Multiculturalism has generated a lot of debate in the recent times

Introduction

Multiculturalism has generated a lot of debate in the recent times. This is more so as far as issues pertaining to women have been in question. Since time immemorial, there have always been claims as to the discrimination that women undergo not only from the laws in their states but also in the domestic front. It is this argument that Susan Okin puts forth. She insinuates that there has been tension between feminists who aim at promoting women equality and multiculturalists whose aim is to enhance preservation of endangered and disadvantaged groups. She examines the instances in which efforts advance the international human rights of women have been on collision course with the cultural claims.

Feminism has stated that as much as significance of religious and national particularities in the varied cultural, religious and historical systems have to be considered, every state irrespective of its economic, cultural and political systems must promote and protect all the human rights and basic freedoms. The argument that the rights of women must be above the national traditions attracted a lot of opposition with some feminists considering it to be a form of intellectual colonialism. Any individual who is not part of a particular religious or cultural community speaking about the issue of violation of women rights within that particular community’s traditions would be taken as intrusive since it is not possible to know another culture when you are not in it. She opines that anyone claiming people’s or group’s rights has an obligation to consult the women in the religious or cultural group concerned and not just take the opinions of its representatives or men.

There has been general consensus that the minority communities must have the right to uphold their respective cultures but there is a disagreement about the limits or basis of that particular right. Some feel that the right should be enjoyed as long as it does not contradict the fundamental conditions of civility, while others insinuate that the dissenting members should be granted the right to exit. Others ask the minority communities to internally organize themselves in line with liberal lines by observing fundamental liberties, practicing equality of sexes and enhancing personal autonomy. While Okin agrees with the last approach, she feels that many cultures both majority and minority are intensely sexist and promote subordination of women through various practices that are too subtle to be caught by law or be curbed. She insinuates that the women in these cultures are conditioned to have low view of themselves as well as accepting and rationalizing the subordinate status. This results in damage on their well-being in which case they would grow with low self esteem and self respect. She opines that liberal societies must ensure that in upholding culture, sexism is not shielded and that the leaders of the minority cultures should not be the only spokespersons.

I definitely agree with most of her views. Suppression of women, polygamy, child or forced marriages, improper rape victims’ treatment and female genital mutilation (clitoridectomy) are evil on evil as well as moral grounds. In addition, she is very right to insinuate that the respect for culture must exist on condition that it does not condone oppression or inhumanity.

However, I would disagree with some of the issues that she chooses to ignore as well as some of her conclusions. As she admits, it is difficult to evaluate and demonstrate inequality between sexes. It becomes a problem to define them once they are past a particular point. Treatment of women as inferior in particular societies only happens when they are young but would be valued and even would be considered as superior to men after reaching a particular age or leading virtuous lives, becoming grandmothers and displaying extraordinary qualities. It is for this reason that many societies even when they display sexist tendencies will accept and welcome women leaders irrespective of their class. In this case, it is difficult to assess how deep gender inequality is since there are variations as to the treatment of women in varied stages of life. They would also be variation in the rights that they are endowed with at varied stages.

Okin also focuses on the extreme cases while ignoring the problems that come with passing judgment on other cultures. Anyone would acknowledge that female genital mutilation is unacceptable when undertaken on women. However, she ignores the fact that many are the times when sane and gown women undergo it more so after the last child is born in order to control their sexuality or as a signal that they will be primarily mothers and not wives.

In addition, it is important to consider the perception of the situation by women themselves. There are some who definitely do not agree with the feminist ideas. It would be unfair to label them as indoctrinated individuals who have fallen victim to false consciousness that is generated by culture and therefore requiring liberation. That would not only be patronizing but would also deny them the equality that forms the basis of the argument in the first place. While they may be brainwashed, it is important to accepting the self understanding of varied positivist extremes and imposing our self understanding uncritically on them.

Debate for and against eradication of the FGS

Multiculturalism refers to a policy which occurs when numerous subcultures exist under one jurisdictional framework with all constituents being affected by an all-inclusive policy but still allowing some room for varied cultural norms. The following is a debate between western feminist who is against believes in tolerance of the cultural differences on condition that it does not allow FGM and a mother hailing from a culture that endorses FGM.

Western feminist: I am not completely against multiculturalism. However, what I find appalling is the fact that inhuman acts such as FGM should be allowed in a free society all in the name of multiculturalism.

Mother: why should that be a problem to you? Why would you insinuate that FGM is wrong whereas it is entrenched in our very culture? Why should we allow you to make you policies without even consulting us and then impose them on us? Don’t you think that would be a bit patronizing, more like we will be living your lives?

WF: Not at all. It will be a well meant effort to give you back your rights as a woman in which case you will be equal even in marriage. This practice is definitely demeaning on your womanhood and therefore your equality would be replicated in other areas such as the workplace, politics etc.

Mother: Really? Demeaning? I don’t think so. Why should it be demeaning while I chose to undergo it without being forced by any man? It is a show of maturity, a graduation from a wife to a mother. Do you even know how it feels to graduate from one stage to another?

WF: What I mean is that any group that is seeking rights and official recognition in a liberal society must reform its practices and teachings and align them with the fundamental equality of sexes.

Mother: I would be adamant to make such a proposition. Equality would not just come automatically. Even between men it does not come automatically. Don’t we have women who are more superior to other men based on their accomplishments age or even extra-ordinary traits? What more equality would we be looking for?

WF: I definitely acknowledge the central importance of family or personal law to your culture. But then that law is equally important to you as a woman. If there are particular rights that do not apply equally to men and women, that inequality would reverberate throughout a woman’s life sometimes with detrimental effects.

Mother: And how would you measure gender inequality in the family or even community? How would you tell whether our community observes your standards pertaining to equality? In any case, why should you consider our community as so degenerate and lacking in emancipatory resources as to be under an obligation to meet some conditions imposed externally as a condition for its being trusted with particular rights? Don’t you think you will be going too far whereas your mandate should only be on demanding particular fundamental rights? Anything beyond that would be eating up the same equality you are talking of in the first place.

Conclusion

While feminism as a concept comes with particular right, only when they are customized to suit the likes and preferences of the particular cultural groups would it be likely to yield any fruit. In this case therefore, multicultural though attacked by feminists should be encouraged more so when the individuals involved are making a conscious choice to follow the policies of the culture.

References

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/okin/multicultural.htmlWhen Cultural Values Clash with Universal Rights:Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?

By Susan Moller Okinhttp://bostonreview.net/BR22.5/parekh.htmlA Varied Moral World A response to Susan Okin’s “Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?” by Bhikhu Parekh