The search for life’s ultimate meaning
Martha Nussbaum starts her discussion of burqa bans with her version of the justification for the free exercise clause of the US Constitution and freedom of religion in general. It’s a rather sentimental picture.
Let’s start with an assumption that is widely shared: that all human beings are equal bearers of human dignity. It is widely agreed that government must treat that dignity with equal respect. But what is it to treat people with equal respect in areas touching on religious belief and observance?
We now add a further premise: that the faculty with which people search for life’s ultimate meaning — frequently called “conscience” ─ is a very important part of people, closely related to their dignity.
The problem with that as a justification for the free exercise clause and for freedom religious practice is that it’s so incomplete. Nussbaum is very very fond of talking about religion as the way “people search for life’s ultimate meaning,” but that’s far from being all that religion is, and Nussbaum’s presenting it that way is misleading, even obfuscatory. Religion is other things too, including a set of rules. A religious set of rules is often reactionary, and it is always “sacred,” which makes it less accountable to human ideas and wishes, and more difficult to change.
Religion is not just about the individual’s search for meaning; religion is social, and often demanding, or frankly coercive. The free exercise of religion often means the freedom to force subordinates to obey religious rules. Nussbaum makes the whole system sound a lot more benevolent than it can be assumed to be.
That’s especially obvious in the case of the burqa. The burqa is not really part of women’s “search for meaning” in the sense people like Nussbaum, and like me, understand it; it’s part of a system of rules forced on people by tradition and custom and authority. Yes it may be that some people “find meaning” by obeying such rules, but the truth is it doesn’t matter if they do or not; the rules are rules, and they have nothing to do with freedom.
We now add a further premise: that the faculty with which people search for life’s ultimate meaning — frequently called “conscience” ─ is a very important part of people, closely related to their dignity
Which people call the faculty with which people search for life’s ultimate meaning “conscience”? Whatever we call the faculty with which people search for life’s ultimate meaning it isn’t necessarily a very important part of people: I have only a very small and almost completely unused one. Does that mean I have hardly any dignity? I think it quite possible that i don’t have any dignity, but I don’t think it likely that any humans have any dignity and I regard dignity and the faculty with which people search for life’s ultimate meaning as much less important and interesting aspects of humanity than many other aspects, such as having a conscience in the sense of not wanting to harm other people.
Even if life does have an ultimate meaning, what is the ultimate meaning of the ultimate meaning? What is the ultimate meaning of that?
I’m really torn on the whole burqa ban idea. I believe in freedom of religion and the freedom to where what you want in public. But I also feel that burqa’s are a tool of suppression and subjugation of women by a culture and a religion that treats women as chattel. So there is a conflict of rights, the right to practice religion and the right not to be subjugated by a powerful patriarchal culture and religion.. I don’t known an easy way to reconcile to reconcile the issues.
Earlier somebody, perhaps you, noted that with drunk driving we tell people not to drive drunk–we don’t tell people how to “defend” against drunk drivers. Whereas with rape, we tell women to defend themselves. There may not be any analog with burqas, but it recalls to me that we don’t tell men not to subjugate their women by pressuring them to wear portable cloth prison cells, instead we say we mustn’t interfere with people’s religion nor with women’s right to be subjugated by men, regardless of whether the women have a cultural version of Stockholm Syndrome, where a psychological defensive mechanism causes women to identify with, and defend, their captors.
Oh, and that BS from Martha Nussbaum about the eyes being the windows to the soul, and thus burqa’s let the whole person through the eye slit so they are just fine and dandy? Well, Sharbat Gula has some of the most striking eyes ever photographed. Check out the difference between seeing her face and seeing her in a burqa:
http://catalinamoreno88.vox.com/library/photo/6a00f48cec12f4000300fa967558020002.html
…I say Martha Nussbaum is full of it.
