« Nouvelle Laïcité » en France et Pression Normative Envers les Minorités Musulmanes [Secularism in France and Normative Pressure Against Muslim Minorities]

Abstract

Des travaux récents ont montré que la conception actuelle de la laïcité pouvait être reliée aux préjugés envers les minorités ethniques et religieuses (Kamiejski et al., 2012). Notre étude propose d'examiner ce lien de façon expérimentale afin de vérifier dans quelle mesure le climat social actuel peut légitimer l'exercice de pression normative à l'encontre des personnes d'origine maghrébine. Dans cette perspective, deux études ont été menées en France auprès de 334 participants ayant des préjugés plus ou moins élevés envers les personnes d'origine maghrébine. Les participants devaient évaluer et rapporter leur intention d'exercer de la pression normative sur une cible d'origine maghrébine adoptant ou non une attitude allant à l'encontre de la nouvelle laïcité (Etude 1) et sur une cible d'origine musulmane ou catholique adoptant une attitude allant à l'encontre de la laïcité (Etude 2). Les résultats de l'étude 1 montrent que les personnes ayant de forts préjugés évaluent plus négativement et exercent plus de pression normative à l'encontre de la cible contre-normative que de la cible normative. Par ailleurs, les résultats de l'étude 2 montrent que les personnes à forts préjugés évaluent plus négativement et exercent plus de pression à l'encontre d'une cible musulmane qu'à l'encontre d'une cible catholique. Ces premiers résultats soutiennent l'idée que la laïcité est susceptible d'être mobilisée afin de légitimer des attitudes préjudiciables envers les personnes d'origine maghrébine par les personnes ayant initialement de forts préjugés. Mots clés: laïcité; préjugés; modèle républicain d'intégration; influence socialeRecent research has shown that French secularism (laïcité) could be linked to prejudice against ethnic and religious minorities (Kamiejski et al. 2012). This study provides an experimental test of this relation and investigates the impact of laïcité on the tendency to exert normative pressures on minority group members. 334 French participants with low or high prejudice against North Africans were asked, in Study 1, to report their intention to express normative pressure on a North African target adopting (or not) a deviant attitude regarding laïcité. In Study2, Muslim vs. Catholic target adopted a deviant attitude regarding laïcité. Results from Study 1 showed that people with strong prejudice evaluate more negatively and exert more normative pressure against the deviant target than against the normative target. Results from Study 2 showed that people with strong prejudice evaluate more negatively and exert more pressure against a Muslim target than against a Catholic target. These results support the idea that laïcité is likely to be mobilized by people who are high in prejudice in order to legitimize negative attitudes towards North Africans.

« Je suis Charlie » : New Findings on the Social and Political Psychology of Terrorism [« Je suis Charlie » : Nouvelles Avancées en Psychologie Sociale et Politique du Terrorisme]

“…The most probable explanation is that this reflects a change in the meaning of laïcité. This is extremely interesting because it fits with a number of recent studies dealing with laïcité (see Nugier, Oppin, Cohu, Kamiejski, Roebroeck & Guimond, 2016;Roebroeck, 2015;Roebroeck & Guimond, 2015).…”

Stigmatized beliefs: Conspiracy theories, anticipated negative evaluation of the self, and fear of social exclusion

“…According to Goffman (), a stigma is “an attribute that extensively discredits an individual” (p. 3). These attributes, such as skin color (Pinel, Warner, & Chua, ), sexual orientation (Lewis, Derlega, Griffin, & Krowinski, ), physical or mental disabilities (Crandall & Moriarty, ; Rüsch, Angermeyer, & Corrigan, ), or religious (non)belief (Gervais & Najle, ; Nugier et al., ; Pachankis et al., ) may be of various kinds, as a function of the social context (Major, ). A great deal of research has been devoted to the topic of stigma (Link & Phelan, ; Major & O'Brien, ), including the study of its nature (e.g., the different characteristics of stigma such as controllability, concealability, and dangerousness; Frable, ; Major, ; Quinn, ), its origins (Kurzban & Leary, ), and its social‐psychological consequences (Major & O'Brien, ).…”

The impact of national integration policies on prejudice and psychological well‐being: The fundamental role of the clarity and coherence of integration policies

“…Contrary to historical secularism, new secularism applies the principle of neutrality not only to state representatives in accordance with the law of 1905 but also to individual citizens, even when they are not agents of the state (such as in the 2004 law, banning conspicuous religious signs among all pupils in public schools, or in the law 2010, banning face coverings in public spaces). It can be argued that these recent laws banning religious signs are specifically targeting religious minorities (particularly the Muslims), and so amounts to the stigmatization of Muslims in France (see Baubérot, ; Nugier et al, ; Roebroeck & Guimond, ; Troian, Bonetto, Varet, Barbier, & Lo Monaco, ). Indeed, psychological research has empirically documented that support for “new secularism” is positively related with anti‐immigrant prejudice whereas support for “historic secularism”, in contrast, is strongly and negatively related with anti‐immigrant prejudice (Kamiejski et al, ; Nugier et al, ; Roebroeck & Guimond, , ).…”

“…It can be argued that these recent laws banning religious signs are specifically targeting religious minorities (particularly the Muslims), and so amounts to the stigmatization of Muslims in France (see Baubérot, ; Nugier et al, ; Roebroeck & Guimond, ; Troian, Bonetto, Varet, Barbier, & Lo Monaco, ). Indeed, psychological research has empirically documented that support for “new secularism” is positively related with anti‐immigrant prejudice whereas support for “historic secularism”, in contrast, is strongly and negatively related with anti‐immigrant prejudice (Kamiejski et al, ; Nugier et al, ; Roebroeck & Guimond, , ). Thus, today in France, the principle of secularism is a principle with dual‐intergroup meanings, “new secularism” and “historic secularism”, each having extremely different implications for intergroup relations.…”