On Sarkozy and Burkas

Last month when French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared that the Islamic burka was not welcome in France, I shivered. I understand Sarkozy's intent—by denouncing the burka, he is attempting to denounce the oppression of women that, for him, the burka symbolizes. It's a noble intent, and certainly we should applaud the French President for attempting to make women's rights a crucial element of his administration.

And yet, his words disturbed me. Although he is trying to advance women's rights by denouncing the burka, Sarkozy's position simultaneously undermines the very agency of a woman to make her own choices. Certainly, the burka can symbolize the oppression of women—and, really, what better poster-object for oppression than a photograph of women whisking down Afghan streets draped in that eerie blue veil… the images are powerful—yet the burka is not intrinsically oppressive. In Sarkozy's view, it's hard to imagine a woman who chooses to wear the burka, and even if we could imagine that woman, it's hard to see her choice as originating from genuine religious piety rather than from deeply imbedded oppressive social mores. For Sarkozy, this denouncement of the burka intends to erase the danger of women's choices being influenced by those oppressive social mores, but, indeed, it really erases any choice at all.

If, in fact, Sarkozy's denouncement is truly intended to "free" women from oppressive social mores, it seems logical that he should extend that same denouncement to other social mores that oppress women. The burka is the marker of an Islamic woman just as high heels, makeup, and bras are a marker of the Western woman, but are burkas really any more or less oppressive than these familiar social conventions? Just as the burka exists to affect a woman's appearance—to shield it completely—so do high heels, makeup, and bras exist to the same effect; and just as the way a burka affects appearance for the benefit of men, so do these Western conventions we all love, or love to hate.

Granted, crucial differences are that the burka is a religious convention and that it has, particularly in Afghanistan, been tied to brutal governmental regimes in which women are not given a choice in the wearing of it. I don't think anyone would disagree that this is wrong—anytime a woman's choice or agency is undermined, her human rights are being restricted. However, Sarkozy's statement does not merely denounce the use of the burka in, say, Afghanistan; rather, he denounces its presence in France, where no government requires the wearing of the burka. And so simply denouncing it in order to remove the so-called social pressures that may enter into the wearing of the burka in France (family pressures, marital pressures, religious pressures) makes no more sense than declaring that high heels, makeup, and bras are not welcome in France either (because any woman knows that often the wearing or application of these beauty conventions has nothing to do with her desires but much more to do with social convention).

The subtle (and prurient) difference, of course, is that Sarkozy would not want to see such Western conventions disappear from France because he so clearly benefits from they way they put women on display, just as men in Afghanistan clearly benefit from the way burkas shield their wives from the eyes of other men. In truth, Sarkozy's denouncement of the burka (and implicit removal of agency from women who would choose to wear it) is no less oppressive than the regimes he tries to incriminate.

I generally like Sarkozy, and I like his wife, but this whole idea is just ridiculous.