Equality and diversity in the United States



Equality and diversity in the United States

07.01.2005

Anne-Sophie Blum

IS MULTICULTURALISM BAD FOR WOMEN?

Susan Moller Okin, with Respondents

1. THE BOOK

PART ONE : IS MULTICULTURALISM BAD FOR WOMEN? Susan Moller Okin

INTRODUCTION

Whereas minorities were expected to assimilate into majority culture, now this can be considered as oppressive. Okin’s question is: “what should be done when the claims of minority cultures or religion clash with the norm of gender equality that is at least formally endorsed by liberal states?”

- Example of this tension between multiculturalism and gender equality: in France in the late 1980s, there was a public controversy about the possibility for Muslim girls to wear headscarves in public school but no controversy about the polygamy. Immigrants men were allowed at this time to bring their wives in France (an estimated 200 000 families in Paris were polygamous at the time when the book was released)

- Definitions:

FEMINISM: women should be recognized as having human dignity equal to that of men, and they should have the opportunity to live as fulfilling and as freely chosen lives as men can.

MULTICULTURALISM: claims… that minority cultures or ways of life are not sufficiently protected by the practice of ensuring the individual rights of their members, and as a consequence they should also be protected through special group rights or privileges.

The problem: Should every minority cultural groups that claims for group rights (indigene native population, minority ethnic or religious groups) be accorded group rights in a liberal society if this group does not respect their individual members’ rights? Or should group rights be accorded to groups that are internally liberal?

GENDER AND CULTURE

Group rights can be antifeminist if the male members determine the group’s beliefs, practices and interests. According to Susan Moller Okin, the advocates for group rights in liberal states neglect two important aspects of this problem:

- They focus on differences between and among the groups and not on differences within them (internal differences)

- They pay little or no attention to the private sphere

The aim of rituals, matrimonial customs and practices is to bring women’s sexuality and reproductive capabilities under men’s control, and therefore it is almost impossible for women to live independent lives. Western societies are also patriarchal but at least women are guaranteed many of the same freedoms and opportunity as men.

- Some examples of the most controversial customs: clitoridectomy, polygamy, coerced marriages.

GROUP RIGHTS?

Some examples of “cultural defenses” which were invoked in US criminal cases involving members of cultural minorities:

- kidnap and rape by Hmong men is a part of their cultural practise of “marriage by capture”

- wife murder by immigrants from Asian and Middle Eastern countries whose wives have committed adultery or treated their husbands in a servile way.

- Mother-child suicide among Japanese and Chinese provoked by the shame of the husband’s infidelity

The argument is that women are not equal to men in these cultures. In a liberal state, such cultural defenses violate women’s rights to equal protection of the law.

LIBERAL DEFENSE

According to Will Kymlicka, belonging to a specific culture is essential for the development of self-respect. Cultural minorities need group rights not to be threatened with extinction. However, these minorities must apply internal liberalism rules to give their members the possibility to make “meaningful individual choices”.

However, according to Susan Moller Okin, almost every culture practises, to a greater or a lesser extent, discrimination against women. Kymlicka thinks more of cultures that discriminate legally (formally) against women, but the problem is that discrimination against women is often more informal in every culture and this discrimination against women can even be reinforced by group rights which tend to maintain specific cultural practices.

PART OF THE SOLUTION?

Group leaders should represent the interests of all the group’s members. That is why women and especially young women should be represented in negotiations about group rights, and not only men and older members of the group.

PART TWO : RESPONSES

Whose Culture? Katha Pollit

Since the aim of feminism is to promote women equality, feminism is not only in opposition with some minority cultures living in liberal societies but with almost every culture on earth : “You could say that multiculturalism demands respect for all cultural tradition, while feminism interrogates and challenges all cultural traditions”

Question: How do we decide what is a culture and therefore what need to be protected?

Example: The defense argument of a Chinese immigrant who had murdered his supposedly unfaithful wife was that this was a cultural practise. However, Katha Pollit notices that it is not legal in modern China for a husband to kill his wife if he thinks she had committed adultery. Pollit thinks that any immigrant could not have made this argument: Russians or Italians could not use it because we do consider these societies and cultures as dynamic and modern. Cultural rights argument can work for cultures that Americans do not know and consider as cultures that can not be reformed.

