‘

Robert F. Barsky, Vanderbilt University

This September, as they start the school year, French children aged 14 years old and upwards are going to get lessons on how to deal with a terrorism attack on their school. Meanwhile, the debate over the ban on wearing burkinis and whether they are, in the words of France’s prime minister, “a political sign of religious proselytising” continues.

The big question, however is this: Why are we seeing a rash of these attacks in Europe and especially in France, and are such measures effective in countering them?

What have we learned from the horrors of the Charlie Hebdo shooting, the murder of 130 people in and around Paris last November, the Bastille Day truck attack in Nice and the killing of an 85-year-old priest inside of a church in Normandy?

Examining the reactions of French authorities, we can conclude there are only limited actions that can be taken to prevent such atrocities.

Security can been heightened by extending the state of emergency that it declared last November. Intelligence efforts can be redoubled. Such efforts are raising concern about civil liberties being curtailed. But the Nice attack is also a dire warning that these measures aren’t effective as a means of protecting citizens from continued attacks.

The point is that none of the above policies could have prevented Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel and Abdelmalik Petitjean from carrying out their violent actions. Thousands if not millions of people living in Europe have similar profiles. Tunisian or Algerian descent and French citizenship are not enough to tip off authorities that a person could run over 84 people with a truck or slit the throat of a priest.

So how can we hope to prevent future attacks? We need to change our focus, in my opinion, to examining these perpetrators’ “sense of belonging” rather than looking for reasons to detain or expel them because they don’t belong.

A Canadian case study

A number of years ago, while working at the National Institute for Scientific Research in Montréal, I was invited to join a research team studying the integration of refugees and immigrants into Québec society.

This led me to work on research projects that looked at a broad range of questions – from why people claim refugee status to how immigrants use storytelling to talk about their displacement and assimilation into Canada.

My first project was focused upon immigrant literary works – especially novels and short stories – that were a largely untapped source of information to help officials understand the complex process of integrating into Quebec society, and in particular, as a way to understand relationships between immigrants and individuals from the host country.

There’s a pretty large body of so-called immigrant literature in Québec. Interestingly, many of these narratives include graphic and sometimes even pornographic descriptions of encounters between native-born and immigrant protagonists.

A broad reading of these stories made me realize that developing relationships with friends and lovers contributed to the migrant’s “sense of belonging.” They helped him or her to forget their country of origin and forge a new beginning in the host society.

In fact, I came to believe that these immigrants’ ability to adapt had something to do with the very process of exchange. Or, put another way, the many acts of giving and receiving that they committed each day helped them to feel connected to society.

Measuring belonging

In order to evaluate this process of adaptation, I turned to work by French biblical scholars called the Groupe d’Entrevernes, which focuses upon how narratives “make sense”: that is, how a story creates meaning in the context of the text, but also in regards to the world to which it refers.

This approach focuses on looking for meaning by analyzing particular actions, notably “who does what to whom where.” So in the case of immigrant literature, a group of us looked in minute detail at the complex interactions between characters, with special focus upon how relationships begin and end, and what is gained in the process. We also assessed characters’ attitudes prior to and after each interaction, with an eye to understanding the effect of the exchange.

Our goal was to assess which specific actions help foster a sense of belonging, in a new country and which alienate the character from his or her society.

The signing of a lease, the acquisition of immigrant status (whether a work visa or a green card) or being hired for a job all foster a sense of belonging. Being kicked out of an apartment, divorced or deported are all examples of loss of belonging.

Implications for policymakers

The advantage of research like this for a case like Nice is that it forces the investigator to examine all of the concrete details of the perpetrators’ lives leading up to the horrific event, rather than just focusing upon the act of violence.

It’s not sufficient to know that Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel had a violent relationship with his wife, or that Abdelmalik Petitjean visited Turkey just prior to entering a church in Normandy.

What’s more important is to understand what they wanted for themselves in the longer term. As difficult as it now seems in light of their murderous actions, we would gain a lot by undertaking meticulous investigations into these individuals’ sense that they didn’t belong in France, and that they had to destroy what it represents.

By creating concrete conditions for different communities to feel they belong, policymakers can help their diverse populations feel connected to, and thus protective of, their societies.

Many of the analyses of recent terrorist events have focused upon the “lone-wolf” quality of the perpetrators. These lone wolves are difficult to predict, because they are acting independently, and without any contact with extremist organizations or individuals.

