Marianne is a weekly Paris-based French news magazine and is also the traditional personification of France and the French Republic, and, as represented by Delacroix, the personification of liberty as well as the nation.
Marianne is represented as a militant, a bare breasted warrior, armed and carrying the tri-color, and wearing a Roman style of Phrygian cap, associated with the revolutionary origins of a republic. She stand for, and fights for Liberty, Fraternity and Equality.
Liberty Leading the People by Eugène Delacroix (1830), which celebrates the July Revolution (Louvre Museum).
Six years on from Liberty leading the people, and as an integral part of the the design and construction of the Arc de Triomphe, the French sculptor François Rude was commisioned to create and install Le Départ de 1792 (or La Marseillaise). The sculptural group celebrates the cause of the French First Republic during the 10 August uprising. Above the volunteers is the winged personification of Liberty.
The personification of Liberty
Marianne is a national symbol of the French Republic, a personification of liberty and reason, and a portrayal of the Goddess of Liberty.
Her profile stands out on the official government logo of the country, is engraved on French euro coins and appears on French postage stamps; it was also featured on the former franc currency. Marianne is one of the most prominent symbols of the French Republic, and is officially used on most government documents. Marianne is a significant republican symbol. As a national icon she represents opposition to monarchy and the championship of freedom and democracy against all forms of oppression.
Although the image of Marianne did not garner significant attention until 1792, the origins of this "goddess of Liberty" date back to 1775, when Jean-Michel Moreau painted her as a young woman dressed in Roman style clothing with a Phrygian cap atop a pike held in one hand, an image that later would become the national symbol of France itself. The image of Marianne made its first revolutionary appearance on a medal in July 1789, celebrating the storming of the Bastille and other initial events of the French Revolution.
But it was not until September 1792 when the new Republic sought a new image to represent the State that her popularity began to expand. Marianne, the female allegory of Liberty, was thus chosen to represent the new regime of the French Republic, at the same time.
Although the initial figure of Marianne from 1792 adopted a relatively conservative pose, the revolutionaries were quick to abandon that figure when it no longer suited. So by 1793, the image of Marianne was replaced by a more strident image; that of a woman, bare-breasted and fiercely leading men into battle.
This played out well for the British anti-French and anti-revolutionary propaganda as much as it was a part of the promotion of the tactics the administration adopted to present the more radical Marianne, an image intended to rouse the French people to action.
Following the Reign of Terror, there was a need for another transformation in the imagery, to represent the politically civil, stable and non-violent nature of the Directory. In the Official Vignette of the Executive Directory, 1798, Marianne made a further return, still wearing the Phrygian cap, but now surrounded by different symbols. In contrast to the Marianne of 1792, this Marianne "holds no pike or lance", and leans "languorously" on the tablet of the Constitution of Year III.
The symbol of Marianne continued to evolve in response to the needs of the State long after the Directory was dissolved in 1799 following the coup spearheaded by Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyès and Napoleon Bonaparte. As Mercury and Minerva and other symbolic figures diminished in prominence over the course of French history, Marianne endured because of "she" was an impersonal abstraction. The "malleability" of what she symbolized allowed French political figures to continually manipulate her image to their specific purposes at any given time.
The official busts of Marianne initially had anonymous features, appearing as women of the people.
She was followed by Mireille Mathieu (1978), Catherine Deneuve (1985), Inès de La Fressange (1989), Laetitia Casta (2000) and Évelyne Thomas (2003). Laetitia Casta was named the symbolic representation of the French Republic in October 1999 in a vote, open for the first time, to the country's more than 36,000 mayors.
In July 2013, a new stamp featuring the Marianne was debuted by President François Hollande, allegedly designed by the team of Olivier Ciappa and David Kawena. Ciappa claimed that Inna Shevchenko, a high-profile member of the Ukrainian protest group FEMEN who had recently been granted political asylum in France, was a main inspiration for this new Marianne.
FEMEN in Ukraine and Belarus
Oksana Shachko (L), Inna Shevchenko (2nd L) and other activists from women's rights group Femen talk to the media in Kiev December 21, 2011. This is the report posted by Reuters:
Ukraine's Femen group which specialises in topless protests in public raised an SOS on Tuesday over three activists who it said were seized by police in Belarus, forced to strip, threatened with violence and then abandoned naked in woodland. The Kiev-based group said the three were seized by police in the Belarussian capital Minsk on Monday after staging a typical bare-breasted protest on the steps of the KGB state security headquarters, mocking authoritarian President Alexander Lukashenko. Reuters
Beaten, humiliated and left naked in a forest.