Liberal Complacencies, Will Kymlicka

Kymlicka distinguishes two kinds of group rights:

- “Internal restrictions”: rights that restrict individual choice in the name of the “cultural tradition” or “integrity”. A liberal theory of minority group rights can not accept claims for these rights because “they violate the autonomy of individuals and creates injustice within the group”

- “External protections”: rights which tend to reduce the vulnerability of a group to the economic or political power of the larger society and that liberals can accept. Examples: language rights, guaranteed political representation.

According to Okin, the definition of “internal restrictions” is too narrow as women can be formally protected in the public sphere but discriminated against in the private sphere. As a result, she suggests that multiculturalism is a threat to feminism. However, multiculturalism and the feminism promoted by Susan Moller Okin do agree on one thing: justice can not be achieved by providing to minorities (or women) only the same set of formal rights the majority (or men) possesses. Multiculturalists and feminists pay attention to the structure of societal institutions (workplace, family, media, schooling) for the same reasons: all these institutions use the male or the majority culture as “the norm”. Moreover, they advocate the same remedies: they demand specific rights that are not available to men or to members of the majority culture (affirmative action, women-only classrooms)

“My culture Made Me Do It”, Bonnie Honig

The cultures mentioned by Susan Moller Okin are less patriarchal than she suggests and cultural practices that seem to be sexist can be justified.

Example: many Muslim feminists consider the veil as an empowering practice because veiling allows women to move from their rural homes to an urban world that is “still an alien, uncomfortable social reality for both men and women” (Leila Ahmed)

Is Western Patriarchal Feminism Good for Third World/Minority Women? Azizah Y. Al-Hibri

Religion and culture are two distinctive things, which Okin seems to ignore. However, Muslim countries can retain local customs that are not opposed with the Islamic revelation. Some of this customs are controversial and are erroneously considered as Islamic customs.

A statement: many contemporary women who have a job choose the Orthodox or Hasidic way of life as adult, which means gender roles and early marriages for instance. It seems patriarchal to assert that these women have been manipulated and have chosen an oppressive way of life because it denies them the right to choose their ways of life. “Secular feminist run the risk of turning patriarchal”. Their struggle conflicts with American constitutional principles such as the freedom of belief.

Siding with the Underdogs, Yael Tamir

“Group rights strengthen dominant subgroups within each culture and privilege conservative interpretation of culture over reformative and innovative one”

- The conservative nature of group rights: Because the “group” is considered as a unified agent, and the group traditions are assimilated to the group interests. Consequently, unanimity is perceived as a condition to the ability of the group to protect its rights. Reformists and non-conformists are marginalized within the group

- Example: Reform Judaism is portrayed as a threat to the survival of Judaism according to the Orthodox establishment… However, the term survival does not refer to the actual survival of the community but to the survival of the traditional way of life. In this case, according group rights would not protect the whole community but rather deprive the reformist members of the community of expressing their preferences.

Moreover, “we” wrongly assume that “our” culture only can be reformed whereas “they” (minority cultures) can not survive change and innovation.

- Example: when Indians who live on reservations marry outsiders, a problem of overcrowding emerges that does not permit the allocation of land to each family. In Liberalism, Community and Culture, Kymlicka describes two traditional solutions that both disadvantage the members who deviate from the norm in marrying an outsider: the “blood criterion” according to which “only those with a certain proportion of Indian blood can be full member of the band”, the “kinship” according to which Indian women who marry outsiders lose their status. Yael Tamir thinks the only non-discriminatory solution is to assume that Indians can retain their identity by acquiring occupations which are different from the agrarian occupations their ancestors had.

“Why is it that American from Philadelphia can retain their American identity despite the fact that they live cultural, social and professional lives very different from those of their agrarians predecessors, while Indian men and women can retain their identity only if they preserve a way of life that is as similar as possible to the one experienced by the previous generations?”

Promises We Should All Keep in Common Cause, Abdullahi An-Na’Im

- Question: what are the implications of an exclusive focus on gender issues for other human rights standards throughout the world?

Okin seems to accept the degree of gender equality upheld by the majority culture whereas the minority cultures unable to achieve gender equality in the private sphere should disappear. Moreover, her focus on gender issues neglects other problems (racism, economic or social rights) which concern minority and majority cultures. The reference for the debate should be human rights such as health care or housing.

