brothers”: the promotion of parity for women and diversity for “non-whites”. Breaking the taboo about the original sin of a fraternal French republic means casting light on history, but also on the modernity of the frontiers between “brothers” and “non-brothers”. This chapter examines the modernisation of the original murder of equality for “non-brothers” who are not only “non-men”, but also individuals perceived as colours, as non-whites. The celebration of performance of sexual and ethno-cultural diversity is part of the same biopolitical register of highlighting the complementarity of “non-brothers” in contrast to “brothers”. We start off by analysing the ways in which, above and beyond the apparent consensus about the principle of equality, its application has become a source of controversy, particularly regarding its political definition.
How do we explain the fact that we almost unanimously wish for a fairer, less unequal society, but at the same time act collectively in a way that clearly helps maintain and even deepen important forms of inequality?
—Savidan, 2015, p. 344
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Through two surveys: the first carried out in 2004–2005 among 83 national and local leaders at the French Socialist Party (PS), the centre-right Union for a Popular Movement (UMP), and members of feminist and/or women’s associations concerning the makeshift ideological approaches around the application of the “parity laws”; the second was conducted in 2011 among around 50 MPs with Rainbow Murray from Queen Mary University in London and concerning the way these laws raise questions about the conception of parliamentary representation (making the citizens present or standing for) and the political choices of legislators (acting for).
- 2.
Through two surveys: the first was carried out from October 2008 to December 2009 among 163 political, institutional, trade union, NGO, business, religious and academic leaders. It looked at contemporary practices in promoting diversity. The second was conducted in 2015–2016 among around 40 institutional, political, NGO and trade union leaders, and was part of a study called “Jurisdiction and public bodies in the application of the principle of non-discrimination: multi-disciplinary and comparative perspectives”. It was funded by the Rights Ombudsman and the Law and Justice Mission at the French Ministry of Justice (June 2014–June 2016).
- 3.
Cf. Rawls 1987, p. 68: “This is an order which requires us to satisfy the first principle in the ordering before we can move on to the second, the second before we consider the third, and so on. A [new] principle does not come into play until those previous to it are either fully met or do not apply.”
- 4.
The law of 4 June 1970 abolished the notion of the head of the family, replacing it by shared parental authority.
- 5.
See in particular Hervé Mariton, “We need to preserve the private sphere of the family”, Le Monde, 7 February 2014; and criticism by the UMP president, Jean-François Copé, during the “Grand Jury” RTL-Le Figaro-LCI programme on 9 February 2014, of a book he claimed was being recommended to primary school teachers and entitled Tous à poil (Clothes Off Everybody).
- 6.
Genel 2007, p. 94: “Instrumental rationality consists in reducing social activity to rational processes (as calculable and formal processes), without reflection about the goals orientating the organisation of society.”
- 7.
To add historic depth to this question, it is worth noting that Nafissa Sid Cara (State Secretary to the Prime Minister, in charge of social questions in Algeria and of changes in personal status in Islamic law, from January 1959 to April 1962) was the only woman in the Fifth Republic’s first government.
- 8.
http://www.indigenes-republique.fr/statique?idarticle=189: “The Indigènes de la République Party carries on from the Appeal of the Indigènes de la République, published in January 2005, and the movement arising from it, the mir.”
References
Anderson E. S., 2010, The Imperative of Integration, Princeton (N. J.), Princeton University Press.
Banting K., Kymlicka W., 2004, « Do Multiculturalism policies erode the welfare state? » in Van Parijs P. (ed.), Cultural Diversity Versus Economic Solidarity, Bruxelles, De Boeck Université, pp. 227–284.
Blanchard P., Nicolas B., Lemaire S., 2006, La Fracture coloniale. La société française au prisme de l’héritage colonial, Paris, La Découverte.
Boltanski L., Chiapello E., 1999, Le Nouvel Esprit du capitalisme, Paris, Gallimard.
Bouamama S., 2008, La France. Autopsie d’un mythe national, Paris, Larousse.
Bouvet L., 2015, L’Insécurité culturelle. Sortir du malaise identitaire français, Paris, Fayard.
Bouvet L. Guibert P., Lefebvre R., Peugny C., Guilluy C., 2011, Plaidoyer pour une gauche populaire. La gauche face à ses électeurs, Lormont, Le Bord de l’eau.
Brown W., 2007, Les Habits neufs de la politique mondiale. Néolibéralisme et néo-conservatisme, Paris, Les Prairies ordinaires.
Ehrenberg A., 1991, Le culte de la performance, Paris, Calmann-Lévy.
Ewald F., 1986, L’État providence, Paris, Grasset.
Fassin E., 2009, « Conclusion: Éloge de la complexité », in Didier F., Fassin E. (dir.), De la question sociale à la question raciale? Représenter la société française, Paris, La Découverte.
Ferry J.-M., 2009, « Les Lumières: un projet contemporain » (entretien), Esprit, août-septembre, pp. 161–170.
Foucault M., 2004, Naissance de la biopolitique. Cours au Collège de France (1978–1979), Paris, Gallimard-Seuil.
Fraisse G., 2001, « Les amis de nos amis », dans La Controverse des sexes (Paris: PUF), pp. 64–74.
Fraser N., 2005, Qu’est-ce que la justice sociale? Reconnaissance et redistribution, Paris, La Découverte.
Fraser N. (entretien avec), 2011, « Devenir pairs », Vacarmes, n° 55, printemps 2011, pp. 4–12.
Fraser N., 2012, « Le cadre de la justice dans un monde globalisé », Le Féminisme en mouvements. Des années 1960 à l’ère néo-libérale, Paris, La Découverte, pp. 257–280.
