In yesterday’s class, we discussed Leila Ahmed‘s essay “Reinventing the Veil.” In her article, Ahmed explores the various reasons why Muslim women in Western societies are choosing to veil themselves, ultimately challenging her own assumptions about what the veil symbolizes, concluding that “the veil can have multiple meanings” (307). I was reading more about the veil and, particularly, updating myself on France’s “burkini ban” (which we were discussing at the end of class in WR112 E1). To learn more about the ban, check out this post from news site France24, and then check out this follow-up post about the ban being overturned. After reading through these various online articles about the burkini, I found this article from The Guardian (an international news source), written by journalist Amelia Hill. The article focuses on a recent study on women’s decisions to wear the veil and their views of integration. The study, conducted by two researchers from the sociology department at the University of Oxford, shows that “attempts to force Muslim women to stop wearing the veil might…be counterproductive by depriving them of the choice and opportunity to integrate: if women cannot signal their piety through wearing a veil, they might choose or be forced to stay at home” (Hill). In this way, the results of the study demonstrate that veiling can actually be a sign of more integration rather than less.

Consider Marcelo Gleiser‘s views on the unrealistic possibility of cultural unity due to what he views as people’s innate tribal tendencies. In what ways do France’s “burkini ban” (and debates surrounding France’s commitment to secularism) and the veiling study from  the University of Oxford serve as further evidence for and/or counterarguments to Gleiser’s view?

Respond either to this post or to the “Cultural Gains and Losses” post before class time on Friday, 10/19. Refer to the Blog Response Evaluation Criteria handout (BB > Handouts > Unit 2) to review expectations for your response.