Nussbaum’s article is troubling despite its intelligence and thoroughness—at least in terms of laying out the oft-heard arguments against the burqa. But oh how she ignores the obvious. Recently on a France 24 video clip regarding the banning of the burqa in Catalonia, Spain, a Muslim husband is heard saying that his wife has “total freedom” and does what she wants, wears what she wants, so long, he adds (without a hint of irony), as it is “within Islam.” What can Nussbaum say to that? Her answer by the end of the article is crushingly disappointing: “We don’t even need to reach the delicate issue of religiously grounded accommodation…” But that’s the issue that begs attention, no? Why/how to accommodate such logic?!
I say Martha Nussbaum has lost it. What she has to say about the burqa is simply unreadable. It’s as if she herself is wearing a burqa, and the narrow slit for her eyes has skewed her vision. Perhaps she should try walking around in one for a few months, just to get an idea of what it feels like to be impersonal, to be a bag, walking. Eyes are not the windows of the soul, unless you can see a lot more than eyes, because eyes twinkle in a face, they show nothing staring hauntingly out of slits in cloth, or through cloth meshes.
I found it almost impossible to read her dreck about burqas in the NYT, and I was convinced that she really had lost it. She doesn’t seem to know what freedom is about either. She should go to Saudi Arabia or Iran or Afghanistan or Pakistan. Women don’t count there. They have no opinions worth noticing. And they are owned. If they are raped it is their fault. And if they actually have a desire for someone other than their husbands, who are their guardians and owners — and what would be more natural? — they can be divorced, lashed, and even stoned. Girls have acid thrown on them because they want to learn. And does she really think — though of course there will be some who accept this bondage willingly — that there is really any freedom in wearing the burqa? In order to show that there is, there has to be some demonstration that a woman can wear what she wants and not suffer on account of it. I don’t think the issue has been put to the test.
Besides, even Islamic scholars say that the reason for shrouding women is because women’s sexuality is so strong that men, without this, could not control themselves. In other words, it is all about men, not about women at all. We’ve all heard the outrageous claims of imams about women who are not shrouded being like uncovered meat attracting flies. Why this idiotic attempt to justify the unjustifiable? The problem is in the male Muslim imagination. And if the problem is with male sexuality, perhaps some means of controlling Muslim men’s access to sexual satisfaction would be a much better way of dealing with the problem. Chastity belts for men, perhaps. After all, it’s their problem!
The thing I found most troubling about Martha Nussbaum’s response to comments critiquing her piece was this:
When it came to a question about race, she was adamant in her denunciation of religions that are racist; that racism cannot be tolerated in a liberal constitutional democracy.
I’m just wondering (especially true for Americans) why racist religions cannot be tolerated but misogynistic ones can.
Both racism and sexism are equally an affront to a liberal constitutional democracy.
We do not tolerate racial segregation in our public space, so why would we tolerate gender segregation?
We do not tolerate racial slavery, so why would we tolerate gender slavery?
Lest anyone think that a person of color would never “choose” to participate in a religion that espouses racism (unlike women who “choose” to participate in religions that oppress them and label them as inferior subhuman beings), think again.
Regardless of the 1978 “revelation” that led the LDS church to allow black men to become priests (which was the result of external pressure), the LDS church has never denounced their central tenets of racism and racial segregation as divinely ordained. They also see Native Americans as the cursed Lamanites who have to beg for forgiveness for their pre-earthly sins, as do all persons of color, which is why they have dark skin — it is a curse for their pre-earthly failings. And, the LDS leadership long held and proclaimed that as dark skinned peoples move towards moral uprightness, their complexions will and do become lighter.
There are Native American and African American members of the LDS Church.
Does that make racist religions ok?
Apparently not, according to Nussbaum.
So, why should we tolerate misogyny just because there are female members of patriarchal religions?
I’m not even going to go into the issue of credible choices when one is brainwashed.
We cannot tolerate segregation and slavery in a liberal constitutional democracy period, whether it is based upon race or gender.
I don’t know why so many people fail to see this point.
Then why are we not arguing for a law against religious indoctrination of minors (or perhaps anyone under the point where brains are fully developed)? If we’re making the wider point about segregation, allowing religious indoctrination encourages many different types of segregation, as many religions have rules against being unequally yoked, or fraternizing with unbelievers, or defining certain groups of people deserve different treatment (whether it be due to gender, religion, or class). If we’re discussing laws against this type of behavior, banning burqas is at best only attacking one symptom, calling out only one religion for abhorrent practices.