The work of policymakers, then, is to figure out how to prevent these individuals from acting impulsively, on the basis of some unpredictable trigger. My sense is that the only way to do this is to build a sense of belonging that will prevent them from feeling destructive. If they feel alienated from their society and feel they don’t belong there, then they can also feel that other people deserve to suffer or die.

Following the logic of this approach, we can try to figure out which actions serve to reinforce belonging and which hinder it and then develop policies that build on the positive rather than the purely negative.

Our research in Quebec indicated that most of these actions are quite simple and achievable. They range from providing federal funds for ethnic celebrations and translations for pamphlets about available social services to encouraging local tolerance for so-called “foreign” customs such as the wearing of burkinis (something that has not happened in France) or Sikh turbans. In the Quebec example, our reading of the literature also indicated that undue bureaucratic wrangling that hinders the process of procuring basic necessities, like a driver’s license, or that made access to social services such as health care or daycare difficult, can become sources of frustration and alienation.

At the same time, it is crucial to explain which of these customs can lead to severe punishment in the host country. Such actions as Latin Americans shooting off guns during parties or immigrants from Africa and the Middle East sending children abroad for female genital mutilation can become grounds for serous punishments.

Most importantly, our research suggested that successful integration generally occurs through individual incentive and personal relationships, fostered, whenever possible, by the community or the government. The 1988 Canadian Multiculturalism Act formalized a policy to encourage multicultural diversity and develop a sense of tolerance through recognition and understanding. One result of our own research was to help contribute to a higher profile for the Ministry of Immigration and Cultural Communities and to support their championing of diversity and inclusion.

I may have traveled to Nice this summer with my family in order to celebrate Bastille Day, because it’s a beautiful setting, a city where we dream of the passion, luxury and the sultry pleasures of the French Riviera. Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel may have decided to target those same celebrations for exactly the same reasons, because while we might feel like sharing in that sense of belonging, he most certainly didn’t.

Robert F. Barsky, Professor of English and French Literatures, and Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Discussions in print, electronic and social media today, whether about presidential politics, sports, music or film are often about “race” in America. The repetitive media focus on San Francisco quarterback Colin Kaepernick’s “protest” during the performances of the “Star Bangled Banner” before the commencement of a 49’s NFL game is just one example.

The repetitive news commentaries about presidential candidates Donald Trump and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s respective campaigns in African American communities is another.

Against this background, the Presidential Elections of 2016 just may be THE historic opportunity for the United States in 2017 and beyond to finally address the legacy of slavery underlying the existential issue of “race” in our country.

We write this because of the issue of race in America is ubiquitous. And, the subject of a renewed semester 15 week course we teach at the University of San Francisco. The course, “From Slavery To Obama-Renewing The Promise of Reconstruction” was created with the assistance of superbly able faculty members at USF.

The thesis of the course is: Notwithstanding the election of an African American as the 44th President of the United States, the current generation of Americans will be unable to understand or address the issue of race unless they study the institution of slavery, it’s companion ideology of “white supremacy”, their joint consequential impact on subsequent generations of the descendants of slaves and slave holders and our political, educational, economic and social institutions.

The 45th President, after taking his or her oath of office in January 2017 should respond to what we described above as “THE opportunity” by following the example of South Africa, after it’s election of Nelson Mandela as President following generations of racial “Apartheid”.

The new government created a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” to publicly acknowledge the atrocities committed against Black South Africans and publicly apologized, (and in some instances offered “reparations”) to the victims’ families.

Our new president could convene a Special Joint Session of Congress, just like President Lyndon B. Johnson did in connection with introducing the new Voting Rights Act of 1965. This 2017 Special Session could be convened to issue an apology to today’s descendants of slaves for the institution of slavery on behalf of predecessor governments and our current national government.

We anticipate that there will opposition from the “right” and the “left” to such a proposal. Those opposing such a proposed apology are likely to say in effect “I had nothing to do with slavery, therefore, I have nothing to apologize for”. Some current descendants of slaves might react by saying “Don’t give me no apology. Give me reparations for the 240+ years of unpaid labor extracted from my ancestors!”

We are simply proposing that something dramatic be done to break the cycle of cynicism about race and race relations in America today.

Meanwhile, recent polls suggest that the 2016 Presidential and Congressional elections may be putting many African-American voters between a “rock and a hard place”

Over 25 percent of African-Americans are between 18 and 34, and 44 percent are older than 35, according to 2013 census data

“Today’s young African-American voters are less likely to be found in black churches and more likely to be found in schools, loosely organized activist groups and online”, said Ms. Packnett, a St. Louis activist polled by Cornell Belcher, a Democratic pollster.

