Neutrality and the Veil

This article was first published in French on the ENORB website.

The veil itself is not a political statement 

For many years, European countries have had laws and regulations banning the veil. The pressure on Muslim women in Europe to remove it and ‘liberate themselves’ is firmly rooted in colonial ideology. 

French colonial propaganda poster (used in Algeria during colonisation), c. 1950s-1960s, poster, 5th Bureau of Psychological Action, Service Historique de La Défence, France.

While in colonial times, unveiling ceremonies were a tool of oppression used as part of the civilising mission, nowadays there are different reasons for this pressure. For some years, the vision of forced ‘emancipation’ has been replaced by a rhetoric which prefers to question whether a Muslim woman wearing the headscarf is able to act morally and professionally. 

 Based on this view, if wearing a veil is a ‘political act’, then wearing a religious symbol would reflect a ‘neutrality’, or even an impartiality bias. Wearing the veil is therefore viewed as a political statement that speaks for the women who wear it. It would symbolise belonging to a ‘hard-line’ Islam (a term which is often used but never defined), which opposes gender equality and the western state model (again, it has never been explained why). And so those who wear it would be incapable of providing an equal service to users. All of this contributes to a distorted view of how Muslim women participate in society. 

 By portraying the wearing of the veil as a political act or statement in itself within public and media debates, we are making the very people this concerns invisible - the same people who are all too rarely invited to give their opinion in these debates. Like in colonial times, people are speaking for them about what their choice means for them and for others. 

What is neutral clothing? 

All societies are the product of their history, of one or more ideologies applied in principles that are found in law but also in social norms. ‘Neutral clothing’ and neutrality more generally are merely social constructs embodying a ‘standard’ within a given society and can in no way be applied universally. Clothing is just fabric. It means nothing without the person wearing it and without context. Instead, it is the quality of the service provided, not the individual’s appearance, that should be objectively measured and evaluated. 

Moreover, this law on ‘neutrality’ does not just concern Muslim women, but also black people whose frizzy and textured hair is considered unprofessional. In fact, like neutrality, professionalism is also an instrument of oppression. While professionalism includes values such as punctuality, politeness and of course the skills required for the job, Muslim women who wear the veil are told that the workplace is no place for it and that it goes against the company image. 

The reality is that ‘neutrality’ is just another word for ‘whiteness’, which is considered to be neutral, and individuals are judged depending on how easily they can adapt and blend in with white norms. And so, Muslim women with equal and similar beliefs who wear the veil are disproportionately impacted by requirements for neutrality than men, whether Muslim or not. It is also yet another law on the female body; they are either wearing too much clothing, or not enough, never free to make their own decisions about their bodies. 

Neutrality or impartiality? 

Does removing a headscarf make Muslim women more impartial? Despite the fact that impartiality is precisely the ability to act and judge a situation independently of your own values and opinions. For example, impartiality is meant to be one of the fundamental qualities of any public official in order to be able to serve the whole population equally. There are other examples where public officials are considered neutral because they are impartial, all the while showing religious affiliation. So, it is the work itself that must be ‘neutral’ or impartial and it does not depend in any way on the appearance of the person providing it. 

 We have moved from requiring institutions and organisations to be neutral, to obliging and legislating on bodies being neutral. It is a law about appearance, not equality. If the pre-condition for equality is everyone being the same, it is no longer equality. Equality is measured by the ability to express differences.