Furthermore, Seyla Benhabib, a Turkish-American philosopher and Professor of Political Science at Yale University, combats the claim of scholars, like Mohanty, that universalism is ethnocentric. While some intellectuals believe that universalism is a concept that the West has internationally promoted without considering other cultures that may differ from the West, Benhabib strongly disagrees. First, Benhabib puts forth the idea that other cultures have been and are compatible with the West. Like Nussbaum, she believes that our cultures are not as different as we have come to believe. She states that universal legal principles have been created as a product of all cultures in all areas of the world feeding off one another. Those who believe …show more content…
One issue that has presented itself is when cultural relativists and the adversaries of universalism fail to recognize the contingency that Nussbaum writes about. Although universalists place all humans in one category with equal rights, they recognize the difference between the upbringings of individuals. It is helpful to look at certain practices through a cultural lens in an attempt to understand that practice, but it is also crucial to step back and view that same practice in order to discern whether it is morally right and just. Universalists do not aim to restrict cultural practices or activities unless those activities violate informed consent and the harm principle set forth by John Stuart Mill. Mill believes that an individual should have the liberty to do as he pleases, except when that act intentionally harms someone outside the scope of consenting practitioners. Another issue with universalism is when countries and individuals alike misconstrue it to mean conformity and sameness as opposed to what it truly is - equal rights and concern for all humans. In The Politics of the Veil, Joan Wallach Scott argues against the French’s decision to outlaw the veil. This decision may have been surrounded by less controversy if the French government provided a right of exit for those who feel oppressed by the veil and fear the consequences from the men of their family and community, as opposed to outlawing the practice as a whole. As mentioned above, the veil has provided a zone of comfort for many women for a long time. Although the original undertone of requiring women to wear the veil was the intent of demonstrating male domination, it has recently simply become a piece of clothing and a part of some women’s identity. In outlawing the veil, the French were appealing to their own ethnocentrism, and goals of assimilation and
Professor Leila Ahmed, active Islamic feminist, in her article “Reinventing the veil” published in the Financial Times assumes that there is a connection between “advancement” and veiling, which means that unveiled women are advanced and vice versa. In addition, she supports that it led to increasing rate of violence. She questions why women wear veil, that is considered as “symbol of patriarchy and women’s oppression”. However, research changed her position towards wearing veil. Firstly, she states that wearing veil was essential for women, because it could be beneficial and influence to how people treat women, in terms of job, marriage and free movement in public. Secondly, her assumption was explained while interviewing women, who stated
In the article, Chesler uses several persuasive appeals in an attempt to convince readers to support France’s ban on head coverings. While some may argue that banning religious clothing infringes on Islamic law, Chesler points out that “many eloquent, equally educated Muslim religious… women insist that the Koran does not mandate that women cover their faces… Leading Islamic scholars agree with them.” In an appeal to logos, Chesler uses facts, gathered from educated Muslim women and Islamic scholars, to show that this argument is illogical because the burqa is not required. Chesler continues logos appeals by citing the Sheikh of al-Azhat University as saying “The niqab is tradition. It has no connection to religion.” This passage demonstrates ethos as well, but carries on the idea that burqas and niqabs are not required by Islamic law, making the ban perfectly logical. The idea is that, since these garments are not mandatory in the Koran’s broad requisite of “modest dress,” the ban does not infringe on religious rights, making the ban a logical choice. Chesler takes the argument one step further by insisting that the burqa is not only optional, it is detrimental to wearers. The argument that “it is a human rights violation and constitutes both a health hazard and is a form of torture” to women who wear burqa exhibits both logos and pathos. By pointing out that burqas are a possible “health hazard,” Chesler uses unappealing syntax to make readers believe that burqas are unhealthy and i...