“Mrs. Clinton’s difficulties with young African-Americans were laid bare in four focus groups conducted in Cleveland and Jacksonville, Fla., for a handful of progressive organizations spending millions on the election: the service employees union, a joint “super PAC” between organized labor and the billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, and a progressive group called Project New America”.

In describing the doubts lingering especially among 18-34 African American voters, pollster Cornell Belcher wrote”

“Doubts about how aggressively Mrs. Clinton will move to combat racism are at the heart of black suspicion toward her. Some African-Americans said her 1996 reference to some young criminals as “super-predators,” and the legislation that President Bill Clinton signed imposing stiff sentences on nonviolent offenders, have made today’s activists skeptical about her true intentions”.

Sadly, Hillary Clinton’s Democratic “establishment African American advisors themselves appear not to have clue as to what’s most important to this generation’s African American community.

Then, there are former Senator Bernie Sander’s supporters who are having their doubts and suspicions confirmed about their belief that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is fundamentally a “tool” or “spokesperson” for the rich and wealthy donors. How else to explain raising $140 million within 30 days from such donors? But, no time during more than 272 days to hold a traditional press conference with reporters.

Clearly, the establishment leadership wing of the National Democratic Party, after rigging the primaries in favor of Hillary Clinton over Senator Bernie Sanders, have decided to turn its back on millions of Sanders’ supporters’ opposition to the influence of “big money” in the Democratic party.

Some cynics are saying the race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton for president is similar to the past Gubernatorial race between Louisiana Governor Edward Edwards and David Duke a leader of that State’s Klu Klux Klan: A political choice then described as being between a crook that Louisiana voters for governor knew(Edwards), and David Duke of the Klan. Edwards was reelected governor.

Strategic political leadership, after thoughtful analysis often requires difficult choices that transcend satisfaction of immediate political goals or objectives. The 2008 Obama campaign frequently cautioned against making “Perfect the enemy of the good”, or the enemy of what’s pragmatically possible; and politically necessary.

As a former primary supporter of Bernie Sanders we are confronted among choosing Trump, Clinton or voting for a third party presidential candidate.

Hillary Clinton is ethically challenged and a political opportunist. However, we are unwilling to provide Trump with the unique opportunity to appoint new justices to the United States Supreme Court. This singular fact is so important to us that ii requires us to hold our noses and vote for Clinton: the devil that we know, to achieve a more important politically strategic objective.

Again, as we conclude with several of our blogs: We are the ones we’ve been waiting for!

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

I am eager to respond to the article “‘The Way People Look at Us Has Changed’: Muslim Women on Life in Europe” that appeared in the pages of the New York Times on September 2, and which paints an intolerable picture, as it is false, of France, the country of lights and of liberties.

France, as all countries, knows racism. And I am in no way ignoring xenophobia, anti-Muslim acts that can occur in my country. It is not an exception. These evils, as well as anti semitism — in the United States, many know my fight against this plague — and anti-Christian acts, are hitting Europe as well as America. France fights these relentlessly.

What I argue here vigorously is that the New York Times article, giving the floor to women of Muslim faith, claims that their voice would be smothered in France, so as to portray a France that oppresses them. This article also does not explain what the republican principles are: liberty, equality, fraternity, and the secularism of the French.

 
Through its history, its geography, its location on the Mediterranean basin and so close to the African continent, and through its immigration, France has a very strong connection with Islam.

The accounts in the article follow one another, describing a France where “the yellow moon” stitched on the clothes of Muslims will be the next phase, as there was a yellow star to designate the Jews under Nazi occupation. A France where Muslims would be “viewed less positively than dogs.” A France with a regime of apartheid that forces Muslims to leave their country to study, find work, make a career.

Through its history, its geography, its location on the Mediterranean basin and so close to the African continent, and through its immigration, France has a very strong connection with Islam. It prides itself in Islam being the second religion of the country. Millions of citizens of Muslim faith or culture who live here respect their duties, and fully enjoy their rights.

The Muslim women whom this article has given voice to express only one point of view. They are free to express it. But the New York Times journalist should also have been required to interview the vast majority of Muslim women who do not identify with an ultra-vigorous vision of Islam.

This is not a field survey, allowing for different perspectives or nuance in the analysis. These accounts were for the most part obtained following a scandalous event organized in France: a “decolonization summer camp.” A camp that — and this information has its own importance — was banned, I quote, to “people with white skin.” Its goal was to bring together all the supporters of communalism, all those opposed to the mixture of “white” and “non-white” people, all those who seek, I quote again, to denounce the “philo-semitism” of which France would be a victim.

