Search results

The question of the death of a Muslim in France engenders a discussion on the forms and limits of secularisation in the public sphere. Contrary to other public institutions like schools, hospitals and prisons, the particularity of mortuary spaces lies in their nearly uncontested religious character, also recognised by the French state. Despite the fact that repatriation remains to be the dominant practice among French Muslims, the descending generations, who overtly declare their identities as Muslim and European at the same time, seek to obtain their place within the European public sphere. Yet accommodating deceased bodies of Muslims within the so-called secular cemeteries represents a real challenge in terms of space, recognition of religious identities and application of Islamic funerary rites. The regulations imposed by the French authorities seem to pose serious problems to Muslims, who desire to be buried in accordance with the requirements of their religion. In this respect the cemetery becomes a realm of spatio-temporal struggle, where subjectivities are formed via negotiations between the subjects—dead or alive—and state apparatuses. This article aims to reflect on the power struggles in the development of the mortuary space from a historical perspective. It will then attempt to shed light on the legal possibility of the construction of the only French Muslim cemetery inaugurated in Strasbourg in 2012.

Many claim that political deliberation has become exceedingly affective, and hence, destabilizing. The authors of this book revisit that assumption. While recognizing that significant changes are occurring, these authors also point out the limitations of turning to contemporary democratic theory to understand and unpack these shifts. They propose, instead, to reframe this debate by deploying the analytic framework of affective societies, which highlights how affect and emotion are present in all aspects of the social. What changes over time and place are the modes and calibrations of affective and emotional registers. With this line of thinking, the authors are able to gesture towards a new outline of the political.

Many claim that political deliberation has become exceedingly affective, and hence, destabilizing. The authors of this book revisit that assumption. While recognizing that significant changes are occurring, these authors also point out the limitations of turning to contemporary democratic theory to understand and unpack these shifts. They propose, instead, to reframe this debate by deploying the analytic framework of affective societies, which highlights how affect and emotion are present in all aspects of the social. What changes over time and place are the modes and calibrations of affective and emotional registers. With this line of thinking, the authors are able to gesture towards a new outline of the political.

Many claim that political deliberation has become exceedingly affective, and hence, destabilizing. The authors of this book revisit that assumption. While recognizing that significant changes are occurring, these authors also point out the limitations of turning to contemporary democratic theory to understand and unpack these shifts. They propose, instead, to reframe this debate by deploying the analytic framework of affective societies, which highlights how affect and emotion are present in all aspects of the social. What changes over time and place are the modes and calibrations of affective and emotional registers. With this line of thinking, the authors are able to gesture towards a new outline of the political.