Integrate means that there remain subsocieties defined by culture
A subsociety will have some - strong - amount of social segregation in the form of specific friendly interactions, a preponderance of marriage within the subsociety, etc. The geek subculture exists but is definitely not a subsociety according to this, for example.
I bet there is a "conservative catholic" subculture in France which mostly only interacts friendly and intermarries with itself. A man of words and not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds; a man of deeds and not of words is like a garden full of turds — Anonymous
And also, the problems of a subsociety for the wider demos comes not only from the fact that the subsociety exists, but also how it defines itself : Is it collectively attempting to define itself, segregate itself, and consciously improve its lot in society as opposed to the other subgroups ?
For example, typically in France, academics are defined by "having a PhD", which is more or less attemptable by everybody, although being from academic parents help ; so the maintaining of a subsociety is not conscious. Secondary school teachers in France is one of the group most adamant about not forming subsocieties, indeed.
Compare to what counts in France as the haute bourgeoisie, which consciously creates a segregated education system for it kids, enforces marriage within the class through social disapproval, and is able to get members of the class in the Elysée.
Compare to a mythical muslim subsociety which would only vote for communautarian parties, which would send the kids to private muslim schools, and whose women would be practically unable to communicate with the outside society because of the burqa.
Obvious reasons mean that Sarko denounces the mythical later subsociety rather than the earlier one... Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
Has all of this ever been researched properly? It would make a wonderful study.
I suspect it's rather leaky
All subcultures are leaky, however you care to define them. A man of words and not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds; a man of deeds and not of words is like a garden full of turds — Anonymous
And not all subcultures are equally significant politically. No one much cares what fringe religions like paganism do or what geeks believe, because pagans have no influence on policy, and geeks only care if they change the source code.
But Islam could have an influence and Catholicism very much does have an influence - especially in the UK, where it gave us Plastic Tony.
So perhaps the issue isn't about freedom of expression as much as freedom of political influence.
Sarko's motivation is that he wants to get the far right voters to support him ; that includes the conservative christians, but quite a lot of the racist supporters are just racist and want a racially defined French society.
But he knows he won't be criticised on the burqa subject because quite a bit of the left sees the burqa as the instrument of a fundamentalist muslim subsociety and thus don't like it. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
your own
Compare to what counts in France as the haute bourgeoisie, which consciously creates a segregated education system for it kids, enforces marriage within the class through social disapproval, and is able to get members of the class in the Elysée. Compare to a mythical muslim subsociety which would only vote for communautarian parties, which would send the kids to private muslim schools, and whose women would be practically unable to communicate with the outside society because of the burqa. Obvious reasons mean that Sarko denounces the mythical later subsociety rather than the earlier one...
Obvious reasons mean that Sarko denounces the mythical later subsociety rather than the earlier one...
But from the other side, there's also the implication that as long as Muslims play the game by not challenging existing symbol systems head-on, they can be 'assimilated' and allowed to fit into the usual round of social aspiration and imitation - which is the true state religion, even if the state likes to pretend that it's purely secular and doesn't do any overt ritual or social management.
the usual round of social aspiration and imitation - which is the true state religion, even if the state likes to pretend that it's purely secular and doesn't do any overt ritual or social management.
I would not call it State religion, but State ideology. And I would say that in France the State does not pretend anything of the sort: the ritual and social management are definitely part of the acknowledged fabric of French society.
Again, this goes back to a point that I made earlier in this thread: that active State interventionism is something conscious, acknowledged and supported by large majorities in the country.
And that's why many on the left will support some form of action against burqas (not forbidding them in the street, because that's just impossible and silly, but forbidding them in regulated places like schools and hospitals, with the full symbolic impact of such limited measures) even though they are fully aware of his racist mongering. That's France. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I would not call it State religion, but State ideology
