Universalist Republic and Ethnic Statistics

Overall goal

The RUSE project (“Universalist Republic and Ethnic Statistics”) is situated within a context of controversy surrounding ethnic statistics in France; a divide that has emerged over the past twenty years regarding whether to permit or prohibit the production and dissemination of official figures on “ethnic” or “racial” origins and religious affiliations—thus going beyond the sole criterion authorized in France during censuses: the legal criterion of nationality. Indeed, for several years now, some have argued that ethnic statistics serve as a lever for political action, enabling a better understanding of the discrimination (e.g., in hiring, housing, etc.) to which certain “minorities” are susceptible (Simon, 2015a & b, Tribalat, 2016), and thus to take action against discrimination without the risk of letting it get lost in integration policies (Mazouz, 2017). Conversely, others, notably members of CARSED (Alternative Commission for Reflection on Ethnic Statistics and Discrimination), argue that this amounts to a veritable “return of race” (Collectif, 2009), insofar as the act of counting and classifying goes beyond the measurement tool: measuring “ethnic” and/or “racial” groups risks entrenching ethno-racial classifications in society, thereby ethnicizing or racializing social relations by fossilizing differences that are destined to gradually disappear (processes of integration and, in the longer term, assimilation). Between these two viewpoints, there are attempts to construct more “reasoned” indicators for combating discrimination, for example by considering only the country of origin or the nationality of ancestors. Indeed, this solution prevents differences from becoming “fossilized” in the medium term, since under the jus soli principle adopted and applied in France since 1889, children born in France to parents born abroad (the “immigrants”) become French citizens upon reaching the age of majority; thus, since their children are born to French parents, the issue of their foreign origin is destined to gradually disappear from official statistics (Weil, 2005). As we can see, the issue of population counting is a genuine political challenge at a time when debates on immigration often oscillate between denial and misinterpretation (Héran, 2023; Savarese, 2023).

This recent controversy surrounding ethnic statistics goes beyond the technical issue of the measurement tool, as it involves a perspective on “living together”—and thus on citizenship. Furthermore, it should be noted that this controversy only makes sense in countries where, as in France, Germany, or Italy, the production of ethnic statistics is prohibited for official bodies such as INSEE, since they are considered incompatible with the universalist republican model of citizenship. Conversely, in countries where the multicultural model has been adopted, ethnic statistics do exist, as is the case in England, the United States, or Canada. With regard, more specifically, to France, the republican model of citizenship developed under the Third Republic—and consistently reaffirmed since then, despite numerous controversies (Nicolet, 1994)—possesses three characteristics. First, it is individualistic, in the sense that rights can be granted only to individuals, which explains why minorities are not legally recognized; it is also universalist, in that individuals are defined as universally equal before the law; finally, it is secular, in the sense that the state is neutral on matters of religion and is committed to protecting freedom of conscience and worship, which, since 1905, have been a matter of individual choice—religion thus becoming a private matter. Under these conditions, there can be no question of categorizing groups of individuals based on ethnic, racial, or religious criteria, since these characteristics have no bearing on the granting of civil, social, or political rights associated with citizenship in France.

