The collective action of religious minorities: Why do stigmatized religious minorities choose not to fight back?

This paper fits the panel the collective action of religious minorities. It highlights the tightening of the notion of laïcité in France, based on the case of Orthodox Jews, since the 1980s. It shows that laïcité has become a strict principle of public governance of religion, meant to contain some religious expressions (Sealy, Modood, 2021). It has been made clear that Orthodox Muslim practices are mainly targeted (Hennette-Vauchez, Valentin, 2014), but other religious communities are also affected. This is the case Orthodox Jews. For decades, they who have successfully found their way in getting some arrangements accepted by public institutions. Nonetheless, they too are impacted by the change in the way laïcité is conceived and enforced. One question out of many related to this understudied case, is their reaction to this trend: How do they cope with public institutions being more uncompromising? Which strategy do they lay out, if any, to thwart this increasingly hostile political environment? Do they try to resist or to follow suit? The first part of the paper will question the forms of the Orthodox Jews’ collective action. Which resources can they mobilize to have their voice heard? Do they ally in with Orthodox Muslims, with whom their share some practices and principles? How do they factor in their ultra-minority condition (the French Jewry makes up less than 1% of the overall population, and at most, Orthodox Jews make a fifth of it) and antisemitism? This second part questions the ways and means of an ultra-minority, facing challenges both as Jews and as religious believers. The paper shows why, quite surprisingly, Orthodox Jews have not changed their strategy as of the 2000s onward. This case study helps us understand the collective action of religious minorities as well as its limits in what can sometimes be quite a hostile political and social environment. This paper is based on doctoral research. It encompasses 89 interviews with political and administrative officials and Orthodox Jews, 71 participant and non-participant observations with Orthodox Jews, and the study of 289 issues of the Orthodox newspapers. It also makes use of the analysis of court decisions; municipal council minutes and soft law documents produced by public institutions.