Good people do not use their power as belonging to the dominant group in society to make those who are minorities -- because of their race or their gender, their religion or their ethnicity -- feel lesser. His critics immediately argued that this was bigotry, a refutation of all that good citizens in a Western democracy should believe in. If Muslim women want to veil themselves, then it's no one else's business and anyone who even questions it is a racist. And an Islamophobe. Simple, right? Except that, of course, it's not.
Simple, right? Multiculturalism preaches tolerance, and this is a very good first step. But critical multiculturalism teaches tolerance plus the need to be honest with ourselves and others about who in any relationship or interaction has power. Simple, right? Well, not really. One of the striking things about the responses to Straw was that while many of his critics chastised (or excoriated) him for siding with Western values against the values of his Muslim constituents, some of those who supported him praised him for siding with Western values (such as freedom and self-autonomy) against patriarchy and sexism. When he said that veils were not a good thing for a society that includes Muslim women, was he perhaps speaking in defense of those women?
Not So Simple: Who Speaks for Whom?
As noted above, as Bennett (1998) writes, one of the key mistakes that can be made when examining culture is to assume that all of the members of that culture agree with each other. This is certainly never the case. Cultures become defined by those who have the most power. And the cultural rules that are established are therefore almost always those that benefit those with the most power. This makes perfect sense: Anyone who knows anything about human nature will find this to be exactly what one would expect. But while it is perfectly predictable, it is also potentially highly problematic in any number of situations. And the relationship between Muslim immigrants and others in their host countries is precisely the kind of situation where differences in power among subgroups within a culture are likely to cause fractures (Parekh, 2000).
Straw was truthful when he said that Muslim women who wear veils create a sense of separation between themselves and other Britons. (Other groups also set themselves apart -- Jewish men by the hair, for example.) and it was clear by his remarks that he disapproved of such separation not simply because he personally felt uncomfortable but because he believes that in a modern democracy such as Great Britain women should be treated as equals. And he believed that veiled women are not treated as equals by definition.
If women in Muslim communities, including the immigrant communities in Great Britain had equal power with the men in their communities -- and with other groups in British society -- and they chose to veil, then how could anyone object? But this is not the case. Muslim women do not have the same power as do men in their communities. Women as a group never have the same power as men in their own communities, so it should hardly be an actionable statement to say that Muslim women do not have equal rights. Nor should it be considered a radical question to ask if community requirements that women veil is a sign of that oppression?
It is certainly possible, and indeed closer to probable, that part of what made Straw uncomfortable at being in the presence of women whose entire face is covered is that he saw such veiling as a reminder of the ways in which women are oppressed by Islam. But who is he, his critics would (and did) respond is he to say that women are being oppressed? Isn't such criticism simply the worst and most shallow kind of multiculturalism. Straw could pretend to be tolerant and accepting by acting as if he cared about Muslim women while actually using his greater political and economic power to criticize, even demonize, all of Islam. The fact that Straw had no right to talk about veiling is underscored by the fact that many Muslim women believe that the practice is deeply respectful of their femininity and that wearing a veil is a statement that they will not be subsumed by a still imperialistic West.
It is true that many Muslim women do support veiling. Some do so on their own, others because they are pressured by family to do so. Most do so for complicated reasons that were only briefly touched on in the debate. The complexity of those reasons define Muslim women as complex human beings, as complex as everyone else, defined by living in a world in which there are scores of different cultural values and standards. People from different cultures will disagree with each other, and they should be allowed to do so. This is what democracy is for, to allow for debate.
And that debate -- which flared up after Straw's opinion piece -- must acknowledge that while there is no one best culture, each culture gives a bigger megaphone to some people than others.
Bennett, D. (Ed.) (1998). Multicultural states. London: Routledge.
Calhoun, C. (Ed.) (1994). Social theory and the politics of identity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Dallmayr, F. (1966) 'Democracy and Multiculturalism' in S. Benhabib (Ed.) Democracy and difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Parekh, B. (2000). Rethinking…
His critics immediately argued that this was bigotry, a refutation of all that good citizens in a Western democracy should believe in. If Muslim women want to veil themselves, then it's no one else's business and anyone who even questions it is a racist. And an Islamophobe. Simple, right? Except that, of course, it's not.
Rime of the Ancient Mariner" by Coleridge "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" written by Samuel Taylor Coleridge is much revered in Western poetical tradition, and it has survived despite the fickle reading audience's drastic turn towards the novel and other forms. Poems were once the acknowledged leader as a written form, but they have long been secondary, or even tertiary, because a novel is said to be easier to
Upon entering a place that appears to be hell, though it looks oddly like a coldly modern, windowless hotel, each of Sartre's characters expects to be tortured for his or her supposed sins. The wait; however, turns out not to be for the arrival of some "other," but rather the discovery that one's own self, and one's fellow human beings, perform the job perfectly well. Garcin, like Judas, is consumed
agrees that ethics is an important part of effective leadership in the field of health care but there is no universally accepted understanding of what constitutes ethical leadership (Milton, 20004). The concept of ethical leadership has been addressed in the literature of a wide variety of fields associated with the health care profession but none have been able to clearly define its terms. The purpose of this paper will
Furthermore, when groups began people naturally turned to the group leader for direction and advice. It would be accurate to state that most of the relating was to the group leader at that point. However, by exercising linking behavior, I was able to get the group members to look to each other for understanding and help. Initially, I had to point out when people were saying things that would indicate
The people of the kingdom, seeing nothing wrong with this, built their own altars throughout the land. Baal and Ashteroth were worshiped openly, sanctified by King Ahab and his wife, Jezebel. Sacred prostitutes were part of this new idolatry. It was one of these that Hosea took as a wife, and then utilized this imagery of God's love for Israel, in that he would rescue them by buying them
I take an oath of loyalty to the table / coated with white Formica, a cup full of pens, the ashtray / I dreamed that the State had passed out of existence / and with our children / we'd settled down in the three volumes of the / dictionary."(Shabtai, 39) Also, in Our Land he dramatically deplores the ugliness of his land. The poem is even more telling because