There are no Minorities Here

Transcription

International Journal of Comparative Sociology
Copyright © 2006 SAGE Publications
www.sagepublications.com
London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi
Vol 47(3–4): 191–215
DOI: 10.1177/0020715206066164
There are no Minorities Here
Cultures of Scholarship and Public Debate on Immigrants
and Integration in France
Valérie Amiraux
CNRS-CURAPP, University of Amiens, France
Patrick Simon
Institut National des Etudes Démographiques (INED), France
Abstract
Migration studies have long been characterized as an illegitimate field of research in the
French social sciences. This results from the strong influence of the so-called ‘republican’
ideology on social sciences, the constant politicization of the subject in the public arena,
the maintenance of a number of taboos revolving around the colonial experience, and a
history of the concepts (race, ethnicity, minority) that makes their potential use in scientific analysis controversial. This difficulty of reflecting upon the ethnic fact or racial relations
contributed to the implementation of a normative framework, which until recently gave
priority to the analysis of integration, leaving the content of ‘racial and ethnic studies’ little
explored in France. This article offers a historical perspective on the way knowledge has
been produced in this field. It highlights the ‘doxa’ of the French integration model in social
sciences, elaborating on the controversy over the production and use of ethnic categories
in statistics, the various taboos revolving around the role of ethnicity in politics, the
discussions launched by the emergence of a post-colonial question and the transition from
an analysis of racism to the understanding of a system of discriminations.
Key words: ethnicity • integration • post-colonialism • racism • social sciences
INTRODUCTION
The French social sciences offer a remarkable exception when compared with
the social sciences in major immigration countries: the use of concepts that are
common tools for ethnic and racial studies are very rare and often criticized,
while the analysis of racism and the sociology of migration remained marginalized in the academic ‘field’ until the early 1990s. This French exception is
difficult to understand as the experiences of slavery, colonization and mass
192
International Journal of Comparative Sociology 47(3–4)
migrations have marked the nation’s history. It is rooted above all in the influence of the republican model of integration on the representations and framing
of society. This performative model seeks to maintain the fiction of a universalist nation that has succeeded in overcoming ethnic and racial divisions and that
has broken with the traumas generated by slavery, colonization and the often
violent re-configurations which accompanied the successive waves of immigration since the middle of the 19th century (Citron, 1987). However, it would
appear that the social sciences have largely contributed to constructing and
diffusing this fiction, reproducing in their problematics, methodologies and
templates, the same framework as that promoted by the national political
culture. The influence of the ‘national philosophies of integration’ on the social
sciences is not unique to the French case (Favell, 1998), but here it plays a critical
role. Seen from abroad, this difficulty of reflecting upon the ethnic fact or the
racial question intrigues, to the point of making France a special case, an archetype of the so-called ‘Jacobean and republican’ ideology (Hargreaves, 1995;
Brubaker, 1998; Schain, 1999; Chapman and Frader, 2004).
Of little value, research on immigration has long suffered from strong illegitimacy and discredit (Simon, 1983; Amiraux, 1995). Sayad (1991) talks about a
‘sociologie du petit’ (‘minor sociology’), and he specifies: ‘sociology of objects
relatively located at the bottom of the social hierarchy of objects of study’,
noting that the indignity which strikes the immigrants is transferred to the
researchers who intend to make them an object of study. The atomization of
observations long prevented the emergence of a ‘total’ object that could be
studied under multiple facets (housing, employment, family, schooling, sociability, etc.), all while preserving the coherence of the social situation experienced
by the immigrants. In fact, the studies were tied to diverse themes, among a
multitude of disciplines, where they continued to occupy a subordinate position
(Dubet, 1989). Thus, the non-recognition of immigrants as a social group in
French society and the illegitimacy of this field of research were mutually reinforcing, the impossibility of thinking about the place of the ‘minorities’ leading
to constantly reframing the problematic of interethnic relations in the repertories of social class.
The gathering of research pertaining to otherness and interethnic or racial
relations under the label of ‘sociology of migration’ reflects the difficulty of
extracting oneself from a specific normative framework (Rea and Tripier, 2003).
By ‘immigration’, it is necessary to include all of the research that deals with
relations embedded in or deriving from the migratory experience and their longlasting consequences. The analysis of racism is also noticeably lacking as an independent topic in the French social sciences. The obfuscation of racism and
immigration as legitimate sociological objects continued until the tipping point
of the early 1980s, which not only saw immigration and the question of ‘integration’ imposing themselves on the political agenda, but also the legitimization of
these themes in the scientific field. However, the opening of the French social
Amiraux and Simon Scholarship and Debate on Immigrants in France
193
sciences to migration studies did not coincide with a significant rupture of the
influence of policy on the scientific production of knowledge related to this
subject. On the contrary, the development of ‘integration’ research reinforced
the weight of the normative approach on questions of society (Boubeker, 1999).
The investment of researchers in defense of the ‘French integration model’ has
been characterized as an ‘embodiment of national identity’ (Lorcerie, 1994).
This focus on a specific integration model put aside the content of racial and
ethnic studies, which has remained little explored in France. This stems partly
from the fact that the question of racial and ethnic identities, memberships and
mobilizations continues to simultaneously receive a strong political illegitimacy
and a contested scientific validity. The ‘hexagonal mistrust with regard to ethnicity’ does not have just one particular explanation (Poutignat and Streiff-Fenart,
1995). It is more the result of the constant interactions between the heavy ideological dimension of the studies on immigration, a strong politicization and
saliency of the subject in the public arena, the maintenance of taboos and
unthinkables particularly in relation to the colonial experience, and a history of
the concepts (race, ethnicity, minority) that renders difficult a scientific usage
free of political terminology. The controversy over the production and use of
ethnic categories in statistics (Stavo-Debauge, 2003), the taboo revolving around
the role of ethnicity in politics (Geisser and Kelfaoui, 1998), the debates opened
up by the emergence of a post-colonial question (Blanchard et al., 2005), and
the passage from the analysis of racism to the demonstration of a system of
discriminations (Balibar and Wallerstein, 1988; Wieviorka, 1991; Mouvements,
1999; De Rudder et al., 2000; Fassin 2002) highlight the weight of the ‘doxa’ of
the French integration model on social science research.
Parallel to this landscape which characterizes the research on immigration,
the studies relating to race relations and racism have developed separately.
Strictly speaking, the latter have been for a long time more interested in the
construction of racial taxonomies and racial theories, in the tradition of the
history of ideas, than in the social conditions that produce racism (Guillaumin,
1972). The social science disciplines that dominate this field of knowledge
remain, well until the 1980s, philosophy and history. Thus racism rests predominantly studied according to the doctrines and ideologies upon which they are
based. Philosophers and historians therefore analyze the phenomenon as an
abstract, rather than by its practices and effects on French society. The definition
of racism, however, remains inseparable from the definition of the constitution
of race as a legitimate category of clustering people and as a means of classifying the social environment in terms of individuals belonging to a group. Can we
insert it as a concept in the lexical heritage of the social sciences? As we will see
in this text, the language of the French social sciences devoted to racism most
often borrows from a terminology that has been elaborated in the framework
of migration studies. We will not make an exception here, since the term ‘immigrants’ will return in a systematic way in our overview of the literature. In doing
194
so, we are well aware of contributing to the confusion between the field that
stems from the study of migrations, and that which is interested in ethnic and
racial minorities within a context not so much of national, but rather postcolonial domination.
The ‘sociological eye’ on racism, however, has changed due to political trends,
and sociologists and political scientists have invested this field of research at the
same time as highly visible political claims on national identity were made by
the far right and claims of equality and recognition by young immigrants during
the second half of the 1980s (Lapeyronnie, 1987). It is in this context that the
analyses of racism and those touching upon otherness and immigration (nearly)