Oksana Shachko, Inna Shevchenko and Aleksandra Nemchinova from Ukraine's Femen group speak to the media at a hospital in a small town of Elsk, about 330 km (206 miles) southeast of Minsk, December 20, 2011. Wikipedia says of Inna Shevchenko:
Inna Shevchenko (Ukrainian: Інна Шевченко) is a feminist activist and the leader of international women's movement FEMEN, which often demonstrates topless against what they perceive as manifestations of patriarchy, especially dictatorship, religion, and the sex industry. Shevchenko has a higher profile than the other members of the group. She was the leader of the three FEMEN activists reputedly kidnapped and threatened by the Belarus KGB in 2011. She achieved attention in Ukraine by cutting with a chainsaw and then bringing down a 4-metre high Christian cross in central Kiev in 2012.
She was the leader of the three FEMEN activists reputedly kidnapped and threatened by the Belarus KGB in 2011. She achieved attention in Ukraine by cutting with a chainsaw and then bringing down a 4-metre high Christian cross in central Kiev in 2012.
In 2013, Shevchenko was granted asylum in France, and now continues her activism by leading FEMEN France from a training base she has established in Paris.
In July 2013, as mentioned above, Olivier Ciappa, who together with David Kawena designed a new French stamp depicting Marianne, stated on Twitter that Shevchenko had been the main inspiration for the depiction. The artist Olivier Ciappa who designed the 2013 image of Marianne on French stamps has stated that the portrait is a 'mixture of several women but particularly Inna Shevchenko'. On hearing this Inna tweeted:
'All homophobes, extremists, fascists will have to lick my arse when they want to send a letter'.
What kind of liberty do these La Manif Pour Tout "Mariannes" represent?
Liberty? Equality? Fraternity? Modernity and the promise of emancipating reason?
That human beings, individually and collectively, can and must make their own history is a claim that makes a break with the dominant philosophy of all previous societies, that God having created the universe and mankind, is the "legislator" of last resort. Under modernity, people are freed from this obligation, without necessarily losing interest in the question of faith. The social order which must guarantee the triumph of this emancipating reason, and thus the happiness of human beings, is pictured as a system of "good institutions", to use the term in use up to now in American social thought. This system, in turn, is based on the separation of the political domain from the economic domain in social life. The "good institutions," which must ensure the management of political life through reason, are those of a democracy that guarantees the liberty and legal equality of individuals.
Only a truly secular state is able to guarantee all those with different faiths, or NO faith, liberty and equality. The claim that the "market" equals "democracy" has remained a cornerstone of bourgeois ideology. The continual conflict between those in favour of extending democratic rights to all citizens of all faiths, men and women, bourgeois and proletarians, propertied or propertyless, and the unconditional defenders of a faith and the market is straight away excluded from the debate. Right across the globe, falsely egalitarian liberalism has reduced the promise of liberty, equality and fraternity to "the way it is", liberty and property, by substituting the god of property for equality and fraternity. But don't you believe them!
Q. So, what does democracy need?
A. Liberty! Equality! Sorority!
The image to the right is of Brigitte Bardot, and the image below is used in an article The Enlightenment is NOT a sleepover! found in the Puri Information Wrap. The depiction of women in this allegorical design, is part of a scheme that pretends that the world the Encyclopédie (1772) seeks to reveal, is like going to a "sleepover", when in fact it is an ideological battleground determined by patriarchy.
Extract from the frontispiece of the Encyclopédie (1772). It was drawn by Charles-Nicolas Cochin and engraved by Bonaventure-Louis Prévost. The work is laden with symbolism: The figure in the centre represents truth—surrounded by bright light (the central symbol of the Enlightenment). Two other figures on the right, reason and philosophy, are tearing the veil from truth.
Samir Amin points to an understanding that there are two periods in history that have had a decisive impact on the formation of the modern world. The first of these periods involves the birth of modernity. It is the period of the Enlightenment . . .
Consequently Amin makes two propositions:
Proposition 1.The first concerns the definition of modernity, which is the claim that human beings, individually and collectively, can and must make their own history. This marks a break with the dominant philosophy of all previous societies, both in Europe and elsewhere, based on the principle that God having created the universe and mankind, is the "legislator" of last resort. The ethical principles based on this divine legislation are, naturally, formulated by historical transcendental religions or philosophies, thereby opening the door to various interpretations, but then it remains subject to the duty of reconciling faith and reason. Under modernity, people are freed from this obligation, without necessarily losing interest in the question of faith.
"History , while it no longer operates as a force outside of humanity, must be explained by other laws."
Reason is called on, once again, in the search for the objective determinants of the development of societies. The new freedom which modern humanity gives itself, therefore, remains subject to the constraints of what is thought to constitute the logic of social reproduction and the dynamics of the transformation of societies.Proposition 2.
