France: a deceptive protection

Françoise Vergès. For someone like me with a long-standing interest in both how colonial slavery marked the world and capitalism, the subject of violence is inevitably bound to arise. It also resurfaces within feminist movements, which condemn violence that systematically targets women. It can also be seen in ever-intensifying surges of violence. Nothing can escape it: not the smallest stretch of land, forest, ocean, or community.

It therefore seemed important to me to approach the subject of violence from a structural perspective rather than focusing exclusively on violence against women as separate from this structure. Violence is inseparable from capitalism and extractivism, whose primary target is inevitably women. If we want to stop this violence, we must not content ourselves with feeling rage and astonishment.

We must tackle the three major structures that join forces to produce this devastation: the patriarchy, capitalism and racism. Institutions, especially the law and prisons, condemn certain types of violence, certain offenses. Very few colonial crimes, mass crimes or offenses committed by the army lead to sanctions.

Wars and military presence impose violence on human beings, but also on the land. When the French army left Africa, it left behind pollution, ruins, rape and theft. In Vietnam, we still see the effects of Agent Orange, despite the war having ended long ago. Afghanistan is becoming an area riddled with anti-personnel landmines. Beyond the visibility given to violence against women, other crimes affect them just as much. Economic violence affects women in particular: most work part-time, are under-paid and have highly unequal access to healthcare. Diseases specific to women are not given priority in research, which is carried out by men for men. These cultural, economic, ecological and social forms of everyday violence affect racialised women in particular.

Studies show that sending men to prison has never solved the issue of violence. One in two women is a victim of violence in France, meaning that practically half of all men would have to be put in prison. The French government has always favoured using prison and the police, even when experiments in restorative justice could have been an option.

FV. Punitive and carceral feminism has marked a turning point in France. Its rhetoric and protection apparatuses (prison, police, court) require more and more laws, yet women do not feel more protected. Segregation ensues: who is protected and who isn’t? Repression endeavours to restore “order” while the government and the law are expected to change the social structure. However, passing more laws is not necessarily a solution. This turn towards prisons echoes the French inclination towards law over education and social work. The French government does not examine the causes of violence against women. Why do men rape? Why do they lash out? Is it truly in their nature, or are there other reasons? Why don’t we address those reasons? The feminism that chooses repression, court and the police rather than tackling patriarchy, racism and capitalism has reached a dead end.

To those unaffected by it, prison seems to be the easiest, most obvious solution. Penal policies only target part of the population.

Men in power are protected by lawyers and networks that young Black or Arab working-class people do not have. The very brutal economic and social order protects men in power and their interests. It reinforces the concept of a “good man”. The “good masculinity” that they represent purportedly protects us from the “bad masculinity” of the streets. They tell us: “We are all for equality. We treat our wives well. We marry artists, or older women. We are so open-minded. The others don’t know how to behave with women. They are old-fashioned.” This image of class and race is formed in opposition to racialised masculinities. This is characteristic of colonialist thought, which can be found in literature¹.

FV. French cities, built for middle-class, able-bodied men, are inhospitable to women. Every woman has been told not to walk home alone at 4 in the morning: we know that it’s dangerous. Cities are also inhospitable to migrants: we either drive them out or make them live in appalling conditions. Cities are inhospitable to the elderly. Everything is built for young, able-bodied people. Cities are inhospitable to children and to Black and Arab youth, who know to steer clear of certain neighbourhoods. Nothing explicitly says “forbidden”, as was once the case in the United States, but we know that it is.

Increased surveillance and monitoring reinforce segregation. The socio-spatial segregation of cities creates a hostile environment for certain groups of people.

Gentrified cities are increasingly hostile towards people living on the streets, even as the homeless population continues to rise. Surveillance and monitoring systems hide the growing destitution from view. Spikes are installed in front of stores to deter homeless people from sitting there, and metal bars are attached to benches to discourage anyone from lying down or sleeping on them. These structures make cities more inhospitable to the homeless but more pleasant for others.

Spotless, so-called safe cities where women can go out as they please for a jog or a walk with their children or dogs will be built for certain women: white and middle-class. People of colour and the working class – Romani people, Black people and those of North African descent – will only be granted access to these green cities, lined with gardens and filled with surveillance systems, as cleaners, cashiers, nurses, security guards or waste collectors.

Middle-class life relies on entry visas for these invisibilised, racialised bodies who ensure the comfort and security of the dominant class.

Rather than defending a universal right, the surveillance and monitoring tools protect a specific social class. This urban architecture reinforces racial inequalities. It also pushes away sex workers, trans people, gay people – all those who do not fit into the “good person” mould. You are driven further and further from the city to neglected places without clean water, gardens or parks. Public transport is complicated and expensive, and is only used for commuting. Cultural sites are not open to you.

The media generates insecurity by teaching us to be scared of people who hang out in the streets, who are homeless, who are dirty because they cannot maintain their hygiene as we can. This is all framed as a threat to our integrity. Slowly, without realising it, we begin to agree that these people need to disappear, that their lives do not really matter. Their presence is seen only as a disturbance and they force us to question the number of homeless people, or the shocking living conditions of migrants. All this must be removed in the name of securitisation.