This is why the emergence, over the past twenty years, of a genuine controversy surrounding the political uses of ethnic statistics—which are said to help better understand and thus combat discrimination—and the risks associated with the official production of such data (the lasting ethnicization or racialization of French society) must be explained. Not, however, by analyzing the sociological dynamics of the actors involved in this controversy or mapping the circulation of ideas, but by considering history as a “compass” that allows us to better address the issue. Indeed, the aim here is to shift our focus from present-day metropolitan France to colonial France, and more specifically to colonial Algeria, where, despite the expressed desire to replicate metropolitan institutions within a colony long considered a “second France,” ethnic statistics were indeed established following several provisions allowing for the classification of the colony’s populations. To summarize, as early as 1830, and even though there was no settlement colonization project yet in place, a decree distinguished between “Europeans ” (French by right of blood as established by Napoleon, or foreigners for those who would gradually populate the colony, coming from countries around the Mediterranean) and “natives” (Jews or Muslims, distinguished by their religious affiliation). Subsequently, Napoleon III, advised by the Saint-Simonians and wishing to strengthen the colonial government’s authority in Algeria, established, via the Senatus Consultum of 1860, a distinction between non-citizen French (nationality without citizenship, and thus without the right to vote, which applied to Jewish and Muslim “natives”) and French citizens (nationality combined with citizenship, for the French, and later for Europeans eligible for naturalization). But once indigenous people of the Jewish faith collectively became French citizens in 1870 (the Crémieux Decree), and since the 1889 law on jus soli contained provisions to naturalize “Europeans” more quickly, two categories of the population would coexist in the colony for a long time in the late 19th and early 20th centuries: French citizens (those who already were, the former indigenous people of the Jewish faith, and the “Europeans” who were gradually naturalized), and non-citizen French people (French people of the Muslim faith, who did not gain full citizenship until the Algerian War in 1958). The classifications enshrined in colonial legislation had thus led to the creation of two legal statuses (citizen nationals and non-citizen nationals) to group together populations that were initially more numerous.

However, this binary distinction between two categories of the population (French citizens and non-citizens) is not reflected in official population censuses, which are regularly published in the General Table of Algerian Municipalities. In fact, populations are distinguished there not according to the criteria of nationality and citizenship, as defined by colonial legislation, but according to criteria that are both legal and ethno-confessional, since the census includes “French” (nationals and citizens), “indigenous Muslims” (non-citizen nationals of the Muslim faith), “naturalized Israelites” (nationals who are citizens of the Jewish faith), foreigners of European origin, and foreigners from the Maghreb (Moroccans and Tunisians). This is why colonial Algeria constitutes a unique case study— to our knowledge , the only one—of the establishment of ethnic statistics within a colonizing state that was constantly striving to reaffirm—though not always working to implement—republican and assimilationist principles.

Hence the value of examining a case that clearly diverges from the model of citizenship, within the framework of a “present–past–present” approach (Braudel, 1969), which aligns with a socio-historical perspective (Noiriel, 2008) on ethnic statistics in colonial Algeria: Constructed in the present, starting from the controversy over ethnic statistics in contemporary France, the aim is to examine the issue in the past, within the Algerian colonial context, which offers an original and largely unexplored case study, in order to better assess its potential significance and provide a deeper understanding of current controversies.

Topics and questions addressed

This raises the research question at hand: how can we explain the emergence, within a universalist republic, of ethnic statistics that are, in principle, incompatible with the republican model of citizenship? Hypothetically, can this be explained by a departure from republican principles given the characteristics of the colonial situation (the Indigenous Code, the dissociation of nationality and citizenship that makes sense once the process of nation-state building is complete, by the late 19th century)? By the desire not to dissolve, likely under pressure from the “colonists ” (Ageron, 1978), the issue of indigenous status—which remains the primary challenge historically faced by all settler colonies (Veracini, 2010)—and this applies to both former French colonies (Algeria, New Caledonia) and former foreign colonies (Australia, Latin America)? Out of a desire to better control the territories and the various populations of the colony while colonial power remains, “structurally,” a “weak power” (Cooper, 2005), by making statistics a science of government or a cameral science (Ihl, Kaluzinski, Pollet, 2003)?