A Varied Moral World, Bhikhu Parekh

The examples chosen by Okin are extreme and she ignores some particular aspects of tradition that Western generally condemn. According to Okin, practices such as clitoridectomy or forced marriages are opposed to liberalism. But there are several liberalisms, since values can be defined and integrated in several different ways. If minority cultures have to conform to fundamental liberal value such as equality of the sexes, they must also confirm to all fundamental liberal values (freedom of speech, individualism…) which means they have to become liberal to be respected…

The term “women” that Okin uses is not accurate: in some societies, young women are treated as inferior but are revered older, when they become grandmother or lead virtuous lives. As “Women” is not an unified agent, it is patronizing to say that women are always victims of cultural traditions, even if they choose to follow these traditions. For instance, Muslim girls in France or in the Netherlands chose freely to wear headscarves.

Okin and Kymlicka both reduce multiculturalism to a discussion about group rights but multiculturalism is actually “a revolt against liberal hegemony and self-righteousness.” Multiculturalism claims that all cultures are partial and deflates the universal pretensions of liberalism. Multiculturalism leads liberalism to self-critic in recognizing that liberalism has also historical and contingent roots.

Should Sex Equality Law Apply to Religious Institutions? Cass R. Sunstein

Religious institutions are sometimes a source of discriminatory practices hence respect for the autonomy of religious institutions may conflicts with the goal of sex equality. In the United States, it is considered that the most ordinary law, civil and criminal, should be applied to these institutions (example: a secular government may prohibit these institutions from engaging murder, kidnapping, and assault.) However, the state does not require the Catholic Church to ordain women as priests = unacceptable discrimination if it was carried out by a secular entity.

- The asymmetry thesis: it is unproblematic to apply ordinary civil and criminal law to religious institutions but problematic to apply the law forbidding sex discrimination to these institutions.

- How can we justify the asymmetry thesis?

1) A state may interfere with religious practices only when it has a compelling strong reason to do this (or a “compelling interest”). The criminal and civil law provides this reason, the law that forbids sex discrimination does not.

But actually, the ordinary law prohibits torts that are often very modest: little libels, minor assaults without physical contact. Can this be considered as a compelling interest?

2) As prohibition on sex discrimination would impose a substantial burden on religious beliefs and practices it would conflict with the heart of the religious convictions. On this view, some exemptions are necessary.

3) It depends on both the strength of the state’s interest and on the extent of the adverse effect on religion. A weak interest like libels would be insufficient to justify any intrusion of the state, an overriding interest like preventing murder would justify any intrusion, a compelling interest would allow some intrusion. It seems to be the best standard for a liberal society but who would administer this principle and decide whether an interest is weak or overriding? Under this standard, some ordinary law would not legitimately be applied to religious institutions and some of the laws banning sex discrimination would be applied.

- Conclusion:

The asymmetry thesis can not be sustained. Whether it is legitimate to apply laws to religious institutions depends on the extent of the interference with religious convictions and the strength of the state’s justification.

A Plea for Difficulty, Martha C. Nussbaum

Nussbaum criticizes the fact that Okin strongly opposes what she calls the patriarchal religions that oppress women to the noble Enlightenment goal of a full political recognition of the equal dignity of all human beings.

The distinction between comprehensive liberalism and political liberalism:

- Comprehensive liberalism: personal autonomy in all areas of life is considered as an appropriate goal of the state.

- Political liberalism: Political liberals recognize the existence of a reasonable plurality of comprehensive doctrines about the good, prominent among which are the religions. They ask religious people and secular humanists to accept the political equality of women as citizens; they do not ask them to accept the proposition that men and women have an equal metaphysical nature. Therefore, political liberalism is more able to accommodate the value of citizen’s religious freedom.

In theory, the American constitutional tradition has held that the state may not impose a “substantial burden” on free exercise of religion, unless the state can prove that the government has a “compelling” interest to do so. However, the Smith case marked a change because the Supreme Court allowed to apply a special burden to a religious minority: a Native American religious group sought exemption from the drug law for ceremonial use of peyote. According to Nussbaum, there was no “compelling government interest” in the Smith case. Therefore, the use of peyote should have been allowed.

Nussbaum thinks the same approach should be followed when religious practices influence women’s lives. We should ask whether a law (a law banning polygamy for instance) really does impose a “substantial burden” on free exercise of religion.

