1

Complexities of the Rights of Man

An article of clothing, the headscarf primarily worn by Muslim women,
has ignited a controversy so great that the French political sphere enacted
legislation to outright ban the wearing of ostentatious religious symbols in
public schools. This revocation of a perceived facet of religious liberty was
defended by a strong emphasis on the French concept of secularism, known
as lacit. Opposition to the law primarily focuses on a violation of perceived
human rights. Proponents of the law point to the French Declaration of the
Rights of Man and Citizen, a fundamental document dating back to the
French Revolution. In its second article the French Declaration states, Men
are born, and remain, free and equal in rightsliberty, property, security,
and resistance to oppression. The French motto of Libert, Egalit,
Fraternit echoes this manifestation of rights by focusing on the inherent
Frenchness of liberty, equality, and brotherhood as evidenced by a uniting
French nationality. The groundwork of this unity is laid through assimilation in
the schools. French public school according to Jules Ferry is the crucible of
citizenship, a baseline for integration into French society. The wearing of
religious-fueled headscarves within a secular public space has been deemed
a distraction capable of undermining French identity. Public space must not
be subjected to religious difference in order for a peaceful coexistence of
religion. (Bowen 29) Through this conflict, the imperfections of a defined
code of natural rights are painstakingly clear. The Declaration of the Rights of
Man and Citizen cannot adequately guarantee the rights of its citizens.

Neither can any other concrete piece of legislation guarantee an individual a

set of abstract rights. Abstractions cannot be codified in a manner that
guarantees equality for all citizens.
The words of Hannah Arendt shed light on the limitations of relying on
the nation-state to provide equal rights: The Rights of Man, after all, had
been defined as inalienable because they were supposed to be
independent of all governments; but it turned out that the moment human
beings lacked their own government and had to fall back upon their
minimum rights no authority was left to protect them and no institution was
willing to guarantee them. Arendt primarily references groups such as
Poles or Jews or German, etc. when examining those whose rights have
been historically infringed upon. (Arendt 33) The similarities of an
autonomous political entity revoking rights when it has been entrusted to
ensure equality are exceptionally striking.
Hannah Arendt writes, The calamity of the rightless is not that they
are deprived of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or of equality
before the law and freedom of opinion-formulas which were designed to
solve problems within given communities-but that they no longer belong to
any community whatsoever. It is only when an individual is stateless that
they have they lost their human rights. (Arendt 36) Codified human rights
are formulated by a political entity, in this case France, exclusively for those
that adhere to the fundamental commonalities that install the notion of
Frenchness, or French identity, into the citizens of France. The practice of

anything that threatens the notion of French identity can be rescinded based
on the political climate. What is labeled as The Rights of Man and Citizen
quickly becomes The Rights of Man and Citizen according to France.
In his book Why the French dont like Headcarves, John Bowen narrows
this conflict of minority rights down to one provocative, conclusive question:
Should immigrants of North African origin be accepted in France? (Bowen
246) This question singles out this Muslim minority as potentially unable to
mesh with French ideals. Cultural friction has left Muslim women with a
reduction in rights at the hands of a legitimate political institution from which
they are theoretically guaranteed rights as French citizens. Yet when religious
identity clashes with French identity, the well-being of the nation-state
supersedes the so called inalienable rights of a Muslim female minority. The
rights of the individual stem from the overarching rights of humanity. The
overarching rights of humanity stem from the codification of abstraction by a
political body. The man for whom the Declaration of the Rights of Man is
based upon does not actually exist. France determines the rights it wishes to
lavish upon its citizens, as well as those it wishes to take away from groups
who seem to present an unwillingness to choose nationality above religion. In
the past, those who were oppressed often escaped the civilization around
them to live outside the jurisdiction of political entities. The Muslim minority
of today cannot relocate to a region devoid of right-determining civilization.
The reach of political entities stretches across the globe.

Arendt ties together the need for equality with the organization of
political entities. Our political life rests on the assumption that we can
produce equality through organization. (Arendt 43) This reliance on
organization as a path to equality is clearly shattered when a right-restricting
statute targeting the religious actions of a particular group of people is
enacted. The rights of Muslim women are undoubtedly being reduced, while
the rights of other French citizens remain unaltered. When abstractions are
enforced by political institutions, a percentage of the population may find
themselves alienated from their so called inalienable rights.
Bowen expresses that the head scarf ban is inherently based upon the
abstract individual. (Bowen 243) The abstract individual possesses the
abstract rights pertaining to man that are described as being inalienable. The
French government has taken it upon itself to acutely define and
consequently enforce the abstraction of the rights of man. Yet what is
consistently overlooked is that abstraction does represent reality. The rights
of man are indeed unenforceable by an organized political entity. (Arendt 36)
When abstractions related to universal French equality arise and become the
basis for law, exclusivity follows. The political institution of France sought to
guarantee individual rights, but by this endeavor to solidify the abstract,
France has taken away the rights of a religious minority. The famous French
motto Libert, Egalit, Fraternit only applies to those who fall in line with
secular French ideal. The minority has in fact been alienated, caught in the

crossfire of abstractions carried through history and complex modern

realities.

Bibliography:
Arendt, Hannah
2003 (1948)
The Perplexities of the Rights of Man, from The Origins of
Totalitarianism. In The Portable Hannah Arendt. P. Baehr, ed. Pp. 31-45.
New York: Penguin.
Bowen, John R.
2007 Why the French Don't Like Headscarves: Islam, the State, and Public
Space. Princeton: Princeton University Press.