This largely “forgotten” experience deserves closer examination for two reasons. First, because growing knowledge about former settlement colonies has shed light on the various ways in which the indigenous status issue was dismantled—confinement to reservations, ethnocides, physical elimination, and internment camps, as was the case during the Algerian War (Sacriste, 2022)—but also through access to full citizenship—even as ethnic statistics record and measure these differences. And on the other hand, in the sense that the issue of managing cultural and religious diversity, in the former metropolises and in relation to the former colonies, is now relevant in all Western democracies, regardless of the models of citizenship adopted (Joppke, 2010). Thus, multicultural regimes sometimes adopt rather assimilationist measures, such as the requirement for immigrants to take language courses in the (Constant, 2000), and universalist regimes also seek adjustments by adopting more particularist measures, as evidenced by the numerous memory laws enacted over the past thirty years in France concerning Jews, descendants of slaves, repatriates, Armenians, and the Harkis (Savarese, 2020). Thus, the experience of establishing ethnic statistics in colonial Algeria—which historically constitutes a veritable negative case—must be examined in order to attempt to produce a better understanding of current controversies, particularly that regarding ethnic statistics in France. Constructing citizenship always involves, in former metropolises as well as in colonial contexts (De Mari, Savarese, 2019), drawing a line between inclusion and exclusion by specifying the conditions for belonging to the community of citizens. Conversely, the aim here is to understand what it means to define and measure indigeneity based on ethnic statistics, and how the effects of such statistics on social relations and political choices—recurrent denial of access to citizenship, specific expressions of antisemitism, which constitute neither a property of the “colonial situation ” (Balandier, 1951), nor a specific feature of colonial Algeria (Savarese, 2019)—can be, if not “measured,” at least identified. It is therefore the sociogenesis, practical uses, and effects of a measurement tool in the former colony that are the focus here, in order to better understand the issues at stake today.

Methodology and Approach

1/ Thus, we must first trace the “sociogenesis” of ethnic statistics in colonial Algeria: in what context were they established as early as 1830 and maintained under the Third Republic despite the promotion of an individualistic and universalist model of citizenship; who were their potential proponents or critics; what were their social backgrounds and institutional positions in the former metropolis or in the colony; and what were their interests, strategies, alliances, and networks of relationships. The identification of the actors involved and the factors conducive (process analysis) to the establishment of ethnic statistics must be carried out by cross-referencing the decisions of the colony’s General Government, available at the Overseas Archives Center (Aix-en-Provence), with the resources and career trajectories of the actors involved, most of whom are documented in the library of the former colonial school (founded in 1889 by Auguste Pavie to train future imperial officials), and whose decisions are also discussed in the colonial press—these last two sources, especially the first, are also available at the Centre des Archives d’Outre-Mer.

2/ Next, we must determine how it was established and implemented in practice, by identifying—beyond the population categories already identified—the procedures used to count the population. Since 1801, the French population has been regularly surveyed, and the same applies to colonial Algeria, where 19 population censuses were conducted between 1830 and 1962. The General Government of Algeria endeavored to have the administration model its counting method on the instructions issued in metropolitan France. However, in military territories, indigenous populations were estimated based on counts of established tribes, and thus adaptations were made at the local level, at least until the transition to civilian rule (1970), when the method used in metropolitan France was adopted (Kateb, 1998). However, ethnic statistics, as conducted in countries that have adopted a multicultural model of citizenship, assume that it is the individuals being counted who specify their own ethnic, racial, or religious affiliations (Schor, 2009; Kertzer, Arel, 2009; Perlmann, 2018), whereas the census conducted in metropolitan France, using a universalist model, focuses solely on “objective” criteria (age, sex, occupation, then socio-professional category, nationality, type of residence), which are identified based on questions asked by the enumerator. Under these conditions, the archives of the Arab offices and military administrations—also available at the Overseas Archives Center—which were compiled during census periods, must be examined to determine how the mainland census method might have been adapted locally: Is the definition of ethnic or racial category and affiliation determined by the interviewer, as in metropolitan France, or by the respondent, as is the case in countries using ethnic statistics? Did the colonial government adopt original or unique approaches—depending on the territories (civilian and military) and the periods (military rule, transition to civilian rule)—to carry out the 19 census operations recorded between 1930 and 1962?