meet for the first time. Ethnicity appears as the missing concept of the integration debate, less so because the studies of interethnic relations are not legitimate, but because the republican ideological framing imposes on politicians and
social scientists a matrix of interpreting social facts that eludes the social
dynamics of ethnicization (Martiniello, 1995).
In this article, we examine the evolution of how racism has been studied in
the French social sciences by attempting to note the major contradictions that
afflict the scientific field: on the one hand, looking for emancipation from the
framework of the political and normative model of ‘integration à la Française’
while continuing to convey its main elements; on the other hand, approaching
the concrete effects of racism while refusing to construct ‘race’ as a category to
analyze society. This deliberate choice of maintaining a strictly theoretical and
abstract analysis of racism, we think, explains in part the French inability to
think, describe and analyze pluralism in French society, whether in the positive
sense of producing a multicultural society or from the perspective of a true
sociology of racial domination.
THE FRANCE OF IMMIGRATION
The use of the word ‘immigration’ to encompass what are in many respects postmigratory processes is itself symptomatic of the difficulties experienced by the French
in coming to terms – both literally and ontologically – with the settlement of people of
immigrant origin. In the English-speaking world, such people are commonly referred to
as ‘ethnic minorities’ or ‘minority ethnic groups’, and a large part of what the French
call ‘immigration’ is commonly known as ‘race relations’. In France, such terms are
taboo. (Hargreaves, 1995: 1–2)
Although France is, according to the preferred expression, an ‘old immigration
country’, the social sciences have little dealt with the social status of immigrants
in relation to xenophobia, racism or inter-ethnic relations. Similarly, the question
of nationhood remains surprisingly absent from the French sociological
tradition, contrasting with the legacy in other disciplines (such as nationalism
and citizenship in such other disciplines as history and political science). Preoccupied by issues of territorial and political unity as well as social cohesion,
which characterized the transition from a rural to an urban industrial society,
195
Durkheimian sociology has largely ignored the ‘question of foreigners’ (Noiriel,
1988; Beaud and Noiriel, 1989). In his approach, Durkheim attempts to describe
the functioning of institutions, designated as the principal vectors for diffusing
norms, and therefore integration, as social actors occupying predetermined roles
embedded in a model of social stratification that disregards cultural differences.
Obviously, the personal investment of Durkheim in defense of a social universalist model that abstracted ethnic and racial divisions strongly contributed to
the orientation of his sociology and that of his disciples (Nisbet, 1966). The invisibility of these issues in the social sciences contrasts clearly with the saliency of
a ‘question of foreigners’ in the political debates (Dornel, 2004). The comparison with the birth of American sociology is enlightening: facing comparable situations of increased xenophobia and keen to enter into political engagements to
counter nativist and culturalist rhetoric, Robert E. Park and Emile Durkheim
adopted radically opposing sociological postures (Chapoulie, 2001). From this
seminal choice would flow a strong illegitimacy towards the study of immigrants,
as if their visibility as an object of research reinforced their stigmatization as a
social group.
This panorama remained more or less the same after the Second World War.
In the context of the progressive renewal of immigration and the reconstruction
of the country, the research dealing with immigration has been undertaken by
demographers and economists. This research responded primarily to a concern
with forecasting and control of immigration flows. Subsequently, vociferous
debates pitted those who favored a so-called ‘quantity approach’ for immigration against those who argued for a selection based on ethnicity (Weil, 1995).
Parallel to these studies in which the immigrant is only a simple statistical unit
called upon to redress age structures or to meet the needs of insufficient
manpower, monographic studies attempted to describe the professional activities as well as the family and social life and cultural practices of several
‘communities’. These observations are part of a questioning of ‘assimilation’
which, unlike the return of this conundrum at the end of the 1980s, is not yet a
reaction to any political debate. As part of a program initiated by UNESCO, a
great investigation into ‘the assimilation of immigrants’ was, for example,
directed by Alain Girard and Jean Stoezel in 1950 at the National Institute for
Demographic Studies – Institut National des Etudes Démographiques, hereafter INED (1953, 1954). Unique in its design, and particularly stereotypical in
its treatment of ‘assimilation’, the enquiry by Girard and Stoezel coincided with
new waves of immigration. If it opened with ‘the adaptation of the Italians and
the Poles’, it was followed the next year with two studies on Algerian immigration, attesting to the emergence of a new group whose trajectory would be
very different from those who preceded them. One might have expected a multiplication of studies on the process of integration that was unfolding. But the
social and political problems of French society at the time revolved more around
changes resulting from the disappearance of the rural way of life and the
196
consequences of industrial expansion. Perceived primarily as proletarians, immigrants would no longer be an object of major studies until the end of the 1980s.
The renewal of immigration flows from the beginning of the 1950s results in
a continuous progression in the number of immigrants into French territory.
From 2 million in 1946, the number of immigrants reached 3.4 million in 1968.
The ‘North Africans’, ‘French Muslims’ or, sometimes, ‘Algerians’ according to
the various official categories and social labels, are the subject of the attention
of the state and completely embody the profile of the immigrant in these years
(Sayad, 1977). This focus follows from several factors which rest as much with
the characteristics of immigration itself as with the historical context of decolonization. The Polish, Russian, Italian and Armenian waves of immigration
of the inter-war years gradually became part of history and their ‘assimilation’
is no longer a topical issue. The development of research on Algerians in France
takes place in the context of an unprecedented growth of migration flows
between Algeria and the metropolis, a consequence of the accession to full
citizenship of ‘Algerians’ due to the ‘statut organique de l’Algérie’ in 1947. The
research is carried out in an intellectual environment structured and animated
by the current of ‘indigenist’ studies, which essentially describe the colonial
world.1 The ‘Algerian matrix’ is also traced to the creation of the few institutions
called upon to manage the installation of immigrants (Viet, 1998), such as
SONACOTRAL2 in 1956 to house ‘Algerian workers’, and the Fonds d’action
sociale, hereafter FAS, in 1958 for ‘Algerian Muslim workers and their families
in the metropolis’. These two institutions will see their missions expanded to all
foreigners in 1963 and 1966, respectively. While focusing on the world of labor,
the representation of immigration opens up to migratory flows and abandons its
exclusive focus on Algerians.
Contrasted with descriptive studies, be it a narrative mode in radical literature or a statistical treatment, the work of A. Michel (1956) on ‘Algerian
workers in France’ is the first attempt to consider immigration as a proper
scientific object requiring specific analysis. For Michel it consists of analyzing
the situation of Algerian migrants according to theories of (colonial) domination and (capitalist) exploitation. Innovative, this approach announced a
change in perspective in the study of migrations. First of all, in distancing itself
from the assimilationist paradigm, the new sociological school incarnated by
Michel breaks with scientific practice tied to the administrative and political
control of populations.3 Furthermore, the exaltation of the ‘immigrant worker’
freezes this social figure at the center of sociological analysis, to the detriment
of other dimensions of immigration, in particular familial and cultural ones.
Lastly, in describing Algerians as a racial minority, Michel opens up a research
orientation on interethnic and racial relations, which she elaborates upon in
1962 in a comparative assessment of the sociology of racial relations in the
United States, France and Great Britain for the Revue Française de Sociologie
(Michel, 1962).
197
But this research program would remain without follow-up, on the margins
of a production of research that quickly abandons the analysis of colonial
relations transferred to the metropolis. Nonetheless, the Ministry of Education
creates in 1966 a National Commission on Interethnic Research. Its most
notable activities will be its contribution to the formation of a university
research center located in Nice devoted to the study of interethnic relations
(which became IDERIC4 in 1970), the organization of a Franco-British conference on ‘racial relations in France and Great Britain’ in 1968 and, as a followup to the conference, the 1971 creation of a journal, Ethnies, which would only
produce two volumes (Bastide, 1971). Though promising, this beginning of a
sociology of racial relations was unable to transform itself into an independent
