Pour une psychologie sociale de la laïcité : Identification et mesure de deux conceptions distinctes de la laïcité

Abstract

International audienc

Perceived acculturation preferences of minority groups and intergroup discrimination: When culture‐specific intergroup norms matter

“…However, research suggests that the meaning of laïcité underwent considerable changes in recent years (Baubérot, ; Roebroeck & Guimond, ). In 2004 and 2010, the promulgation of laws banning religious symbols and face covering in public spaces, widely justified on the basis of the principle of laïcité, generated a new interpretation of this principle referred to as “new Laïcité” (Baubérot, ; Roebroeck & Guimond, ).…”

“…In France, research trying to measure the level of personal support for the French diversity policy repeatedly found two separate and orthogonal dimensions (see Kamiejski, Guimond, De Oliveira, Er‐Rafiy, & Brauer, ; Roebroeck & Guimond, ). The first dimension, sometimes referred to as “colorblind equality” or “citizenship” (Badea, ; Kamiejski et al, ; Koopmans, ) is close to the colorblind ideology, well‐known in the USA (see Rattan & Ambady, ) in that it implies a tendency to downplay ethnic or religious categorizations in support of the equality of all French citizens regardless of their group membership.…”

“…The first dimension, sometimes referred to as “colorblind equality” or “citizenship” (Badea, ; Kamiejski et al, ; Koopmans, ) is close to the colorblind ideology, well‐known in the USA (see Rattan & Ambady, ) in that it implies a tendency to downplay ethnic or religious categorizations in support of the equality of all French citizens regardless of their group membership. Recent evidence (e.g., Roebroeck & Guimond, ) revealed that when applied to the religious domain, this first dimension directly relates to the law of 1905 establishing in France the principle of “laïcité.” Scales referring to this dimension of “colorblind equality” thus represent a measure of attitudes toward laïcité in its original sense (i.e., “historical laïcité”). In this sense, the political principle of laïcité aimed at promoting in France the freedom of conscience and the equality of all religions by establishing the fact that all French citizens must be considered as individuals before being considered as a member of a group religious.…”

“…According to sociologists such as Baubérot (), this “new Laïcité” is a misinterpretation of the original principle in that religious neutrality is requested not only from the State and its representatives, but also from individual citizens (such as in the 2004 law, banning conspicuous religious signs among all pupils in public schools). Whereas the historical meaning of laïcité in France, inherited from the law of 1905, was based on the equality of all citizens regardless of their religion, the new laïcité reflects the idea that religious practices should be kept private as much as possible and not public (Roebroeck & Guimond, ). Moreover, “new laïcité” seems mostly directed toward one particular religion: Islam (Baubérot, ; Kamiejski et al, ; Nugier et al, ).…”

“…As such, the principle of laïcité, the cornerstone of the French diversity policy designed to deal not simply with cultural differences but also with differences in fundamental beliefs of a spiritual nature (see Zoia, ), is currently a principle with dual intergroup meanings , each component having extremely different implications for intergroup relations. Research has repeatedly shown that supporting the first dimension, colorblind equality (and its application, historical laïcité) is negatively related with anti‐Muslim prejudice while supporting the second dimension, new laïcité is positively related with anti‐Muslim prejudice (Badea, ; Kamiejski et al, ; Nugier et al, ; Roebroeck & Guimond, ; ). In addition, there is evidence that this “new laïcité” has generated cultural norms concerning proper behavior in France (e.g., Nugier et al, ).…”