This initiative, far from being an isolated case, puts in plain sight the proselyte contestation that is taking place in France. They seek to defy two of the fundamental principles of our country.

 
Come on! It is precisely for freedom that we are fighting.

The first principle is the equality of women and men. We must have open eyes to the growing influence of salafism, which contends that women are inferior and impure and that they must be sidelined. This was the question, absolutely not anecdotal, that was at the center of the debate around the burkini and the burqa. It is not an insignificant bathing suit. It is a provocation of radical Islam, which is emerging and wants to impose itself in the public space!

Constantly reading the international press, I have seen how a large number among them have hastily concluded that this is stigmatization, and an act against the freedom of Muslims to practice their religion. But come on! It is precisely for freedom that we are fighting.

We are fighting for the freedom of women who should not have to live under the yoke of a chauvinist order. The female body is neither pure nor impure; it is the female body. It does not need to be hidden to protect against some kind of temptation. See the unbelievable reversal: in the cited accounts, the burkini is presented as a tool of women’s liberation! We can read the following there: “When the burkini appeared, I was happy for my sister, who was on vacation and could finally play on the beach with her children rather than needing to stay in the shadows.” For another, to wear the veil signifies: “the reappropriation of the body and its femininity…” It’s masculine domination that has been completely integrated here!

 
Secularism is the right of each person to believe or not to believe: the freedom to practice their religion on the condition not to impose its practices or beliefs on others.

In France, we consider that a woman who wants to swim should not remain in the shadows. That women cannot be the object of any domination. And there is certainly masculine domination when it is judged that a woman’s body should be removed from the public space.

We fight for the freedom of the majority of Muslims who do not identify with this proselyte minority who manipulate their religion. It is for this reason that the state should not yield an inch to radical Islam.

The second principle — and it is connected — is that of secularism. I know that this French singularity is not well understood outside of France. Therefore I want to explain, again, what it is.

Secularism is the right of each person to believe or not to believe: the freedom to practice their religion on the condition that it does not impose its practices or beliefs on others. Secularism is not the negation of religion. It simply imposes a very clear separation between what belongs to the worldly and the spiritual. What does it mean with respect to justice? That the state and its civil servants are strictly neutral, that they do not identify with, finance, or privilege any religion.

France has its heart set on harboring modern Islam, true to its message of openness and tolerance.

In the course of its long history, France has known religious hatred, it tore the country apart in atrocious wars. The Republic and secularism put an end to centuries of conflict. Secularism is that balance requiring mutual respect. A balance that is the guarantor of the cohesion of our society.

The enemies of secularism seek to portray it as an instrument of discrimination and humiliation. Nothing could be more false. The banning of wearing of conspicuous religious symbols in public schools concerns the kippa as much as the headscarf or the Catholic cross. Muslim women can wear the veil in their daily life. But when they are civil servants, they must remove it while doing their work.

The conviction on which the French nation is based is that to have free and equal citizens, religion must fall under the private sphere. France, in this respect, different than other countries, does not see itself as a juxtaposition of communities with each having their own autonomous process. To say it in another way: We do not view the French identity as something ethnic.

The French identity is a bond to want to share the same destiny. It is for this reason that radical Islam attacked us, in Paris, Nice, or Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray.

France will always defend reason and freedom of conscience in the face of dogma. Because we know that otherwise there is fundamentalism and intolerance would prevail. France has its heart set on harboring modern Islam, true to its message of openness and tolerance. We protect our Muslim citizens against those who want to make scapegoats of them. Where the extreme right wants to see Muslims as second rate citizens, we want, on the contrary, to make it resoundingly clear that Islam is totally compatible with democracy, secularism, and the equality of men and women. It is the most stinging blow that we can deliver to radical Islam, which aspires to only one thing: to set all of us against one another.

This post first appeared on HuffPost France. It has been translated into English and edited for clarity.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

We live in momentous times. Everyday a new surprise, a new shock, something new to get our heads around.
Mother Teresa has this week become a saint. A saint of Selflessness. At the same time, in the US, we have the Saint of Selfishness, Donald Trump with his red ties and bellicose divisive style. In echoes of Gordon Gekko, Donald once proudly declared; “You can never be too greedy”

Saint Teresa and Donald Trump represent the opposites ends of the Selfless/Selfish dichotomy. All of us grapple between the two, trying to balance what’s best for us and the needs of others.