structured current coupling institutional visibility with a scientific production
that would be sufficient to elaborate on a corpus of research. Retrospectively, it
is worth noting that the majority of the topics developed by this research later
became hot contemporary issues. But the impossibility of France viewing itself
as a colonial power and the fiction of decolonization producing a tabula rasa had
a tremendous impact on the social sciences, so much so that the latter
completely neglected the analysis of the very colonial structures which provided
the context for the Algerian migration in the first place. It is only recently, thanks
to the opening of part of the archives and to the emergence of a new generation of historians more familiar with post-colonial studies, that the colonial past
of Republican France has started to emerge as a legitimate object of study
(Savarèse, 2000; Saada, 2003). Certainly, the acclimatization of theories of
‘internal colonialism’ could have brought the necessary tools to think about the
continuity of the colonial reality in the metropolis as it emerged by the end of
the 1990s (Blanchard et al., 2005).5 This indifference lays the foundation for the
re-emergence of the subaltern that will come about in the 2000s (Stora, 1999).
But let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
At the time, the tendency of the social sciences is to abandon the field of
interethnic relations and to engage in examining immigration from the point of
view of labor and economic participation. The importation of workers as
compensation for the loss of French population growth, the exploitation of
immigrants, the competition against French workers in the industrial complex,
and the status of the proletarian immigrant are all problems primarily treated
by disciplines preoccupied with the administration of the state or the economy.
Demography for instance, where Sauvy developed his ‘populationist’ conceptions pleading for an immigration ‘of quantity and quality’, but also the sociology of work, which intersects with immigrants in its exploration of the
consequences of industrial change, are notable examples. Several prominent
studies (Granotier, 1970; Minces, 1973) and a special issue of the journal Sociologie du Travail (‘Les travailleurs immigrés’, 1972) symbolize the conflation of
‘the immigrant’ with ‘the worker’. Observed at work, the immigrant’s position
in the means of production was considered weak, as his status was looked upon
198
as temporary, a mirror image of French immigration policy. It is remarkable that
a sociology which defines itself as critical with regard to categories of thought
descended from the state, reproduces the administrative definition of immigration. This feature will be continuously denounced by Abdelmalek Sayad, a
leading French migration sociologist in the 1970s and 1980s and belatedly recognized as such by the scientific community (Sayad, 1999).
FROM THE ‘MULTIETHNIC SOCIETY’ TO THE ‘FRANCE DE L’INTÉGRATION’
The political and social mobilizations led by immigrants throughout the 1970s
influence the thematic changes in the research. Studies on immigrant housing
and segregation in what will come to be known as ‘ghettoes’ follow widespread
strikes over rent hikes in immigrant tenement houses and the initial cracks of
the ‘urban crisis’. Living in those deprived neighborhoods where the old
working-class culture is disappearing in the midst of the ‘new economy’, immigrants are located at the heart of the rising ‘urban struggles’ that begin to take
shape. The field is heavily scrutinized by an activist urban sociology, positioned
on the border between militancy and scientific practice.6 It attaches itself to the
dominant theoretical approaches of Marxist urban sociology, all the while
adapting the concepts to the immigrant populations. The latter serve as ‘revealing’ of the deep changes in French society, ensuring a magnifying effect by their
marginal position and their vulnerability to the exclusionary processes that
begin to undercut the triumphant prosperity of the ‘trente glorieuses’ as the 30
years following the Second World War were called in France. This tendency to
instrumentalize immigrants in studies where they always occupy a subsidiary
status is best summed up by Marié’s notion of the ‘mirror function’ (Allal et al.,
1977). It will be in the course of these field studies in the shantytowns, neighborhoods undergoing renewal or housing projects, that immigration research
will be reformulated and that the theme of interethnic relations will muscle its
way into the French social sciences.
The belief that immigration is now solidly settled in the French social landscape gradually prevails and considerably changes the analytical framework
(Sayad, 1984). It coincides with the irresistible emergence of immigration in all
aspects of social life beyond the working world and factories. Abandoning the
reserved realm of the economy and the means of production (Tripier, 1990), the
figure of the immigrant emerges in neighborhood relations, at schools, or in
the collective struggles that occur after 1968. The immigrant populations move
to the foreground, to the point of bringing about unease in and the rejection of
the majority – the ‘French’ – who consider themselves a threatened group. The
appearance of interethnic co-habitation conflicts – about limited residential
space or scarce economic resources as people compete for the few jobs available – stems from the increasing ethnic mixing in housing and the transitory decompartmentalization of the economic sphere. The multiplication of contacts, or
199
to use the vocabulary of urban ecology, ‘competition’, between immigrants and
natives generates conflicts of legitimacy, of which claims based on ‘national preference’ constitute the paroxysm, but which most often decline into opposition
to and negation of the otherness attached to the immigrants. The emergence of
interethnic tensions results above all from the desegregation movement which
commenced at the end of the 1960s (Simon, 1998).
In the meantime, the categories of people labeled as immigrants diversify.
After the feminization of immigration (Chaïb, 1994; Goldberg-Salinas, 1996),
the children of immigrant families, described as the ‘second generation’, move
into the spotlight during the 1980s and 1990s.7 Reacting to debates that shake
French society, the social sciences will mobilize themselves against the qualifications and terminology used in political speeches. Similar to the interventionist sociology pioneered by the Chicago School, a multitude of concepts and fields
of research are developed in reaction to the emergence and strengthening of
xenophobic discourse in the public sphere, while attempting to grasp issues of
the forthcoming multiethnic society. As De Rudder points out, the rediscovery
of the works of the Chicago School at the beginning of the 1980s by French sociology and anthropology, corresponds to the need for pertinent tools and vocabulary to illuminate a previously ignored world (De Rudder, 1990), in a social
context where notions such as minority, community, ethnicity still appear as
enemies rather than allies of the Republic.
New disciplines turn their attention to immigration and participate in the
renewal of approaches: political science, law, anthropology and history enter
more actively into the field during the 1990s. Consequently, the range of topics
studied expands: citizenship, community life, family life, access to education
and training, changes in cultural, religious and social practices, intergenerational modifications of the link to the communities of belonging, etc. The reflexive return to the history of immigration proves the age of this phenomenon,
which had almost been erased from the collective memory. The works of
Gérard Noiriel (1988), for instance, emphasize the significant contribution of
the social sciences to this amnesia. A rich historiography devoted to the history
of immigrant groups and places develops (Schor, 1996; Blanc-Chaléard, 2001).
From then on we know that France is a country of immigration that ignores
this very fact, starting with the realization that the waves of immigrants in the
‘trente glorieuses’ are here to stay, and that French society is irremediably
‘multiracial’, to use the unambiguous title of a J.L. Schlegel editorial in the
special issue of the journal Projet devoted to ‘these foreigners who are also
France’ (1983).
As far as the organization of research is concerned, some specialized journals
start to appear8 and an interdisciplinary structure is created to facilitate
exchanges betwewen researchers focusing on migrant populations (GRECO 139
– international migrations, 1974–88). The effects of this ‘networking’ will have a
long-term impact in the university system, and will contribute to researchers
200
paying more attention to ‘social demands’. For its part, public funding
contributes to a reorientation of social science research, but with a certain
confusion as to which kind should be privileged and in some cases an authoritative position redefining an entire part of area studies (on Middle Eastern and
Islamic Studies, see Amiraux, 2004). The FAS thus finances studies on the
training and economic integration of immigrants but also on repatriation assistance, although the illusion of temporariness dissipates over the years. An
ambitious program to support the research, baptized ‘France, multiethnic
society’, is therefore initiated in 1983. It is a tipping point. The right to difference, the political participation of foreigners on the horizon, the mobilization of
youth ‘of immigrant ancestry’ in marches for equality (1983–4) will be brutally
countered and supplanted with the irruption of the extreme right vote in the
1984 elections, and the cathartic debate around the reform of the code de la