The second concerns the bourgeois character of modernity, as expressed by the thinking of the Enlightenment. The emergence of capitalism and the emergence of modernity constitute two facets of the one and the same reality.
Amin continues . . .Enlightenment thought offers us a concept of reason that is inextricably associated with that of emancipation. Yet, the emancipation in question is defined and limited by what capitalism requires and allows. The view expressed by the Enlightenment, nevertheless, proposes a concept of emancipating reason that claims to be transhistorical, whereas an examination of what is, in fact, is will demonstrate its strongly historical nature.
Adam Smith offers the most systematic fundamental expression of this view. Unfortunately he describes it as "utilitarianism", a questionable term, but understandable within the tradition of British empiricism. in this view of the human world, society is conceived as a collection of individuals, a view that breaks with the tradition of the estates of the Ancien Régime.
It is, therefore, indisputably an ideology that liberates the individual, again one of the dimensions of modernity. This individual, moreover, is naturally endowed with reason. The social order which must guarantee the triumph of this emancipating reason, and thus the happiness of human beings, is pictured as a system of "good institutions", to use the term in use up to now in American social thought. This system, in turn, is based on the separation of the political domain from the economic domain in social life. The "good institutions," which must ensure the management of political life through reason, are those of a democracy that guarantees the liberty and legal equality of individuals. In the management of economic life, reason demands that contractual freedom (in other words the market) be the basis of the relations of exchange and of organization of the division of labour between the individuals of which society is formed. The healthy working of the economy requires, in turn, the protection of property, henceforth considered a sacrosanct value in a "good society."
Emancipating reason is expressed in the classical triplet: liberty, equality, and property. This slogan was adopted in the early revolutions of the United Provinces and the English Glorious Revolution of 1688, before being adopted more systematically by the American Revolution and then by the French Revolution in its first phase.
The constituent elements of this triplet are considered to be naturally and harmoniously complementary to each other. Up until now, the claim that the "market" equals "democracy" has remained a cornerstone of bourgeois ideology. The continual conflict between those in favor of extending democratic rights to all citizens, men and women, bourgeois and proletarians, propertied or propertyless, and the unconditional defenders of the market is straight away excluded from the debate.
(Samir Amin Eurocentrism: Modernity, Religion, and Democracy. A Critique of Eurocentrism and Culturalism Pambazuka Press, Oxford, and Monthly Review Press, New York, 2nd edition 2009,pages 13-15)From triplet to couplet . . .
A few fascinating paragraphs later Samir Amin writes:But if falsely egalitarian liberalism is offered insistently as an ideological alternative to the the disarray of present day society, it is because the front of the stage is no longer occupied by utilitarianism (from which so-called egalitarian liberalism is scarcely distinguishable), but by the excess represented by right-wing libertarian ideology (the extreme Right in fact). This ideology substitutes the couplet of liberty and property for the Enlightenment's triplet, definitively abandoning the idea of giving equality the status of a fundamental value. Friedrich von Hayek's version of this new extreme right-wing ideological formula revives that of its inventors, the nineteenth-century liberals (Claude Frédéric Bastiat and others) who are at the root of this excess, starting as they did from a clear aversion to the Enlightenment.
(Samir Amin Eurocentrism: Modernity, Religion, and Democracy. A Critique of Eurocentrism and Culturalism Pambazuka Press, Oxford, and Monthly Review Press, New York, 2nd edition 2009,pages 16-17)
Liberty, equality and fraternity
We have seen in the chapter of Amin's Eurocentrism, MODERNITY, and referred to above, how he identifies the first period in the emergence of modernity with the Enlightenment, and he continues:The second decisive period opens with Marx's criticism of the Enlightenment's bourgeois emancipating reason. this criticism begins a new chapter of modernity, which I call modernity critical of modernity.
"modernity critical of modernity"
Emancipating reason cannot ignore this second moment of its development, or more accurately the beginning of its reconstruction. After Marx, social thinking can no longer be what it was before.
Emancipating reason can no longer include its analyses and propositions under the triplet of liberty, equality and property. Having sized up the insoluble conflict between the possession of capitalist property and the development of equality between human beings, emancipating reason can only delete the third term of the triplet and substitute for it the term fraternity (which is stronger than "solidarity," a term proposed by some today).
Fraternity, obviously, implies the abolition of capitalist property which is necessarily that of the few, a minority, the real dominating and exploiting bourgeois class, and which deprives the others, the majority, of access to the conditions of an equality worthy of the name. Fraternity implies, then, substituting a form of social property, exercised by, and on behalf of the whole social body, for the exclusive and excluding form of capitalist property. Integration through democracy would be substituted for the partial and naturally unequal integration carried out within the limits of respect for capitalist property relations.