Example: the Indian reform of Hindu law in the 1950’s which outlawed polygamy for Hindu men. It imposed a substantial burden on religious practices but the state’s interest in protecting the female citizens in fundamental areas of life seemed to supply the state with a compelling interest in these reforms.

Question: does sex discrimination supply the state with a compelling interest in legal change, or only in discrimination that denies women certain fundamental rights?

Nussbaum’s opinion: the state’s interest in children as future citizens should dictate some uniform educational requirements in order to guarantee equal liberty and opportunity to all adult citizens in fundamental areas of life (health, political equality). Nevertheless, once liberties and opportunities are in place, the choices of adult citizens to remain in a religious body that refuses to hire women as priests should be respected if the society acknowledges that there is a plurality of reasonable comprehensive conceptions of the good.

▪ PART THREE : REPLY, Susan Moller Okin

Okin does not agree with one of the critic in this book which says that she is “willing to accept the degree of gender inequality upheld by the majority culture”. Okin considers that gender equality has not been achieved in liberal societies and that minority cultures cannot be expected to surpass the majority culture in this field.

Okin agrees that some basic social and economic rights are as important as civil and political rights. But if the advancement of various human rights around the world is crucial, there are many reasons to think that greater equality for women is central to this advancement which explains why Okin focuses on women’s rights.

2. COMMENTS

- Susan Moller Okin (1946-2004)

Okin's work focused on the exclusion of women from most Western political thought, past and present. She argued that gender issues belong at the core, not the margins, of political philosophy. Her book Women in Western Political Thought (1979) is considered a cornerstone of research on women in politics. She also authored two other books, Justice, Gender and the Family (1989) and Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? (1999). Okin took John Rawls' 1971 book, A Theory of Justice, which argued for a political philosophy based on equality and individual rights, and asked in Justice, Gender and the Family whether these principles of justice should be applied to the family. In recent years, Okin had turned her attention to the plight of women in the least developed countries.

- Is multiculturalism bad for women?

Some respondents argue that feminists like Susan Moller Okin tend to become paradoxically “patriarchal” toward women because they deny women the ability and the right to choose freely a culture or a religion which are considered as oppressive against women by the Western cultures. Since these feminists can not understand that some women want to wear headscarves or choose the Orthodox or Hasidic way of life for instance, they ignore the preferences expressed by these women and therefore do not respect women’s rights to live freely their lives. According to these authors the real question is not whether multiculturalism is bad for women who belong to minority cultures but rather whether feminism is bad for women who belong to these cultures which explains the title of one of the response in the book, “Is Western Patriarchal Feminism Good for Third World/Minority Women?” (Azizah Y. Al-Hibri)

Nevertheless, it is important to notice that the “preferences” expressed by individuals are not chosen so freely by these adults but tend to conform to what they think is appropriate or possible for them. We can assume that girls and women who belong to communities which promote the wear of headscarf or Hasidic the way of life will express the same preferences because they are used to live in these cultures and tend to conform themselves to this way of life. That is the reason why this argument based on the respect of preferences expressed by minority women does not seem convincing.

However Susan Moller Okin’s idea that women who belong to minority cultures which are oppressive against women would be advantaged by the disappearance of these minority cultures and their own integration into the majority culture seems too radical and almost shocking.

That is the reason why Martha Nussbaum’s article is very interesting. Martha Nussbaum agrees with some respondents that personal choices expressed by adults should be respected. Even if these adults choose a culture or a religion whose institutions do not apply the sex discrimination laws they should be allowed the right to practise their religion or live in their communities because these rights are necessary to guarantee religious freedom. For instance, adults could choose to belong to the Catholic Church which does not hire women as priests and therefore do not apply the sex discrimination laws. However Martha Nussbaum adds that the institutions which take care of the children’s education in these cultures should apply the sex discrimination laws. According to her, “the state’s interest in children as future citizens should dictate some uniform educational requirements” which means no separate classrooms for girls for instance. Thanks to this requirement, children would be guaranteed equal liberty. I think this requirement would also give them the opportunity to express preferences which could be personal and not necessarily dictated by the way of life of their community. This requirement seems to be the best solution since it does respect adult’s choice to live as they want but also allows girls to develop preferences which would less tend to conform to the norm represented by their communities.

_______________________________

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download