Author Naheed Mustafa, who is a Canadian born Muslim woman, writes a piece of literature that relates to her faith. In her article she is describing to the audience her own personal story by using a first point of view. The article titles as “My Body is My Own Business,” that is a part of a novel that’s from The Globe and Mail which was written in 1993. Its about her reasons of wearing the "Hijab", although she is not required to wear one, she does so anyway to strengthen herself. The article is at a glance effective as the author calls for equality upon women in general, and ineffective at another glance because the article lacks logos and ethos, and supports her argument by relying on one holy book.
Women have always been thought of as something that needed to be controlled in Muslim culture. Their bodies are a source of shame that must be covered during prayer and also in the public (Mir-Hosseini 2007: 3). Veiling, done by a hijab or chador, is when women either wear a headscarf to cover themselves or they wear a veil that covers their entire body, excluding her hands and eyes (Mir-Hosseini 2007: 1; Mir-Hosseini 2003: 41; Berger 1998: 93; Smith-Hefner 2007: 390-391; Brenner 1996: 674; El Guindi 1999: 6). Veiling is used as a tool for oppression. By having women veil themselves, it enforces the control by the male run and male dominated society (Mir-Hosseini 2007: 7). Also, the punishment for women appearing without a veil transitioned as the concept of veiling was addressed, transitioning from seventy-four lashes, to being arrested and held between ten days and two months for being “immodest” women and offending public morality, or fined 50,000 to 500,000 rials (Mir-Hosseini 2007: 8). The oppression of veiling is perpetuated through the thought that it is a woman’s religious duty to wear one, condemning foreigners and women in society if they refuse. Although it is a tool for oppression, there was resistance the oppression. In ...
There are many examples throughout the text that specifically focus on the overbearing treatment of women. During the country's revolution there is a shift to extremely conservative religious conviction that force women to cover themselves head to toe while in public. Ultimately, Nafisi refuses to wear a veil while teaching at the University of Tehran which leads to her expulsion. These examples presented throughout the text along with various outside sources, can be a tool to interpret and scrutinize the oppressive treatment of people in unjust societies like that of Iran's.
On October 11, 2006, district Judge Paul Paruk dismissed a lawsuit case between plaintiff, Ginnah Muhammad, and defendant, Enterprise-Rent-A-Car, because of the plaintiff’s refusal to remove her veil in court (Murray,2010). The United States is viewed as a beacon of light for liberal democracies because of the widespread involvement of citizens in government, free elections, and emphasis on human rights. The US Department of State reports, “The protection of fundamental human rights was a foundation stone in the establishment of the U.S. over 200 years ago.” The US still holds the objectives behind its foundation in high regard and has gotten involved in spreading the ideas of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights across the globe. Article 18 in the Declaration of Human Rights and Article One in the United States Constitution issue freedom of religion for all individuals. Judge Paruk’s demand for Muhammad to remove her veil was viewed as a violation of civil rights and infringement of the free exercise clause in Article One by some, but other citizens saw this demand as just and necessary in order to uphold the Sixth Amendment which calls for fair trials (Paruk and Walid, 2006). The government’s main aim is to uphold constitutional rights, and there is debate about which rights hold precedent and are most valuable (Murray, 2010).
Muslims, Sikhs, and many other religious affiliations have often been targeted for hate crimes, racial slurs, and misfortunate events. We are all different in our own ways some are good and some are bad yet one event changes everything for everyone affiliated with the group. The book The Politics of the Veil by Joan Scott a renowned pioneer in gender studies gives a detailed and analytical book of about the French views towards the Muslim females in France during 2004. The author talks about why the French governments official embargo of wearing conspicuous signs is mainly towards the headscarves for Muslim girls under the age of eighteen in public schools. The main themes of book are gender inequality, sexism, and cultural inequality historical schools used in the book are history of below, woman’s history, cultural history, and political history. In this essay, I will talk about why Joan Scotts argument on why the French government’s ban on wearing conspicuous signs was
As Sandra Lee Bartky stated in her paper Foucault, Femininity and the Modernization of Patriarchal Power, there is no reason for women to fight for their rights, because they already enjoy them- well, at least in the developed countries. Women have the right to show their breasts in public, but majority of them decide not to. What is pulling them back? Is it really them who decide or an “anonymous power” who is responsible for this unconscious reinforcement? (Bartky,88). Based on the Breast of Intentions, Swedish Women Shed Bikini Tops in Pool Campaign and Dixon-Muir’s Breast Test articles in the course pack, there are certain reasons why majority of women choose not to go topless in public, although they have the right legally to do so. On the other hand, Bartky analyzes some of the possible regimes, which enforce women to submissiveness, but also recognizes that they are the ones who seem to practice them on and against their bodies.