I must agree, though, that it’s quite disgusting that people are quick to denounce racism, while tiptoeing to not recognize sexism. Like the person at HuffPo that said Mel Gibson could have at least not used the n-word when saying his SO deserves to be gang-raped. People make me sad.
I wonder what Muslim women living in the West who wear the niqab think when they see women all around them living their lives, for the most part, unmolested by men despite being “uncovered” and “unprotected”. Certainly rape and sexual assault still occur in the West, but not at the rate and to the degree that one would expect if the views of extremist imams were anywhere near correct. I wonder if they see this and realize that things aren’t as bad as they’ve been led to believe.
I see many women wearing the hijab, only a few the niqab. When I see the latter, though, I find myself thinking “You don’t have to wear that now, you’re in the West.” I wouldn’t think that if I were confident that all women who dressed that way were perfectly free to choose to dress however they wish without personal repercussions in their families and communities. But there have been enough reports (any is too many) of alleged “honour” killings in Canada to make me question whether they indeed have that freedom from familial and community disapproval or worse.
There seems to be a big blurring of a line between what is perceived as bad (often legitimately) and what is appropriate for government intrusion.
It’s true that there are some substantial oppression of women in some of these communities, but prohibiting the burqa will NOT change that in the slightest. It’s just a symbolic measure rather than addressing the actual harm. If you really want to help, you provide legal protections to women who want to escape these environments.
Additionally in cases where the woman is forced to wear it against the law, who becomes the law-breaker? Not the people who did the oppressing.
I would guess that after a lifetime of covering, whether by local custom or coercion, some of these may be uncomfortable. People have exposure rules in most every culture. Men can freely walk about most places without shirts .. how many western women are ready to go completely shirtless in public (my wife probably would welcome the freedom, but I’m sure many would not). How would they feel about being forced to do so? The funny thing is that some would claim that such coerced uncovering is simply a pandering to male interest, while at the same time ridiculing the Muslim women’s similar opinion. What about other religiuous modesty requirements, like the long dresses of Amish women? These, too, are the result of culturel pressure.
Simply the existence of constraints is in itself not sufficient to justify government action. Voluntary cultural restraints are a part of life. When I took my job, I agreed to certain conditions. People voluntarily take restrictions when they take a job, join a club, join a religion, join the military, etc.
It’s when the constraints become coercive (and that IS a problem in some of these communities), but banning the garment is probably worse than useless, and additionally brings government even farther into where it simply does not belong.
Realize though, that people made all the same arguments for and against the Civil Rights Act in the US. (As Rachel Maddow said to Paul Rand regarding the Civil Rights Act — this is the federal government stepping in and saying that you don’t get to make that choice (not a perfect quote))
The government can and does say what is and is not ok in the public space. Regardless of whether the act is one exercised by a government agent or a private citizen.
This isn’t about banning a specific piece of clothing or infringing on the right to free exercise of religion.
This is about the exact same issue as the Civil Rights Act was about.
Segregation and slavery in the public space are intolerable in a liberal constitutional democracy.
Except it is NOT stopping abuse.
It is very different from prohibiting denial of service and similar physical actions taken against people. Your rights to do action stop short of stepping on other people’s rights, hence the civil rights rules that defined the rights of others that one could not take away.
In this situation, however, the woman is stepping on no one’s rights. Forcing her to expose herself does not protect her in any way at all.
There is no equivalency here.
So the solution is to drive the slavery into the private space, instead of attempting to end the slavery in the first place? I’m not buying it. Outlaw slavery, don’t outlaw being a slave.
The issue is one of choice. Who’s choice is it? The one of the main reasons many people are so uncomfortable with burqas is based on the issue of whether it is really a true voluntary choice by the woman wearing the burqa. The kind of Islam that is practiced by men who’s wives wear burqas is a misogynistic, patriarchal religion that demonstrably marginalizes and oppresses women, so it is by no means assertable that the burqa is worn by the woman’s true and free choice nor that the ban is an infringement on a true and free choice. Even were it to be so, there would still be a good case for a ban on full face coverings–which is all the so called burqa ban actually is. Many states right here in the US ban masks that hide one’s identity.