Gaspard F., 2011, « Du patriarcat au fratriarcat. La parité comme nouvel horizon du féminisme », Cahiers du genre, hors série, pp. 135–155.
Genel K., 2007, « Responsabilité morale et théorie sociale dans l’École de Francfort », Raisons politiques, 28, pp. 91–109.
Gimenez M. E., 2001, « Le capitalisme et l’oppression des femmes: pour un retour à Marx », Actuel Marx, 30(2), pp. 61–84.
Goodhart D., 2004, « Too Diverse? Is Britain becoming too diverse to sustain the mutual obligations behind a good society and the welfare state? », Prospect Magazine, 95, pp. 30–37.
Guénif N., 2006, La république mise à nu par son immigration, Paris, La Fabrique éditions.
Guénif-Soulaimas N., Macé E., 2004, Les féministes et le garçon arabe, Paris, L’Aube.
Guilly C., 2013, Fractures françaises, Paris, Flammarion.
Guilly C., 2014, La France périphérique. Comment on a sacrifié les classes populaires, Paris, Flammarion.
Haug F., 2001, « Sur la théorie des rapports de sexe », Actuel Marx, 30(2), pp. 43–59.
Johns N., Hyde M., Barton A., 2010, « Diversity and Solidarity Making Sense of the “New” Social Democracy », Diversity, n° 2, pp. 897–909.
Leca J., 1973, « Le repérage du politique », Projet, 71(1), pp. 11–28.
Mergier A., Peugny, C., Fourquet, J., 2013, Grand malaise. Enquête sur les classes moyennes, Paris, Éditions de la Fondation Jean-Jaurès.
Meynaud H.-Y., Fortino S., Calderón J. (coord.), 2009, « La mixité au service de la performance économique », Cahiers du genre, 47, pp. 15–33.
Michaels, Walter Benn, La diversité contre l’égalité, Paris, Éd. Raisons d’agir, 2009 (traduction de The Trouble with Diversity: How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Inequality, Metropolitan Books, 2007).
Mills C. W., 2005, « Ideal Theory as Ideology », Hypathia, 20(3), pp. 165–184.
Mouffe C., 2016, L’Illusion du consensus, Paris, Albin Michel.
Palier B., 2005, « Vers un État d’investissement social », Informations sociales, 128(8), pp. 118–128.
Pateman C., 1988, « The Fraternal Social Contract », dans John Keane (ed.), Civil Society and the State: New European Perspectives, Londres-New York, Verso, pp. 107–127.
Paternotte D., 2011, Revendiquer le « mariage gay ». Belgique, France, Espagne, Bruxelles, Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles.
Pathak P., 2007, « The Trouble with David Goodhart’s Britain », The Political Quarterly, 78(2), pp. 261–271.
Pathak P., 2008, The Future of Multicultural Britain: Confronting the Progressive Dilemma, Édimbourg, Edinburgh University Press.
Pélabay J., 2011, « Former le “bon citoyen” libéral. L’éducation morale et civique aux prises avec le pluralisme », Raisons politiques, 44, pp. 117–138.
Phillips A., 2002, « La politique identitaire: faut-il tourner la page? », Cahiers du genre, 33, pp. 43–61.
Piketty T., 2007, « Les inégalités économiques sur longue période », in Castel R. et al., Les Mutations de la société française aujourd’hui. Les grandes questions économiques et sociales II, Paris, La Découverte.
Piketty T., 2014 [2013], Le Capital au xxiesiècle, Paris, Seuil.
Putnam R. D., 2007, « E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first-Century », Scandinavian Political Studies, vol. 30, pp. 137–174.
Rawls J., 1987 [1971], Théorie de la justice, Paris, Seuil.
Reman P., Feltesse P., 2004, « De la crise de l’État providence au projet d’État social actif », in. L’État de la Belgique, 1989–2004. Quinze années à la charnière du siècle, Bruxelles, De Boeck Université.
Sanders D, 1994, « Constructing Lesbian and Gay Rights », Revue canadienne droit et société, 9(2), pp. 99–111.
Savidan, Patrick, Voulons-nous vraiment l’égalité?, Paris, Albin Michel, 2015.
Savidan, Patrick, « Pourquoi fait-on si peu ? », dans Louis Maurin, Nina Schmidt (dir.), Que faire contre les inégalités ? 30 experts s’engagent, Éditions de l’Observatoire des inégalités, 2016, p. 8–12.
Scott J. W., 1998, La Citoyenne paradoxale: les féministes françaises et les droits de l’homme, Paris, Albin Michel.
Sénac R., 2012, L’invention de la diversité, Paris, PUF.
Sénac R., 2015, L’égalité sous conditions. Genre, parité, diversité, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po.
Sénac R., 2017, Les non-frères au pays de l’égalité, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po.
Simmons A. J., 2010, « Ideal and Non-Ideal Theory », Philosophy and Public Affairs, 38(1), pp. 5–36.
Spivak G. C., 2009, Les Subalternes peuvent-elles parler? Paris, Amsterdam.
Wahnich S., 1997, L’Impossible Citoyen. L’étranger dans le discours de la Révolution française, Paris, Albin Michel.
Waites M., 2009, « Critique of “Sexual Orientation” and “Gender Identity” in Human Discourses: Global Queer Politics beyond the Yogyakarta Principles », Contemporary Politics, 15(1), pp. 137–156.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sénac, R. (2022). “French-Style” Parity and Diversity: The Temptation of Inclusion Conditioned by Performance for “Non-brothers”. In: Barozet, E., Sainsaulieu, I., Cortesero, R., Mélo, D. (eds) Where Has Social Justice Gone?. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93123-0_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93123-0_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-93122-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-93123-0
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)