nationalité in 1986 (Bouamama, 1994). This spectacular reversal leaves a mark
on the research program, of which the third part, centered on ‘everyday racism,
xenophobia and discrimination’ planned for 1987, is never launched. In the
space of only two years, France shortly found itself to be ‘multiethnic’, and
promptly returned to an assimilationist position, as the leitmotiv of integration
was imposing itself.10
This evolution accelerates with the politico-urban conjuncture. A series of
urban riots will follow one another in the 1980s and will reveal the unraveling
of a part of the more populated areas, where the immigrant populations are
concentrated. Several reports alert the authorities to the unfolding crisis and
outline some answers that are formulated in the so-called ‘City Policy’ (‘Politique de la Ville’). If the objective of city policy is the ‘struggle against exclusions,
seen as the refusal of an urban society of haves and have-nots’ (Geindre, 1993:
preface), the diagnosis of the urban crisis links the increase of unemployment
with the autonomy of immigrants in coherent communities. The obsession of
‘communitarianism’, never defined, emerges and is used to support a new form
of complex racism.11 A perfect illustration of this connection can be found in
this passage of a report written by the General Planning Commissioner for the
10-year City Policy:
Certain districts are becoming lawless. Nor should one mask the problems of ethnic
cohabitation: a situation of ‘relative poverty’ in France yields a revenue situated much
above the standards of living of the countries of the South, and the city will therefore
continue to attract immigrant populations. The immigrant workers of the ‘trente
glorieuses’ had the option to integrate themselves in French society, but what options
are there for immigrants or the children of immigrants without employment? In the
impoverished districts, is there not already a search for ‘communitarian’ identities, as
in the United States or Great Britain, and is there not a risk of attacking principles of
secularism and republican values? (Geindre, 1993: preface)
All the most prominent debates occurring in the 2000s (the obsession with
the ‘republican model’, abhorring American and British counterexamples,
201
accusations of an inability to assimilate, the failure of integration, rhetoric on
discriminations) are already lurking, with the exception of specific cultural and
religious references to the so-called Muslim population, which only emerges as
the central figure of ‘otherness’ needing to be overcome at the end of the 1990s
(Allievi, 2005; Amiraux, 2005). The omnipresence of young people of immigrant
origins in the social disorders that afflict the suburbs (for instance during the
November 2005 riots all over the country) amplifies the visibility of the ethnic
mosaic, which then often serves as a causal explanation. A dumping ground for
the poor and the immigrants rejected by a gentrifying urban center, the suburbs
revive the image of an ethnic or social ‘ghetto’ in the public imaginary.12 Notions
of ‘tolerance level’, ‘invasion’, ‘national preference’ and communitarianism
saturate the political discourse, no longer belonging exclusively to the extreme
right, and are obligingly taken up by the media.
In this context, the social sciences construct refutations and attempt to
impose a different vocabulary to account for the unfolding social processes. But
the denunciations converge with criticisms on the very concept of ethnicity,
whose recovery within the scientific conceptual frameworks is considered
responsible for the ethnicization of social relations. The syndrome of the selffulfilling prophecy leads to a prohibition on naming things for fear they will
occur. The fear of giving legitimacy to ethnic and racial differentiation in a
united and republican France dominates the research and numerous statements
maintain the confusion between the utility of observation and the social
dynamics themselves (Costa-Lascoux, 2001). Similarly, one prefers not to study
sociologically what one fears politically: racism and inter-racial relations remain
largely under-analyzed, despite the emergence of strategies of research in this
direction undertaken by scholars such as Michel Wieviorka. One would prefer
to denounce ‘ethnicization’ rather than to understand the modus operandi of
ethnic and racial distinctions, or speak of integration in France (which evokes
feelings of togetherness and cohesion) rather than reflect upon the production
of difference (Schnapper, 1991). The resistance to the development of a genuine
sociology of ethnic minorities in France is due to the monopoly of the French
integration model as analytical referent. Its political defense itself becomes an
integral objective for many researchers such as Schnapper, Costa-Lascoux, Weil
or Taguieff (Lorcerie, 1994). According to another intellectual tradition, the
desire to not abandon the socio-economic divisions in favor of a hegemony of
ethnicity leads many authors, such as Loïc Wacquant, to reduce ethnic-racial
domination to social inequalities.
Thus, two logics ultimately clash: one of differentiation (a cultural logic) and
another of inferiorization (mode of social structures). The strong politicization
of the subject in the 1990s favors the combination of an approach in terms of
race and ethnicity, refocusing on the thematic of identification and the modalities of participation of the immigrants’ children. This relatively late development testifies to the difficulty of identifying inter-ethnic tensions, because the
202
conceptual tools are lacking and because the research struggles to escape the
normative impact of ‘big processes’ (to use Tilly’s terminology) such as the
‘French model of integration’ (Bastenier and Dassetto, 1993) or other metanarratives constructed on the idealized history of laicité (secularism). Thus, the
emergence of a ‘second generation’ is obscured to avoid any stigmatization,13
defeating any analysis that refers to the existence of minorities (GuénifSoulaimas, 2000; Simon, 2003). This time, however, these different ideological
postures co-exist with other streams of research, in an ever-widening landscape.
The great controversies are gestating and it is the analysis of religious identifications that will evoke the most public virulence.
If the figure of the worker dominates the literature of the social sciences
pertaining to integration, from the end of the 1980s, family reunification as well
as an increasing politicization of Islam in the international arena, will gradually
lead to Islam becoming a major variable in understanding the failure of the
republican model (for a critical approach, see Khosrokhavar, 1997). Just as the
knowledge of immigration is a replication of the political debate and thus often
adopts a posture in defense of republican ideals, or rights of immigrants, the
construction of knowledge about Islam in France stems from a demand for
information coming from political authorities (local, regional, as well as
national), and is gradually compartmentalized in terms of the ideological cleavages of the respective scholars. The analysis of the religious memberships of
Muslims in France is, in the absence of sociologists of religion working specifically on Muslims settled in France, characterized by the dominance of political
science (Cesari, 1994). If the religious question has been relatively neglected by
migration researchers (Colonna, 1995), it acquires a new focus in the field of
migration studies undertaken primarily by specialists of Muslim societies
(Amiraux, 2004), who prefer an analysis of the visible organized religious life of
French Muslims (Kepel, 1987; Kepel and Leveau, 1988). For some, the religious
element is hardly apparent, or not at all (Diop, 1990), whereas for others it is
key and even becomes an explanatory variable. For the latter, the religious
forms of French Muslims are mostly analyzed in the context of the market for
religious goods and the link between politics and religion (in particular referring to the bonds between the country of origin and France).
The production of knowledge, which begins to accumulate from the Eighties onward
on the topic of ‘Muslim in France’ is thus the result of studies undertaken by specialists of the Arab-Muslim world and a public demand, which reorganize the field of Arab
studies. (Amiraux, 2004: 218)
The consequent allocation of financial resources to such studies, ends up
creating major surveys, with a focus on the ‘Muslim vote’, social engagement and
the organization of community life, issues about loyalty to Republican values
and religious belief. The opening up of migration studies at the end of the 1990s
to the significance of religion coincides with an increased public celebration by
203
some immigrants of their Muslim identity (to some extent in a ‘Muslim is beautiful’ manner). The overlap between political science and politics explains partly
the inability to read religious identifications and markers independently from
an emphasis on the principle of secularism, which in turn leads, two decades
later, to genuine intellectual crusades that either establish the Muslim as enemy
of the Republic (Kaltenbach and Tribalat, 2002), or Islamophobia as a new basis
for antiracism (Geisser, 2003).
THE FENCE BETWEEN RACISM AND IMMIGRATION
In this general context of the hypertrophy of the integration paradigm, research
on racism has centered on a history of the ideas, in the tradition of the studies
undertaken by Lévi-Strauss (Todorov, 1989; Blanckaert, 1993). Following the
central postulate of a society marked by the philosophy of human rights and
fundamentally egalitarian, the reality of racist expressions and their consequences for the racialized populations are completely eluded. It is pointless to