Give us an example of your proposal. Do you propose to ban religions that marginalize women?
The kind of Islam that is practiced by men who’s wives wear burqas is a misogynistic, patriarchal religion that demonstrably marginalizes and oppresses women, so it is by no means assertable that the burqa is worn by the woman’s true and free choice nor that the ban is an infringement on a true and free choice.
True. However banning the wearing of it does nothing whatsoever to end oppression. Making the wearer of the garment into a law breaker does her no good.
It’s akin to having civil rights laws that make it an offense to be a victim of discrimination.
We already do that to prostitutes, where they usually get arrested but not their customers. However, sometimes it is the case that we restrict individual rights for a public good. I, for instance, don’t believe I’m allowed to go around wearing a full face KKK hood that conceals my identity in my state, even if wearing one is my choice. Why should the state interfere with my hypothetical choice? Why should full face burqas be an exception? And, again, remember, from what I’ve seen there are no actual burqa bans proposed, only proposed bans on the full face covering.
I’m not making a proposal, I’m responding to one. Sarah Braasch is advocating banning wearing the burqa as a “segregation and slavery” issue. Yet the solution being offered is simply victim blaming, making it a crime to wear it instead of a crime to coerce wearing it. Hell, at least if the ban was only against minors wearing it it could be argued that they are not considered capable of meaningfully consenting or mature enough to understand the significance of such strict gender roles, and I would not have significant argument against it.
And I sure hope you’re not holding up the case of prostitution as a model to be followed. It is most definitely not “for a public good”, it’s so that women can be punished without depriving men of their fun. It’s hideously self-serving.
Because the KKK uses the masks in a concerted to avoid accountability for terrorism while still achieving notoriety and group recognition. The primary intent and effect of KKK mask laws was to prevent these actions*. What primary effect would a burqa ban have? It would prevent religious practice in the public sphere, while doing nothing to actually reduce any underlying abuse or coercion. One could argue it delegitimizes religious practice — which I consider a good thing, but not necessarily a good basis of law.
* If you want to compare the KKK to the current situation, the burqa ban is more similar to simply passing a law making it illegal to be attacked by the KKK. It does nothing to decrease tension, coercion, or use of force. It simply punishes the victim. At least the mask law made it risky to be in the KKK, whereas a burqa ban does nothing to make it risky to be an overbearing Islamic patriarch — it simply goes after those that are submissive to them, and for bonus points keeps those who convert freely from wearing their chosen mode of religious attire.
No, you are right. I was pointing out the fact that we do it, not that it is right or just that we should support the status quo in that regard. As you note, it is actually an argument against my position vis-a-vis burqas.
My broader, and less well supported argument, is that a ban on face coverings may serve a public good. While it may have the effect on limiting people’s freedom to choose to cover their faces, we already have laws that prohibit such concealment, so it is not necessarily a great infringement. And such a law may help prevent the enforced oppression of women into wearing full face burqas.
It has been suggested that without the option of the portable prison cells/burqas that men will just keep their wives locked up in their houses. Such is possible. It is also possible that the men will grudgingly let women out of the house in burqas that don’t cover their faces and women will have **more** freedom. Both are speculation. I hope the latter might be true.
I don’t know if I can support a ban on full face coverings or not, but I would like to support even handed rules that limit the religious and cultural oppression of women. I don’t know if ignoring the oppressive nature of full face burqas would further that goal.
I disagree. You said, “Outlaw slavery, don’t outlaw being a slave.” If banning burqa’s is banning “beign a slave” and we should, instead, ban slavery (presumably, oppressive misogynistic aspects of Islam and other religions and cultures), then how do you propose to do so in the alternative?
I’m just coming in to put my 2p worth which unfortunately will sidestep a bit of the debate we’ve got going here but I think it’s important.
It seems relatively clear that Eric is pretty much spot on, this is drech and utterly startling in a philosopher of Nussbaum’s credentials. What I find so strange is that we’re here talking about rights which are a question of autonomy; where the fuck does this talk of dignity come from!?! Actually scratch that, we know exactly where this talk of dignity comes from; it’s Nussbaum illegitimately loading the terms so she can play the respect card. It’s dishonest, disgusting and typical of too much of the debate.