In this blog, I suggest that we are trapped in this dichotomy, that it causes enormous distress, and that there is a way out.

I’m going to introduce you to a word, a new concept that doesn’t yet exist, but should.

The word is: Selfist

I define being Selfist as;

“Caring for one’s own needs, so as to be best able to support others”

As an Organisational Consultant, I work up close and personal with hundreds of senior managers every year. I hear about their painful struggles reconciling their own needs to be well, healthy and balanced with the unending needs of their teams, their business, their families and the crazy expectations of our Western culture.

People manage poorly within the selfish/selfless paradigm.

Selfish people superficially solve the problem by being focussed on themselves and getting what they want first. Attention paid to others’ needs is dependent on their usefulness to Self. Such people, typically male in gender or style, can get quite far, quite fast. Their ability to climb higher up the greasy pole is compromised because we simply don’t trust selfish people. Gaining and maintaining power depends on building trust.
Even when selfish people seem to care, we don’t believe them. We assume they are using a ploy, a tactic to appear that way for an ulterior motive, to look after No 1.

The Donald’s and wannabe Donalds of this world focus on achieving transactional goals using charm preferably, or when that fails resort to bullying and manipulation.

Selfless people (typically female in gender or style) believe that others’ needs are much more important than their own. They are here to serve. Others come first, second and third. Of course colleagues usually love and trust Selfless people, let’s face it, working life is often easier when they are carrying the heavy load. Real saints, however, are thin on the ground.

The common or garden Selfless person holds a guilty secret. They are often angry, exhausted and resentful because they are caught in a trap of their own making. Selfless people get lots of strokes for their hard work and have become addicts who can’t say no.

By being so involved they get to exercise their secret desire for control, thus ensuring the job gets done to their standards.

Sometimes the stress causes a fuse to blow, in burnout or freakout or both.
In the mini emergency which ensues, the team are forced into the front line. Because they’ve been mollycoddled by the Selfless one, they haven’t mastered the task. Short term underperformance then ensues, as they ascend the learning curve. When the Selfless one returns, she gets the booby prize of proving to herself that, without her the task just doesn’t get done properly. The sour martyr can be born.

The sad truth is, most Selfless people suffer in silence and don’t blow their top, just slowly exhaust themselves with complexity and worry. The price is also paid by their neglected loved ones (partners, children and friends).

Without the concept of ‘Selfistness’, there is no healthy alternative to Selfishness and Selflessness. Consequently, people typically organise themselves along the continuum.
“Well, I am about in the middle, I can be Selfish sometimes, but at others I am more Selfless.”

‘Selfist’ isn’t in the middle of the line between Selfish and Selfless, it sits above both, forming a triangle.

Remember, Selfist people are able to care for themselves, so they are best able to support others.

Selfist people think; “I know that if I look after my needs, I will be fit, strong and clear headed. I will have lots of energy to help others. To do so sustainably means learning to look after myself.”

Selfist people know that having clear boundaries works for everyone. They can take a long weekend, a lunch hour massage, a walk in office hours, or say “no, I am afraid I can’t today, let’s discuss alternative options”.

Miraculously, being Selfist is a win win, you feel balanced, the team grows in stature and the world keeps revolving. The team learns to become more independent and resourceful, rather than relying on mum or dad.

I have witnessed the huge relief chronically Selfless people express when they first encounter the notion of being Selfist. At first they are somewhat skeptical. As the idea percolates and makes sense, they start to become cheekily defiant.

“So, does this mean I can tell my team that I won’t now be attending the XX project meetings?”

“Does this mean I can convene a meeting to focus on how the team can improve their collaboration and decision making, rather than relying on me?”

“Does this mean I can set a good example to others and go home on time?”

For self identified selfish people, it is relatively easy to reframe selfishness to selflessness. After all, it involves putting oneself first, that is the familiar part. The challenge will be to focus on a Win/Win. I gain, you gain.

Being Selfist is healthy, adult and grounding. It enables others to grow faster, and a healthier team dynamic to emerge. A Selfist team is a powerful and effective team.

We need to be out, loud and proud to be Selfist. Try it!

Simon Confino Aug.2016

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

IFA 2016 has come and gone, and with hundreds if not thousands of new smartphones, laptops, tablets, wearable gadgets, and connected gizmos announced in Berlin, Germany. There’s plenty to choose from, but only a few stand-out devices worthy enough to win in SlashGear’s Best of IFA 2016 awards. Whether you’re already working on your holiday gift wishlist, or just need … Continue reading