even try to look for it, as everyday racism simply cannot occur. This fiction
produces real political effects, notably in blurring ethnic and racial divisions and
in not giving them too much attention in social representations. It also leads
scientific analyses to ignore the social experience of the racially dominated
populations. However, this context changed with the studies on the transformations of racism. In the 1980s, racism is rediscovered by the social sciences,
particularly in the aftermath of the electoral successes of the Front National.
Two movements take off in the research on racism: one studying the minimization of racist attitudes,14 the other the racist argumentation based on cultural
differences (Chebel d’Appolonia, 1998). Ultimately a debate emerges on what
links racism to phenomena as different as discrimination, violence, prejudices,
racist doctrines, etc.
In the context of the revival of contemporary racism, the transition from a
biological essentialism to a cultural one is a major development (Balibar and
Wallerstein, 1988; Taguieff, 1988). The effervescence which accompanies the
more theoretical discussions is also reflected in the emergence of a new research
program, synthesized by Bertheleu as follows:
The origin and history of racism and anti-Semitism, controversies surrounding the
definition of the concept of race, genesis and the contemporaneousness of racial
prejudices, digressions around the concept of otherness, history and usage of racist
ideology, racism as a political project, the relation between racism and nationalism, or
between racism and social class, are all major problems that deserve to be addressed.
(Bertheleu, 1997: 117)
To work on racism implies envisaging the concept of ‘race’, which encounters
the French intellectual hostility with regard to reifying categories (Liauzu, 1999;
Calvès, 2002). Many studies have tried to determine whether the researcher is
responsible for perpetuating the kind of stereotypes that emerge from a
204
commonsensical approach to dealing with such things or from one that validates categories that are the result of racist rapports. Noiriel (2001) or De
Rudder et al. (2000) stress the role that the social sciences have played in institutionalizing racial or ethnic identities through the use of their analytic
categories, categories that are all too often not very far removed from practical ones. The problem is that if they do indeed target the a-critical abuses and
uses of categories, their only alternative is to work on formulating boundaries
or on some way of determining identifications. While such a program offers for
research one of its most promising perspectives, it leaves open the question of
categories to describe the society. That is, one would have difficulties in
developing groups without any means of analyzing the place individuals
assume in the social hierarchy, not to mention the mechanisms by which
inequalities come into play and are reproduced. In order to bring to the fore
deviations or other disparities and search out an explanation for them, we have
to delineate, at least temporarily, categories of individuals, categories whose
social properties will end up serving as a basis for comparison. Of necessity, this
operation requires validating boundaries such as they appear relevant at a given
moment in the structure of society, and this is the case even if these boundaries
end up reproducing ethnic and racial stereotypes (Martiniello and Simon,
2005).
Studies on racism, however, dramatize the conflicts rather than successfully
integrate them in the normalcy of relations between majority and minority
groups. The relationship between ethnicity and ‘race’ is rarely explored and
the desire not to construct different groups contributes to rendering invisible
and silent the ethnic and racial discriminations (Simon and Stavo-Debauge,
2004). The ‘controversy of the categories’ summarizes the dilemma rather well:
while choosing not to use ethnic and racial categories in statistics, the French
scientific community prevents the accumulation of discrimination data and
contributes to euphemizing the social impacts of racism. While wishing to
avoid the hardening of ethnic and racial divisions, statistical invisibility contradicts the experience of the dominated and functions as a normative imposition. Ultimately, critics of the ethnicization of statistics seem determined to
remain ignorant of discriminatory processes, in order to support a colorblind
society (Le Bras, 1998). This is quite a feat for an engaged sociology that
aspires to construct an analysis of systems of domination, in order to overcome
them.
Depending on the discipline, the studies of racism are inspired by AngloSaxon works and forge new concepts of a phenomenon that is in the midst of
changing. Institutional racism, new racism, hidden or subtle racism are
discussed, but continue to be observed with difficulty within the a-racial framework which still dominates the representations of French society. The emergence of the theme of discrimination has registered in this theoretical and
conceptual evolution and invites a more empirical reconsideration of the
205
incidence of racism and its mechanisms of operation. Up to this point in the
study of discrimination, the fields of analysis of racism and of immigration are
distinct, with the notable exception of the work by the teams of CADIS15 (Wieviorka, 1992) and URMIS16 (De Rudder et al., 2000). Wieviorka identifies four
potential sources of racism which, according to him, cover the four axes of
racism and indicate different points of tension between modernity and identities: a ‘universalist’ racism of which colonialism would be an example (race
authorizing domination); the racism of social exclusion (racism of social proximity in situations of decline; populism); identity-based racism (attacks on
targeted groups which change depending on the time and the circumstances);
and intercommunity racism (interethnic relations, with or without contact).
Wieviorka’s argument is that racism is no longer divided between multiple practices and rhetoric, but unified by the actors who provide it with a sense of political and ideological legitimacy (Wieviorka, 1991). Beyond the Front National,
one should analyze various public and private institutions in which racism can
flourish, independently from political linkages.
‘Cultural’ or ‘confessional’ racism has supplanted biological racism in the
imaginary as well as in the political conscience of individuals. This transition has
re-energized the debates surrounding the concept of ‘race’. The discussion about
‘category’ has long been restricted to debates on the scientific validity of the
attribution of a causal characteristic to physical attributes, the possibility of
‘heuristically’ grasping the notion of race, and the effects of such an intellectual
move. Colette Guillaumin (1975, 1977), for example, reproaches participants in
the debate on anti-racism for contributing to the existence of the notion of
‘race’. Taguieff (1995), many years later, renews the discussion on categories,
dismissing both racists and anti-racists. This discussion never disappears
completely, running over into the legal realm following mobilizations to remove
the reference to ‘race’ in the constitution. The issue here is related to the principle of indifferentiation defended by the French integration model: to mention
‘race’, even to fight against racism, contributes to reinforcing the belief in its
existence (Lochak, 2001). The sophism has been so successful that it paralyses
the struggle against discrimination which arises after the year 2000 (Simon and
Stavo-Debauge, 2004).
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION AND ETHNICIZATION
The revival of ethnic studies is almost entirely sustained by what is known in
political science as ‘the ethnicization of public policies’ (Morel, 2002). Although
apparently colorblind, public policies, particularly local ones, tend to insidiously
take into account the ethnic variable to determine access to rights and
redistribution. This masked identity policy characterizes the functioning of
‘pillar’ institutions of republican integration, which become ‘professional
producers of ethnicity’ (Moore, 2002). Though a taboo phenomenon for
206
analyses of integration and for public positioning by policy-makers, ethnicity
becomes a particular modality for integrating citizens of immigrant origins or
minority religions. The existence of systemic racism within certain institutions
(particularly the police, schools, social housing, and public health services)
produces widespread discriminations and contributes to segregation. The
awareness of the persistence of a truly ‘French model of discrimination’ instigated new political developments, partly stimulated by the adoption of two
European directives relating to ethnic and racial discrimination in 2000, and the
multiplication of research brought about by discrimination. Having become a
central ‘public problem’ over the last few years, discrimination has been the
object of a considerable amount of work and has supplanted racism as the representation of ethnic-racial hierarchical systems.
Essentially, in the French context, combating discrimination does not correspond to any engagement in favor of collective rights for minorities. Multiculturalism remains heavily embattled and the desire to implement the
anti-discriminatory policies developed in the United States, Canada or Great
Britain is largely criticized, even by specialists in the field (Calvès, 2004). In a
rather new way of questioning ‘cultural racism’, the charge against ‘communitarianism’ and the intransigent defense of the republican integration model and
secularism are presented as the best guarantors of anti-racism. However, the
‘communitarianism’ of minorities is a political fiction that is not backed up by