3/ Finally, we must ask to what extent this statistic contributed to the ethnicization or racialization of colonial society. There is little doubt that such ethnicization/racialization occurred, given that the individuals involved are regularly referred to as “French,” “European,” “Jewish,” or “Arab” (Lorcin, 1999), rather than by their socio-professional status. Nevertheless, other factors contribute to this dynamic, particularly colonial ideology or the colonial imagination, through which the differences between the components of colonial society primarily reflect supposed civilizational gaps (for example, between “Kabyles” and “Arabs,” the former being considered closer to the French, even though both groups are viewed as inferior to French citizens). Examining the effects of colonial statistics on Algerian society therefore requires identifying spaces where this difference is expressed, such as elections, which have already been studied in Oran (Savarese, 2016) due to the presence of that department’s electoral archives at the Centre des Archives d’Outre-Mer. Other spaces where the racialization of society is expressed, such as the filing of complaints and court decisions (which also belong to the “archives of sovereignty” and are thus fully available in Aix-en-Provence), may be examined to enrich these analyses.

These three sets of questions are expected to require—based on our estimate and given our limited knowledge of the available collections—approximately two months of work dedicated to reviewing the archives and sources listed above. This work will be organized, in accordance with the academic schedule of a faculty researcher, into several one- to two-week research stays (as shorter periods are, in our experience, often unproductive). Since July offers the opportunity to spend two weeks working in the archives, and the weeks when classes are suspended are dedicated to completing this work, we propose the following schedule for research and discussion.

Impact and potential consequences

1/ Regarding visits to the Overseas Archives Center, we are planning two weeks in July 2024, one week during the November 2024 break, one week in late December 2024, one week during the April 2025 break, and the remainder in July 2025. The pace of the project’s progress may necessitate adjustments and additional visits to the archives, particularly in the second semester of 2025, given that the majority of our courses are taught in the first semester.

2/ In the meantime, we will organize an exploratory research seminar in Montpellier between January and June 2025, to host an Algerian colleague from CRASC (Center for Research in Social and Cultural Anthropology, Oran), as well as several French and international specialists in population counting and census operations. These sessions will provide an opportunity to discuss the initial findings of our work, to compare them with survey data on Algeria as well as other European countries, and to assess the feasibility of a comparative research project on controversies surrounding ethnic statistics in various contexts. We also intend to present the results of our research in Oran to colleagues at CRASC, a research center with which our own laboratory has recently finalized a multi-year agreement for scientific and educational partnership.

3/ The proposed archival research must result in the publication of a research paper on the social history of ethnic statistics which, drawing on its applications in countries that have adopted a multicultural citizenship framework and on the controversies surrounding the subject in countries that have chosen a universal model, can highlight the contributions of the Algerian colonial case to the sociology of these controversies. It may take the form of a research monograph authored by the candidate, or the coordination (alone or in collaboration with a colleague) of a peer-reviewed journal issue based on the results presented at the seminar we intend to organize—and in which we will invite one or more students enrolled in the Research Master’s program to participate.

4/ Indeed, as the instructor for the course on epistemology and research methods in the social sciences offered in the Master’s program in Comparative Politics, with a concentration in Comparative Politics and Public Policy, we propose to supervise a research thesis, written by a student, as part of a laboratory internship—which has become mandatory since this Master’s program joined the IDIL curriculum—on the sociology of the controversy surrounding ethnic statistics in France. This thesis could be linked to the research we intend to conduct through a historical detour examining their application in colonial Algeria.

Project Summary in French

Building on the recent controversy over the possibility of conducting a census of the French population by introducing ethnic statistics, this paper takes a detour through colonial Algeria to draw on a unique historical precedent: the introduction of ethnic statistics to count the populations of the former colony. This constitutes a unique example insofar as the republican model of citizenship, which recognizes only the universality of individuals, is a priori incompatible with ethnic statistics, which in principle concern only countries that have adopted a multicultural model of citizenship. The sociogenesis of ethnic statistics in colonial Algeria can thus be examined from three angles by attempting to identify the conditions of its establishment, the practical conditions of its application (how to conduct the census), and the effects of the measurement technique on the dynamics of the ethnicization/racialization of the colony’s populations, in order to better understand the challenges of classifying the French population today. This work is based on the analysis of archives available at the Centre des Archives d’Outre-Mer.