Racism, feminicides, police violence… For several years, the French militant sphere has adorned each of its fights with the vaporous epithet “systemic” – in defiance of accuracy, nuance and dialogue. To the imperious need to duly name societal shortcomings, we now attach the so-called argument of authority, at the risk of drowning responsibilities in a mush mixing State, institutions, cultural heritage or even biology.
But France – which carries its lot askew – is not America, where institutionalized racism has long persisted, to the point that the organization of its society still bears the stigma. Nor is it Iran, whose law gives the right to commit “honour crimes” against women. Of course, the runaway count of feminicides at the start of the year should challenge us (33 in France as of March 16). But attributing their responsibility to the “system” goes against intellectual rigor. Besides, what system are we talking about? For historian Christelle Taraud, interviewed by The worldthe murders of women would thus be the result of a “patriarchal system which privileges [les hommes]”. According to the spokeswoman for the association Osons le féminisme Violaine de Filippis, these would still be generated by “our Judeo-Christian culture”. Is this enough to explain – and thereby stem – these crimes?
Admittedly, feminicides are overwhelmingly the work of men. But a study by the Delegation for Victims showed the impact of certain factors in the passage to the act, such as the absence of employment or the illness of the victim. Taking them into account does not amount to condoning or legitimizing these crimes. On the contrary: does not their seriousness deserve, precisely, a meticulous examination of the mechanisms at work rather than being settled by the sole guilt of “man” and his history?
State indictment
Whether it is the murders of women, racism or police violence, the risks to be misnamed are multiple. Starting with that of relieving responsibility from individuals who have gone to the problem, saved by the scarecrow of the “system”. Without forgetting the counterproductive effect that very often generates the outrageous guilt of an entire community, such as men, non-racialized people, or even the police. Thus, victims against outcasts engage in a struggle based not on the examination of conscience of each, but on the objective of not yielding to the accusatory sirens of the camp opposite.
Worse: in hollow of the denunciation of the “systemic” character of these injustices lies also an indictment of the State, perceived as actor of the problem because protector of the executioners. How, then, can we rely on those who govern us to act? The amalgam could well (and it has already begun) reinforce the fracture between State and citizens. Witness the argument regularly opposed to the government by its detractors, concerning its fight against violence against women, namely the presence of Gérald Darmanin at the Ministry of the Interior despite the accusations of rape which weigh on him.
Similarly, after the death of Adama Traoré, who died in 2016 during an arrest by the gendarmes in Val-d’Oise, numerous demonstrations denounced “institutionalized racism” and state complacency. “There may be racism in certain institutions, but those who embody the State not only do not claim racism, but also try to fight it, decided sociologist Michel Wieviorka with L’Express in 2021. To qualify as such the French state of racism seems unfair to me. It ignores what real state racism is, like apartheid in South Africa.”
This editorial comes from “Expression”, the newsletter of ideas from L’Express. Every Sunday, find Thomas Mahler, Laetitia Strauch-Bonart and Alix L’hospital from the Ideas service of the Express. Unpublished editorial, press cartoon, chronicles, interviews and controversies: several points of view to reflect and encourage debate. With contributions from leading intellectuals and researchers around the world. To register, Click here.