empirical research, while the posturing in defense of secularism on the occasion
of the ‘headscarf’ crisis has led to a resurgence of the most worn out images
stereotyping Islam and, by implication, Muslim women. Thus, the denunciation
of racism can paradoxically become one of the principal ways of stigmatizing
minority groups and of favoring their culturalist treatment.
Scientific controversies may therefore quickly turn into political conflicts.
Researchers are called upon as experts to participate in societal debates,
converting their research results into recommendations or moral judgments.
Many researchers openly embrace a specific political agenda, whether to defend
a threatened republican ideal (Tribalat, 1995), to advocate a pluralist vision of
society (Benbassa, 2004), to denounce a resurgence of anti-Semitism (Taguieff,
2002) or to counter the effects of an overwhelming Islamophobia (Geisser,
2003). The idea of a decline in civility, associated with an increase in violence,
led to describing populations of Maghreb or African origin as new barbarians
with a certain legitimacy when the authors are identified as Brenner (2002). The
public arena is said to be filled with racist and anti-Semitic insults that would
have become the norm, particularly in schools and popular neighborhoods. This
verbal violence, associated with demonstrations of physical, sexual and moral
violence, evokes contrasting images of actors encapsulated in their origins,
beliefs, and customs.17
207
CONCLUDING REMARKS: RACISM AND THE POST-COLONIAL QUESTION
Historically, several ‘moments’ in the history of France would have permitted
raising explicit questions about race in the French republican context, first with
the colonial experience and second with the slave trade and the consequences
of slavery. The fact that it was kept at a distance for so long, forgotten in the
closet of history, demonstrates its weight in the construction of the national
imaginary (Blanchard et al., 2005; Dufoix and Weil, 2005). At the heart of recent
polemics, the return of dark memories feeds the questioning of the integration
model and puts the question of systemic racism back on stage. To think of immigration as linked to the colonial experience is a perspective that was only
recently opened up in France (Savarèse, 2000), notably centered on the Algerian
crisis. This link is rethought in relation to several dynamics. On the one hand,
historians are starting to directly question the link between the republican
project and colonial policy (Bancel et al., 2003; Laurens, 2004). This movement
announces the end, to a certain extent, of a form of amnesia that was tolerated
by all and which considered as dissociated objects both the history of migrations
and the historical constitution of the French nation. On the other hand, this
perspective, in the tradition of post-colonial studies, puts as a central problematic of historiography the difficulty of constructing racism as a legitimate field
of knowledge in the social sciences, as a consequence of an inability (a
refusal?) to think about the actual limits of the so-called ‘republican model of
integration’.
Michel Foucault reminds us of his recommendation to:
create a history of limits – of these obscure gestures, necessarily forgotten once they
have been accomplished, by which one culture rejects something which for it would be
the Exterior (. . .) Questioning a culture on the limits of its experiences, is to question it,
within the confines of history, on a rupture that is like the very birth of its history.
(Foucault, 1961: ix)
The purpose is found in the further reflections on the endogenous racist nature
of the state: racism is not an imported phenomenon based on the problem of
difference, but presents itself as ‘the servile auxiliary of the state’s “murderous
function” by which the enemy will represent a danger that must be biologically
eliminated’ (Girardin, 1998: 114). One must therefore think of the notion of race
as at the heart of the colonial project, the fear of crossbreeding and the issues
at stake in constituting a perfect illustration (Saada, 2003). In a troubling
analogy, the ‘inferiorization’ of the post-colonial immigrant within the framework of the republican model of integration recalls the subjection of the colonized constructed in an indissoluble manner in relation to the colonist and the
metropolis (Memmi, 1957; Guénif-Soulaimas, 2005).
The advances made by historians have opened new scientific controversies,
while the political agenda discusses so-called ‘lois mémorielles’. How does one
look back upon the impact of slavery and colonialism, once they officially ceased
208
to exist? What are the continuities in the structures of management, and mentalities or representations of populations? Which policy of reparations should one
take up and how far back do the claims of the descendants of the victims go?
The ‘socialization’ of the colonial memory could perhaps allow us to reflect upon
the structures that reproduce the systems of discrimination by treating postcolonial migrations differently from other migrations. Taking into account the
multicultural and post-colonial character of French society today, explains
the current relevance of the theme of discrimination, while the mark of the
paradigm of integration policy continues to obscure its presence. Located at the
interface of these two paradigms, French social sciences are hesitant to break
with the illusions of universalism. In a mimetic reflex with the republican creed,
they still attempt to avoid the recognition of ethnic and racial minorities by carefully closing the closet door.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors acknowledge their gratitude to the participants of the conference
organized at the Maison des Sciences de l’Homme and two anonymous reviewers for their critical comments on the first draft of this article. They would also
like to thank Eric Mielants for the translation of the text from French to English,
and Marie-Agnès Sourieau for her assistance with the translation process.
NOTES
1 Cf. the creation in 1950 of the ‘Etudes Sociales Nord-Africaines’ (ESNA) by a
Catholic mutual aid and relief association: AMANA (Assistance Morale et Aide aux
Nord-Africains). The association was itself founded in 1947 by a white father, Jacques
Ghys, after his return from Tunisia. ESNA would regularly publish the Cahiers NordAfricains, a journal located at the junction of social action, denominational reflection
and accumulation of knowledge. The INED also devotes several of its Cahiers to
Algerian immigration to France.
2 SOciété NAtionale de Construction pour les TRavailleurs ALgériens (National
Society for the Housing of Algerian Workers).
3 A good illustration of this collaboration between policy-makers and academia
anchored in the colonial administration is the explicit participation of specialists of
Islamic and Middle Eastern societies in the public management of Islam in the
colonial territories. See Laurens (2004); Le Pautremat (2003).
4 Institut d’études et de recherches interethniques et interculturelles (Institute for
Interethnic Research and Intercultural Studies).
5 We think here of Black Power: The Politics of Liberation by Stokely Carmichael
(Kwame Ture) and Charles Hamilton (1967) or Internal Colonialism by Michael
Hechter (1977).
6 The studies by Monique Hervo and Marie-France Charras (1971), Juliette Minces
(1973) or Allal et al. (1977) are the most significant of this ‘action oriented research’,
but those of the ‘groupe de Nanterre’ (The Nanterre Team), specifically Manuel
Castells and Francis Godard, equally partake in the political critique of the urban
system in a Marxist tradition that subsequently became hegemonic in French urban
sociology.
209
7 The Haut Comité de la Population et de la Famille was already in 1982 dedicating a
study to ‘the insertion of young people of foreign origins’.
8 The Revue Européenne des Migrations Internationales, the only scientific journal in
France specifically devoted to immigration, was created in 1985 (and is still in existence).
9 Groupement de Recherches Coordonnées (Coordinated Research Group).
10 It is therefore difficult to ignore the question of financing, which is almost naturally
grafted on to the public ideological program pertaining to ethnic pluralism, and a
central element of the defense and promotion strategies of the Republic. This is a
central feature of the state which uses its financial power to defend and promote
French Republican values.
The Jacobean ideology of our republic, in the name of the dogma of the nation state,
has always denied the ethnic diversity of the French population. Consequently, in a
country where social science research depends overwhelmingly on public financing,
the study of interethnic relations has never been an important issue. The very concepts
of ethnicity or ethnic group are suspect, seen as compromising or complicit with racist
ideology. (Poutignat and Streiff-Fenart, 1995: preface)
11
12
13
14
15
16
For a specific analysis of the articulation between public demand and scientific
production applied to the knowledge of the Muslim population in France, see Roy
(2001).
The concept of ‘communitarianism’ refers to a particular aspect of the French debate.
It refers to the risk of political mobilization of ethnic, racial or sexual minorities and
the consequences of their recognition in public for the French political model. The
‘balkanization’ of the social fabric is denounced throughout this concept, but it is
used to discredit the emergence of specific claims made by minorities, such as the
denunciation of discriminations and racial domination (Lévy, 2005).
In the context of a crisis of the industrial welfare state, the notion of ‘ghetto’ was
amazingly successful at identifying those areas which expressed, with extreme forms