(Samir Amin Eurocentrism: Modernity, Religion, and Democracy. A Critique of Eurocentrism and Culturalism Pambazuka Press, Oxford, and Monthly Review Press, New York, 2nd edition 2009, pages 17-18)
The secular state "par excellence"!The secular state of France is not immune from social and political conflicts, with regularly repeated campaigns against particular socially progressive policies, that are used by an ultra conservative political Catholicism to instigate populist right wing demonstrations. These demonstrations use a visual language and symbols of the French Revolution, posters that take the style of the political earthquake of May '68, and present demands as if they were speaking with the "voice of the people".
Le Manif Pour Tout (LMPT) is the largest collective of associations behind the most significant opposition to the law opening marriage to same-sex couples (known as "marriage for all" ). Since the enactment of the law in May 2013 , the demands of the collective have widened from the opposition to same-sex marriage and homosexuality (adoption , PMA , GPA), to the defense of the "traditional family" and rejecting the teaching of " gender theory".
Described by Le Monde as a grouping of associations. whose main characteristic is that they are almost all confessional and mainly related to Catholicism, and supported in its calls to demonstrate by many members of the political right and extreme right. Given this background the collective presented itself as apolitical and non-confessional, before becoming itself a political party in April 2015. This coalition has experienced many disagreements and divisions with successive departures of Béatrice Bourges , Frigide Barjot or Xavier Bongibault. The Demo for all is also the subject of various criticisms including that it is homophobic and racist.
The origin of the collective goes back September 5, 2012 when some fifty association leaders, officially representing 37 associations, meeting in Paris with philosophers, psychiatrists and senior officials, to define a strategy for the bill on same-sex marriage and legal status for same-sex couples.
These 37 associations are often ghost associations (empty shells) where the Christian actors are very present in social media, and on recent and often anonymous internet sites, where the Emmanuel Community, which is not on the list, but often appears, and is occasionally associated with radical organizations, such as is reported in the Le Monde analysis in 2016.
There is an article by Esther Janssen, published in: Agama & Religiusitas di Eropa, Journal of European Studies, Volume V – nr. 1, 2009, p. 22-45, and produced in cooperation between the University of Indonesia and the Delegation of the European Commission, that deals with this phenomenon. It is titled:Limits to expression on religion in France
During the last decade conflicts about expression on religion have increased globally. Generally, these conflicts are regarded as a conflict between freedom of speech and freedom of thought, conscience and religion. In France active religious interest groups like AGRIF often initiate proceedings against speech on religion and thereby contribute to the proliferation of a rich case law concerning the limits to expression on religion in films, film posters, advertising, satirical cartoons and literature. The French Republic is characterized by a strict separation between the state and the church, known as la laïcité. However, French case law demonstrates that it is hard even for French judges to stay neutral in cases concerning religion. The limits to expression on religion in France are in accordance with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.This issue is discussed in an article that can be found on the Information Wrap for the LODE Cargo from Szczecin and that recognises the cultural tensions in a society where religious identity is set against certain political aspirations. The article is called:
Secularism versus religion?There is an appendix to this article called:
So, what good is secularism?"Manif pour tout" co-opting Marianne for intolerant ultra conservative values?
Co-opting Islam for intolerant ultra conservative values?
Is there a difference?
In Indonesia the demonstrations are fronted by predominantly male participants, while in the "manif pour tous" demonstrations, it is pointedly fronted by an image of the normal French "family". This "normal" French family is as white as the majority of demonstrators.
Then there is FEMENFemen (Ukrainian: Фемен), stylized as FEMEN, is a Ukrainian radical feminist activist group intended to protect women's rights. The organization became internationally known for organizing controversial topless protests against sex tourism, religious institutions, sexism, homophobia, and other social, national, and international topics. Founded in Ukraine, the group is now based in Paris.
The organization describes itself as "fighting patriarchy in its three manifestations – sexual exploitation of women, dictatorship and religion" and has stated that its goal is "sextremism serving to protect women's rights".
In 2017 Inna Shevchenko has published Anatomie de l'oppression (Anatomy of oppression) with Pauline Hillier in Edition du Seuil. The book touches on the responsibility of religious institutions and dogmas in the oppression of women. They say:
"Every day, new words and measures against women are delivered in the Vatican, Mecca, Jerusalem, and in synagogues, mosques and churches all around the world. Every day, women are despised, depreciated, soiled, wounded or killed. Every day, women that are hidden in public, locked up at home, deprived of education and prospects for their futures, forced to silence, humiliated, beaten, mutilated, whipped, stoned and burned, accompany us. We can no longer remain silent.The responsibility of religions in the misfortunes of the world crushes our screens and our eyes, but many still refuse to see their role in women's misfortunes. This book was written because we no longer wanted them to believe, but rather to know."
No comments:
Post a Comment