Nowhere have I argued otherwise. I do agree with that, although I do not have a position I would support in law at this point either way. I have argued (not in this thread) that a ban specifically covering burqas and not generic face coverings has a primary effect of inhibiting religious practice, but that’s only a problem when it comes to US law afaik.
Likely both are true. Lumping all Muslims into a monolithic group doesn’t particularly shed a lot of light when discussing whether this is reasonable basis for a law, though. But in the former case, the actual problem of coercion is revealed and still not acted upon (and as I have said before, whatever legal remedies that are suitable there are better served as law instead of the burqa ban). The latter case is something that could be solved just as easily through social pressure or education, not something that requires a law.
I was using Sarah’s trite verbiage to point out the victim blaming, not actually forwarding an argument about slavery. And I was explicit in my previous post, which you just responded to. “Slavery” in the problem space we’re discussing is “forcing women to wear the burqa”. Really, you’re reading a lot more into my words than is there. To make the argument you’re trying to have me forward work, “being a slave” would have to be “being oppressed by misogynistic aspects of Islam and other religious and cultures”, not merely “wearing a burqa”. You can’t keep flip-flopping between the general and the specific like that and expect to make sense, let alone when you try to apply it to my words.
Montag, well I would much rather talk about your point than the debate that surrounds it. Your point is much more relevant to the post than that debate is.
So here’s my view on that: exactly: it’s Nussbaum loading the language. She does that ad nauseam in her religious freedom book, to the point that I stopped reading it because it was so grating. She uses the word “precious” constantly, sometimes several times on just one page. She has developed a strong and obvious habit of loading her language whenever she talks about religion these days. It’s massively irritating – all the more so in someone of her (deserved) standing.
Dignity is usually used for an expression of collective rights. I treat it as a suspect category. We should respect peoples rights, I agree. Should we respect peoples “dignity”? I think not. It will almost certainly mean the opposite of rights, that is a collective right of identity enforcers to control their flocks.
In the U.S. we have a political tradition that will cause us to grant the right to wear the burqa. I hope we also make it clear that this is not the only right women have. Nussbaum wants to defend the right to cancel rights, like having an election to choose a dictator, or to sell oneself into slavery. The burqa is not in itself such an extreme abnegation, is it? I think in some cases that’s exactly what it will be.
It may be a myth, but years ago I read an article in which it was mentioned that some Blacks at the end of the Civil War were so afraid of freedom that they had to be forced into it, they had to be driven off their plantations
When a women is raised to believe her station in life is to be found three steps behind her husband, how can one possibly believe that women is making a ‘choice’ when it comes to wearing a niqab or burkha?
So why should we even suggest such patriarchal pathologies be graced with the protection of civil rights laws and legitimised, thus, as normal and as natural?
Were I a women I’d be most concerned about this. You see, if you’ve a group of gals who’ve been convinced that their status as inferior is divinely ordained, and if those women are hoodwinked into believing gender liberation and equality, as generally understood, is the abode of satan and, what’s more, if that group is allowed to grow and to operate unchecked, then eventually they’re going to bid down the value of ALL women, irrespective of ethnicity, race or religion.
They are to feminism and women’s rights what strike-breakers and scab-labourers are to unionised workers.
People are focused on the niqab and burkha, but the hijab is perhaps the most important foot-soldier in all of this.
All three amount to forms of passive-aggression against emancipated, western women and western, feminist values. Indeed, this passive-aggression can be likened to the wearing a ‘discrete’ and ‘modest’ swastika…in the presence of a holocaust survivor. To better understand where these vestimentary diktats lead, one only need to visit those areas of french cities which are now majority Muslim and where, at the very least, a headscarf now has to be worn even by non-muslim women. This process has greatly accelerated in just the past 10 years, and if the trends are any indicator, the islamist’s strategy is one of extending this exigence to as wide a swath of the female population as possible.
It’s a war.
Martha Nussbaum is utterly clueless.