of violence and destitution, the collapse of the French social model. The proliferation of the term in political discourse and the media was strongly denounced in the
social sciences (Vieillard-Baron, 1990; Wacquant, 1992, 2005). The use of a vague and
indeterminate notion fills a central role in the symbolic management of social
conflicts. It highlights the hardening of the debate around two strategic issues: 1) that
related to acknowledging the ethnic diversity of the population and its translation
not only into the conceptualization of social forms but also into the national imaginary; 2) the use of a territorial demarcation of social inequalities, that is to say a
segregating system’s attempt to control, which assigns people according to their
socio-economic position, or worse yet from a French point of view, according to their
position within the ethnic hierarchy.
‘Young people of “immigrant origin” do not exist’, affirmed, not without provocation, Gérard Noiriel in 1988 during a conference devoted to ‘Integration policies for
young immigrants’ (Noiriel, 1989).
This is attested in particular by the regular surveys of the Commission nationale
consultative des droits de l’homme.
Centre d’Analyse et d’Intervention Sociologique (Center for Sociological Action and
Analysis).
Unité de Recherche Migrations et Société (Research Unit on Migrations and Society).
210
17 The regular occurrence of accounts in the form of ‘testimonies’ (of professors,
researchers, journalists, young veiled girls, raped teenagers, etc.) contribute to the
naturalization of accounts based on intimate experiences and set the standard for
behaviors perceived as ‘typical’ of a certain population group (Amiraux, 2006). The
stigmatization of the ‘Arab boys’ hardens along with the defense of ‘girls of
Maghrebian origin’ who are maltreated in the suburbs. In a specific way, a certain
feminist discourse ends up conveying many culturalist prejudices (Guénif and Macé,
2005; Delphy, 2006).
REFERENCES
Allal, T., Buffard, J-P., Marié, M. and Regazzola, T. (1977) Situations migratoires. Paris:
Editions Galilée.
Allievi, S. (2005) ‘How the Immigrant Has Become Muslim. Public Debates on Muslims
in Europe’, Revue européenne des migrations internationales 21(2): 135–63.
Amiraux, V. (1995) ‘L’immigration dans la recherche française. Bilan des études menées
en France depuis 1990’, European Journal of International Migration and Ethnic
Relations 27(1): 81–107.
Amiraux, V. (2004) ‘Expertises, savoir et politique. La constitution de l’islam comme
problème public en France et en Allemagne’, in B. Zimmermann (ed.) Les sciences
sociales à l’épreuve de l’action, pp. 209–45. Paris: EHESS.
Amiraux, V. (2005) ‘Discrimination and Claims for Equal Rights Amongst Muslims in
Europe’, in Network of Comparative Research on Islam (ed.) European Muslims and
the Secular State, pp. 35–57. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Amiraux, V. (2006) ‘Speaking as a Muslim. Avoiding Religion in the French Public
Space’, in G. Jonker and V. Amiraux (eds) Politics of Visibility. Young Muslims in
European Public Spaces, pp. 21–52. Bielefeld: Transcript.
Balibar, E. and Wallerstein, I. (1988) Races, Nations, Classes: les identités ambiguës. Paris:
La Découverte.
Bancel, N., Blanchard, P. and Vergès, F. (2003) La République coloniale. Essai sur une
utopie. Paris: Albin-Michel.
Bastenier, A. and Dassetto, F. (1993) Immigration et espace public. La controverse de
l’intégration. Paris: CIEMI-L’Harmattan.
Bastide, R. (1971) ‘Les études et les recherches inter-ethniques en France de 1945 à
1968’, Ethnies 1: 37–54.
Beaud, S. and Noiriel G. (1989) ‘L’assimilation, un concept en panne?’, Revue Internationale d’Action Communautaire 21(61): 63–76.
Benbassa, E. (2004) La République face à ses minorités. Les Juifs hier, les Musulmans
aujourd’hui. Paris: Milles et une nuits/Fayard.
Bertheleu, H. (1997) ‘À propos de l’étude des relations interethniques et du racisme en
France’, Revue européenne des migrations internationales 13(2): 117–39.
Blanc-Chaléard, M-C. (2001) Histoire de l’immigration. Paris: La Découverte.
Blanchard, P., Bancel, N. and Lemaire, S. (eds) (2005) La fracture coloniale, la société
française au prisme de l’héritage colonial. Paris: La Découverte.
Blanckaert, C. (ed.) (1993) Des sciences contre l’homme. Paris: Autrement (Sciences en
société), March (8) ‘Classer, hiérarchiser, exclure’; April (9) ‘Au nom du Bien’.
Bouamama, S. (1994) Dix ans de marche des Beurs. Chronique d’un mouvement avorté.
Paris: EPI/Desclée de Brower.
211
Boubeker, A. (1999) Familles de l’intégration. Les ritournelles de l’ethnicité en pays
jacobin. Paris: Stock.
Brenner, E. (2002) Les territoires perdus de la République. Antisémitismes, racisme et
sexisme en milieu scolaire. Paris: Milles et une nuits/Fayard.
Brubaker, R. (1998) Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Carmichael, S. and Hamilton, C. (1967) Black Power: The Politics of Liberation. New
York: Vintage.
Calvès, G. (2002) ‘“Il n’y a pas de race ici”: le modèle français à l’épreuve de l’intégration européenne’, Critique internationale 10(17): 173–86.
Calvès, G. (2004) La discrimination positive. Paris: PUF.
Cesari, J. (1994) ‘L’islam dans l’immigration: un bilan de la recherche’, La Pensée,
July/September, pp. 59–68.
Chaïb, S. (1994) L’ insertion socioprofessionnelle des femmes immigrées ou d’origine
étrangère. Bilan des connaissances. Paris: ADRI/DPM.
Chapman, H. and Frader, L. (eds) (2004) Race in France. Interdisciplinary Perspectives
on the Politics of Differences. New York: Berghan Books.
Chapoulie, J.-M. (2001) La tradition sociologique de Chicago: 1892–1961. Paris: Seuil.
Chebel D’Appolonia, A. (1998) Les racismes ordinaires. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.
Citron, S. (1987) Le mythe national. L’histoire de France en question. Paris: Editions
Ouvrières-EDI.
Colonna, F. (1995) ‘Islam in the French Sociology of Religion’, Economy and Society
24(2): 225–44.
Costa-Lascoux, J. (2001) ‘L’ethnicisation du lien social dans les banlieues françaises’,
Revue Européenne des Migrations Internationales 17(2): 123–38.
De Rudder, V. (1990) ‘Notes à propos de l’évolution des recherches françaises sur
“l’étranger dans la ville”’, in I. Simon-Barouh and P.-J. Simon (eds) Les étrangers dans
la ville: le regard des sciences sociales. Paris: L’Harmattan.
De Rudder, V., Poiret, C. and Vourc’h, F. (2000) L’inégalité raciste. L’universalité républicaine à l’épreuve. Paris: PUF.
Delphy, C. (2006) ‘Antisexisme ou antiracisme: un faux dilemme’, Nouvelles questions
féministes 25(1): 59–83.
Diop, M. (1990) Le mouvement associatif islamique en Ile de France. Paris: Rapport
d’étude CERI-FNSP-DPM.
Dornel, L. (2004) La France hostile, sociohistoire de la xénophobie, 1870–1914. Paris:
Hachettes Littératures.
Dubet, F. (1989) Immigrations: qu’en savons-nous? Un bilan des connaissances. Paris: La
Documentation Française (Notes et études documentaires 4887).
Dufoix, S. and Weil, P. (eds) (2005) L’esclavage, la colonisation, et après . . . France, EtatsUnis, Grande-Bretagne. Paris: PUF.
Fassin, D. (2002) ‘L’invention française de la discrimination’, Revue française de science
politique 52(4): 403–23.
Favell, A. (1998) Philosophies of Integration. Immigration and the idea of Citizenship in
France and Britain. New York: Macmillan.
Foucault, M. (1961) Folie et déraison. Paris: Plon.
Geindre, F. (1993) Villes, démocratie, solidarité: le pari d’une politique. Rapport au
Commissariat Général au Plan. Paris: La Documentation française/Le Moniteur.
Geisser, V. (2003) La nouvelle islamophobie. Paris: La Découverte.
212
Geisser, V. and Kelfaoui, S. (1998) ‘Tabous et enjeux autour de l’ethnicité maghrébine
dans le système politique français’, Revue Européenne des Migrations Internationales
14(2): 19–32.
Girardin, J.-C. (1998) ‘Avec Michel Foucault, histoire, théorie politique et racisme’, Les
Temps Modernes 601: 178–96.
Goldberg-Salinas, A. (1996) ‘Femmes en migrations. Une réflexion sur l’état des savoirs
en France’, Migrants – formation 105: 78–85.
Granotier, B. (1970) Les travailleurs immigrés en France. Paris: Maspéro.
Guénif, N. and Macé, E. (2005) Les féministes et le garçon arabe. La Tour d’Aigues: Aube.
Guénif-Souilaimas, N. (2000) Des ‘beurettes’ aux descendantes d’immigrants NordAfricains. Paris: Grasset.
Guénif-Soulaimas, N. (2005) ‘En un combat douteux. Concurrence pour la conformation
sexuée des Français d’ascendance migrante et coloniale’, Revue européenne des
migrations internationales 21(3): 91–109.
Guillaumin, C. (1972) L’idéologie raciste. Genèse et langage actuel. Paris/La Haye:
Mouton.
Guillaumin, C. (1975) ‘Les ambiguïtés de la catégorie taxinomique de “race”’, in L.
Poliakov (ed.) Hommes et bêtes. Entretiens sur le racisme, pp. 201–11. Paris/La Haye:
Mouton.
Guillaumin, C. (1977) ‘Race et nature: système des marques, idée de groupe naturel et
rapports sociaux’, Pluriel-Débat 11: 39–55.
Hargreaves, A. (1995) Immigration, ‘Race’ and Ethnicity in Contemporary France.
London: Routledge.
Hechter, M. (1977) Internal Colonialism: The Celtic Fringe in the British National
Development 1536–1966. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hervo, M. and Charras, M.-A. (1971) Bidonvilles, l’enlisement. Paris: Maspéro (Cahiers
libres 219–20).
INED (1953) Français et immigrés. L’attitude française. L’adaptation des Italiens et des
Polonais. Paris: Cahier de l’INED n°19/PUF (Girard, Alain et Stoezel, Jean).
INED (1954) Français et immigrés. Nouveaux documents sur l’adaptation (Algériens,
Italiens, Polonais, le SSAE). Paris: Cahier de l’INED n°20/PUF.
Kaltenbach, M.-H. and Tribalat, M. (2002) La République et l’Islam: entre crainte et
aveuglement. Paris: Gallimard.
Kepel, G. (1987) Les banlieues de l’Islam. Naissance d’une religion en France. Paris: Seuil.