There are many different views towards Muslim choice of clothing especially wearing the veil. “I wear it believing it is necessary, but someone else can be wearing it believing that she is doing something extra” said Hamna Ahmed. One of the many reasons a Muslim can be wearing the veil are their own personal decisions too. Hamna has been wearing it for seven years now, despite her mother and three of her four sisters staying uncovered. Socially this causes an issue with the meaning of the veil and conflict with other groups. With many different consumptions of religion, what it means, what is considered to be practicing and what is not can lead to negative misunderstandings. Ultimately the decisions are up to the individuals although; there is likely to be misinterpretation between the meaningfulness of religion to family and society. On an even bigger scale of things this could also impact society and it...
International human rights standards protect the rights of persons to be able to choose what they wish to wear, and in particular to be able to manifest their religious belief. Thus, Human Rights Watch in their report, focusing on the hijab ban for state officials in Germany, said that: “Restrictions should only be implemented where fully justified by the state, and be the least restrictive necessary”.1 Proclamation of wearing the hijab in public institutions as illegal is undermining the autonomy of individuals, their right to choose, their right to privacy and intimacy, and their self-determination. In addition to this, several European countries such as Germany and France directly prevent women wearing hijab to work or attend school in the public state institutions, which further intensified already negative attitude of Western public towards wearing hijab.
There is such a thing as universality of human rights that is different from cultural relativism, humanity comes before culture and traditions. People are humans first and belong to cultures second (Collaway, Harrelson-Stephens, 2007 p.109), this universality needs to take priority over any cultural views, and any state sovereignty over its residing citizens.
299). The study consisted of having in-depth personal interviews to share their experiences of being a Muslim American woman (Anderson Droogsma, 2007, p. 300). Veiling to these women was a way of freedom while also having a Muslim identity (Anderson Droogsma, 2007, p. 301). It was also a source of behavior control, to not be sexually objectified, a way of commanding respect from others and even a source of checking their own behavior (Anderson Droogsma, 2007, p. 301). One of the women interviewed said, veiling to her was a way to feel connected to other Muslim woman who veil (Anderson Droogsma, 2007, p. 302). Veiling can be a way to feel connected to your religion and God as well as being connected to those who practice the same faith, it can be considered an act of membership. Many of the women interviewed noted they have been removed from planes, been treated unfairly, and have had strangers shout at them all for just being Muslim and being more visibly recognized from veiling (Anderson Droogsma, 2007, p. 303). This is an example of how media can affect the general population. When the media only shows radicals and compares all Muslims to being terrorist or dangerous they are actually putting Muslim people at risk of being assaulted in public. Muslim woman in particular are more at risk for being assaulted as they are more identifiable. So while veiling can be a source of empowerment and freedom for women it is a double-edged sword because it also puts them at further risk of being
Utilitarian faces the issue of deciding between objective or universal good. An objective good would be one that is not tied to a particular human interest. A universal good is for all people at any given moment. The theory of Utilitarianism continues with a division into two different parts the first is hedonistic utilitarianism, which is the focus on if something is universally pleasurable to determine if something is good. Then there is preference utilitarianism, which is to try and satisfy as many singular people as possible.
Wearing the burqa and veil by Muslim women in France has become a controversial topic. The burqa and veil are recognized in France as a conflicti...
While on one hand there is a growing consensus that human rights are universal on the other exist critics who fiercely oppose the idea. Of the many questions posed by critics revolve around the world’s pluri-cultural and multipolarity nature and whether anything in such a situation can be really universal.