Multiculturalism versus Feminism A Debate on InCompatibilities Traditionally
Multiculturalism versus Feminism: A Debate on (In)Compatibilities Traditionally, cross-national migration movements have been considered as a threat to national identity of the receiving societies. Thus, until the late 1970 s/early 1980 s immigrants were supposed to «assimilate» into the majority culture of the receiving society. The dominant expectation has been that immigrants and particularly their children would become indistinguishable from the native population and thus become «invisible» in the society. This expectation or requirement of assimilation has been given up first in the «classical immigration countries» Australia, Canada and the USA. Later during the 1990 s the concept of «multiculturalism» (thereafter: MC) (as the alternative to assimilation) has «traveled» to Europe. Pro-immigrant groups/activists in European societies and several immigrant groups have started arguing that immigrant minorities have a «right to be different» . In other words, immigrant minorities should have the right to maintain their distinct «cultures» , traditions, values etc. instead of assimilating into the majority culture. Against this background, a complicated normative debate has emerged about the pros and cons of multiculturalism associated with ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic diversity. Not only proimmigrant activists/NGOs and several immigrant groups started emphasizing that assimilation is a violation of human rights and/or that «diversity» benefits the society; but also political philosophers, committed to principles of liberalism (e. g. Will Kymlicka), have started advocating the concept of MC.
• Not surprisingly, the concept and policies of MC (tolerance of different cultural identities, languages and religions came under heavy attack by anti-immigrant groups/political parties. The most important argument of such groups/leaders was and is that MC poses a threat to national identity and social cohesion in the society. Most recently, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel publicly declared that «Multiculturalism has failed absolutely – MC is dead» . • More interesting in this context is the fact that the concept of MC has lead to fierce debate among political philosophers as well as feminist scholars. A group of political philosophers/political scientists who consider a «shared national identity» as the «glue» of the society and pre-condition of national solidarity (e. g. Jürgen Habermas) argue that immigrant minorities should still «assimilate» in the public sphere, while they maintain their «cultural identity» (language, religion, traditions, norms and values etc). • Finally, some (feminist) scholars committed to the principle of gender equality reject the concept of MC altogether based on the argument that immigran minorities from «non-Western cultures» are «more patriarchal than the surrounding cultures» of the Western receiving societies (Okin 1997: 11). Yet, other (feminist) scholars argue that such a generalizing viewpoint and categorization of «non-Western» immigrant communities as «more patriarchal» amounts to a «racist» attitude towareds immigrant minorities. While the first group of feminist scholars argue that feminism and MC are not compatible, the second group of feminist scholars argue that feminism and MC are reconcilable. Let us summarize the most important pros and cons of MC by comparing and contrasting the publications of two feminist scholars, namely Susan Moller Okin (1997) and Letti Volp (2001)
Susan Moller Okin: «Is Multiculturalism Bad For Women? » , Boston Review, October 1, 1997 In this article, the question addressed by Okin is the following: • «What should be done when the claims of minority cultures or religions clash with the norm of gender equality that is at least formally endorsed by liberl states (however much they continue to violate it in their practice)? » (p. 2) • She defines «feminism» as the belief that women should not be disadvantaged by their sex, that they should be recognized as having human dignity equally with men, and the opportunity to live as fulfilling and as freely chosen lives as men can. • MC is defined by Okin as «the claim, made in the context of basically liberal democracies, that minority cultures or ways of life are not sufficiently protected by ensuring the individual rights of their members and as a consequence should also be protected with special group rights or privileges. » (p. 2)
Please NOTE that Okin argues against a certain version of MC, namely MC policies that grant immigrant or ethnic minorities or indigenous native populations or religious groups «special group rights» that are NOT available to the rest of the population (p. 3) Examples of such special group rights requested or might be requested by some immigrant groups include the following (and one could certainly add more examples to the list below: • • • the right to polygamy clitoridectomy marriage of children forced marriages marriage of the rape victim to the rapist wearing of headscarves and other forms of complete coverage of the face and/or body (niqab, burqa) application of divorce systems biased against women «cultural» defense of criminal cases to win reduced charges in cases of murder of women or severe violence against women etc. …… …… ……
It is against this background that Okin argues against MC if this would mean the granting of exemptions to minorities in order to «protect» their «cultural practices» : «Establishing group rights to enabe some minority cultures to preserve themselves may not be in the best interest of the girls and women of the culture, even if it benefits the men …. . Moreover, policies aiming to respond to the needs and claims of cultural minority groups must take seriosly the need for adequate respresentation of less powerful members of such groups» (p. 19) Okin concludes: 1. Protecting the rights of minority cultural groups must be consistent with fundamental principles of liberalism (i. e. İndividual autonomy and individual freedom) 2. However, «group leaders» of minorities are often composed of theri older and their male members. Thus, unless «…women – and, more specifically, young women, since older women often become co-opted into reinforcing gender inequality – are fully represented in negotiations about group rights, their interests may be harmed rather than promoted by the granting of such rights» (p. 20
Please also NOTE that Okin is careful enough to emphasize that the so-called «Western liberal democracies» are not free of sex discrimination «Western cultures, of course, still practice many forms of sex discrimination. The place far more stress on beauty, thinness … they expect women to perform for no economic reward far more than half of the unpaid work of their families, whether or not they also work for ages …women are far more likely to than men to become poor; girls and women are also subjected by men to a great deal of (illegal) violence including sexual violence» (p. 11) And, yet, Okin argues that in «more liberal cultures» women are at least legally guaranteed many of the freedoms and opportunities that men enjoy (p. 11).
Despite trying to have a «balanced» view of the extent of «sex discrimination» in so-called non- Western versus Western «cultures» , Okin’s contribution to the debate on MC and feminism has provoked a long-lasting debate accusing her of overt or covert racism. Perhaps, the following quote makes it more clear why the debate around Okins’s work has become so heated: «Indeed, they (minority women) may be much better off if the culture into which they were born were either to become extinct (so that its members would become integrated into the less sexist surrounding culture or, preferably, to be encouraged to alter itself so as to reinforce the equality of women …» (p. 18; emphasis added) The 3 rd part of this presentation deals with some of the most important counterarguments regarding Susan M. Okin’s take on feminism and MC.
- Slides: 7