Kepel, G. and Leveau, R. (eds) (1988) Les musulmans dans la société française. Paris:
Presses de Sciences Po.
Khosrokhavar, F. (1997) ‘L’universel abstrait, le politique et la construction de
l’islamisme comme forme d’altérité’, in M. Wieviorka (ed.) Une société fragmentée?
Le multiculturalisme en débat, pp. 113–50. Paris: La Découverte.
Lapeyronnie, D. (1987) ‘Assimilation, mobilisation et action collective chez les jeunes de
la seconde génération de l’immigration maghrébine’, Revue Française de Sociologie
28(2): 287–318.
Laurens, H. (2004) Orientales II. La IIIème République et l’Islam. Paris: CNRS éditions.
Le Bras, H. (1998) Le démon des origines. Démographie et extrême droite. La Tour
d’Aigues: l’Aube.
Le Pautremat, P. (2003) La politique musulmane de la France au XXe siècle. De l’Hexagone aux terres d’Islam. Espoirs, réussites, échecs. Paris: Maisonneuve et Larose.
Leveau, R. and Wihtol de Wenden, C. (1991) Mode d’insertion des populations de culture
islamique dans le système politique français. Paris: CERI/MIRE.
213
Lévy, L. (2005) Le spectre du communautarisme. Paris: Editions Amsterdam.
Liauzu, C. (1999) La Société française face au racisme. Paris: Éditions complexes.
Lochak, D. (2002) ‘La race: une catégorie juridique?’, Revue l’aventure Humaine 12:
63–74.
Lorcerie, F. (1994) ‘Les sciences sociales au service de l’identité nationale. Le débat sur
l’intégration en France au début des années 1990’, in D.-C. Martin (ed.) Cartes d’identité. Comment dit-on ‘nous’ en politique?, pp. 245–81. Paris: Presses de la FNSP.
Martiniello, M. (1995) L’ethnicité dans les sciences sociales contemporaines. Paris: PUF.
Martiniello, M. and Simon, P. (2005) ‘La catégorisation et la classification comme enjeu
de pouvoir. Rapports de domination et lutte pour la représentation dans les sociétés
post-migratoires’, Revue Européenne des Migrations Internationales 21(3): 7–18.
Memmi,A. (1957) Portrait du colonisé, précédé du portrait du colonisateur. Paris: Corréa.
Michel, A. (1956) Les travailleurs algériens en France. Paris: CNRS, Travaux du Centre
d’étude sociologiques.
Michel, A. (1962) ‘Tendances nouvelles de la sociologie des relations raciales’, Revue
Française de Sociologie 3(2): 181–90.
Minces, J. (1973) Les travailleurs étrangers en France. Paris: Seuil.
Moore, D. (2002) Ethnicité et politique de la ville en France et en Grande-Bretagne. Paris:
L’Harmattan.
Morel, S. (2002) Ecole, territoires et identités: les politiques publiques françaises à
l’épreuve de l’ethnicité. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Mouvements (1999) ‘Le modèle français de discrimination. Un nouveau défi pour
l’antiracisme’, 4 (special issue).
Nisbet, R. (1966) The sociological tradition. London: Heineman Educational.
Noiriel, G. (1988) Le creuset français. Histoire de l’immigration XIXe–XXe siècle. Paris:
Seuil.
Noiriel, G. (1989) ‘Les jeunes “d’origine immigrée” n’existent pas’, in B. Lorreyte (ed.)
Les politiques d’intégration des jeunes issus de l’immigration, pp. 211–21. Paris:
CIEMI-L’Harmattan.
Noiriel, G. (2001) Etat, nation et immigration: vers une histoire du pouvoir. Paris: Belin.
Poutignat, P. and Streiff-Fenart, J. (1995) Théories de l’ethnicité. Paris: PUF.
Rea, A. and Tripier, M. (2003) Sociologie de l’immigration. Paris: La Découverte.
Roy, O. (2001) ‘Les islamologues ont-ils inventé l’islamisme?’, Esprit, August/September,
pp. 116–38.
Saada, E. (2003) Les Enfants de la colonie: les métis de l’Empire français entre sujétion
et citoyenneté (1890–2000). Paris: La Découverte.
Savarèse, E. (2000) Histoire coloniale et immigration. Une invention de l’étranger. Paris:
Séguier.
Sayad, A. (1977) ‘Les trois “âges” de l’émigration algérienne en France’, Actes de la
recherche en sciences sociales 15: 59–81.
Sayad, A. (1984) ‘Tendances et courants des publications en Sciences sociales sur
l’immigration en France depuis 1960’, Current Sociology 32(3): 219–304.
Sayad, A. (1991) L’immigration ou les paradoxes de l’altérité. Brussels: De BoeckWesmael.
Sayad, A. (1999) ‘Immigration et “pensée d’Etat”’, Actes de la Recherche en Sciences
Sociales 129: 5–14.
Schain, M. (1999) ‘Minorities and Immigrant Incorporation in France: The State and
the Dynamics of Multiculturalism’, in C. Joppke and S. Lukes (eds) Multicultural
Questions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
214
Schlegel, J.L. (1983) ‘Ces étrangers qui sont aussi la France’, Projet 171–2 (special issue):
4–8.
Schnapper, D. (1991) La France de l’intégration. Sociologie de la nation en 1990. Paris:
Gallimard.
Schor, R. (1996) Histoire de l’immigration en France de la fin du XIXe siècle à nos jours.
Paris: Armand Colin.
Simon, P. (1998) ‘Ghettos, Immigrants and Integration: The French Dilemma’, The
Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 13(1): 41–61.
Simon, P. (2003) ‘France and the Unknown Second Generation’, International Migration
Review 37(4): 1091–119.
Simon, P.-J. (1983) ‘Les sociologues et les minorités: connaissance et idéologie’, Sociologie et Sociétés XV(2): 9–21.
Simon, P. and Stavo-Debauge, J. (2004) ‘Les politiques anti-discrimination et les statistiques: paramètres d’une incohérence’, Sociétés Contemporaines 53: 57–84.
Stavo-Debauge, J. (2003) ‘Prendre position contre les catégories ethniques. Le sens
commun constructiviste, une manière de se figurer un danger’, in P. Laborier and D.
Trom (eds) Historicité de l’action publique, pp. 293–327. Paris: PUF.
Stora, B. (1999) Le transfert d’une mémoire. De l’Algérie française au racisme anti-arabe.
Paris: la Découverte.
Taguieff, P.-A. (1988) La force du préjugé. Essai sur le racisme et ses doubles. Paris: La
Découverte.
Taguieff, P.-A. (1995) Les fins de l’antiracisme. Paris: Editions Michalon.
Taguieff, P.-A. (2002) La nouvelle judéophobie. Paris: Fayard.
Todorov,T. (1989) Nous et les autres. La réflexion française sur la diversité humaine. Paris:
Seuil.
Tribalat, M. (1995) Faire France. Une enquête sur les immigrés et leurs enfants. Paris: La
Découverte.
Tripier, M. (1990) L’immigration dans la classe ouvrière en France. Paris: L’HarmattanCIEMI.
Vieillard-Baron, H. (1990) ‘Le ghetto: un lieu commun impropre et banal’, Les Annales
de la Recherche Urbaine 49: 13–22.
Viet, V. (1998) La France immigrée. Construction d’une politique 1914–1997. Paris:
Fayard.
Wacquant, L. (1992) ‘Pour en finir avec le mythe des “cités-Ghettos”. Les différences
entre la France et les Etats-Unis’, Les Annales de la Recherche Urbaine 54: 21–9.
Wacquant, L. (2005) ‘Les deux visages du ghetto. Construire un concept sociologique’,
Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 160: 4–21.
Weil, P. (1995) ‘Racisme et discrimination dans la politique française d’immigration
1938–1945/1974–1995’, Vingtième siècle 47: 77–102.
Wieviorka, M. (1991) L’espace du racisme. Paris: Seuil.
Wieviorka, M. (ed.) (1992) La France raciste. Paris: Seuil.
Valérie Amiraux is a Senior Research Fellow at the CNRS, affiliated with the CURAPP at
the University of Amiens. She is currently a Marie Curie Fellow at the Robert Schuman
Centre for Advanced Studies of the European University Institute in Florence. Her current
work focuses on the notion of religious discrimination applied to Muslim populations in
215
France, Germany, Italy and the UK. Her publications include Acteurs de l’islam entre
Allemagne et Turquie. Parcours militants et expériences religieuses (L’Harmattan, 2001);
‘Discrimination and Claims for Equal Rights amongst Muslims in Europe’, in J. Cesari and
S. Mac Loughlin (eds) European Muslims and the Secular State (Ashgate, 2005); ‘Breaching the Infernal Circle? Turkey, the European Union and Religion’, in A. el Azmeh and E.
Fokas (eds) Euro-Islam at the Turn of the Millennium: Present Conditions and Future
Perspectives (Cambridge University Press, 2006); Politics of Visibility: Young Muslims in
European Public Spaces (co-edited with Gerdien Jonker) (Transcript, 2006). Address:
[email: [email protected]]
Patrick Simon is a Senior Research Fellow at the INED (Institut National d’Etudes Démographiques), Paris, France, and head of the research unit International Migration. He is also
Minorities Fellow Researcher at CEVIPOF (Sciences Po, Paris). As a socio-demographer
he studies social and ethnic segregation in French cities, antidiscrimination policies and
the construction and reproduction of ethnic minorities in European countries (social
dynamics, categorization, identification). He is working on two surveys, one on the
measurement of discrimination which aims at testing different ethnic and racial categorizations to analyze the effects of labeling; the second is a European comparative survey
on ‘The Integration of the Second Generation in European Metropoles’ (TIES project)
involving eight countries in Europe. Recent publications include: ‘La République face à la
diversité: comment décoloniser les imaginaires?’, in N. Blanchard, N. Bancel and S.
Lemaire (eds) La fracture coloniale (La Découverte, 2005); ‘Les enjeux de la catégorisation. Rapports de domination et luttes autour de la représentation dans les sociétés postmigratoires’ (with Marco Martiniello), Revue Européenne des Migrations Internationales
21(2), 2005; ‘The Measurement of Racial Discrimination: The Policy Use of Statistics’, International Journal of Social Science 183, 2005; ‘France and the Unknown Second Generation’, International Migration Review 37(4), 2003. Address: INED, 133 Boulevard Davout,
75020 Paris, France. [email: [email protected]]

There are no Minorities Here

Transcription

Documents pareils

Points d`intérêt - Discover. Share. Present

A table chez un Parisien

2 - Race in America

Syllabus Conversation class

Creation of Jean Grisoni Pendant Silver jewelry

ce LIEN - L`Université Paris Descartes

Six Feet Under Paris

U2 à Bercy | Hôtel Europe Saint-Séverin | 3 star Hotel | Paris

Letter of Condolence to Paris Bar President Sur re: Attacks in Paris

Program-PEC-26-10-2011