April 30, 2013

A Functional, Feminist Multiculturalism


(As we haven’t had readings for this week, my blog has some extra free-reign today.  So I’ve decided to contemplate multiculturalism for this entry.  Let’s see where this goes!)

    Some feminists argue that multiculturalism, the belief that no individual has the right to judge or change a culture to which they do not belong, is a way to dodge difficult issues and implicitly oppress women.  Others argue that multiculturalism is necessary to limit cultural imperialism and oppression.  I believe that multiculturalism is useful in moderation.  Yes, it can tempt one to evade tough topics; however, it’s necessary, especially for those of us who belong to the “West” (the United States and industrialized Europe), to attain cultural humility.

Here is my model for a functional multiculturalism:

    The first aspect of multiculturalism is dialogue.  Rather than allowing multiculturalism to suppress individuals’ opinions, it can be employed to ensure equality of representation.  People are entitled to state their opinions of different cultures’ practices and beliefs, but they must do so with an attitude of reciprocity.  In exchange for sharing their ideas, they must be willing to hear other cultures’ assessments of their own culture, and they must grant those opinions equal value.
Assumptions and Accusations

    One issue in need of this reciprocity is the ongoing Western obsession with veiling.  Within Western discourse, the veil is seen as a tool used by male tyrants to oppress women, creating slaves to patriarchy.  However, most women who wear a veil choose to and recognize the multiplicity of meaning behind that garment and its various forms.  Anthropologist Lila Abu-Lughod addresses this fixation, claiming that Western reduction of the various forms of headgear worn by women in other parts of the world down to ‘the veil’ has “artificially divided the world into separate spheres…where women shuffle around silently in burqas,” distracting the public from real issues at-hand.  The West doesn't allow differentiation between ‘the veil’ as worn by Turkish, Afghan, Yemeni, or Algerian women.  Lazreg calls this “a new form of reductionism” in which “difference becomes essentialized.”  That is, a variety of human existences are reduced to one category of “victim” which can be “saved” by Western “liberators.”

Self-Reflexive Dialogue
    Obviously, multiculturalist dialogue is in order.  First off, women who wear a veil need to speak for themselves about their reasons for it and have their voices heard.  Secondly, the West could use an outsider’s critical reflection on women’s dress in its own cultures, such as bikinis, business suits, and hair-care.  Reciprocity of dialogue is necessary to overcome monolithic assumptions prevalent in dress-discourse today.

    The second step of multiculturalism involves restraint in action.  If change occurs in a culture, it must arise from within the changing societies, and the process must never leave the control of that society’s actors.  Even after reciprocal critical dialogue, conclusions still might be unattainable, leaving only assumptions.  Acting upon assumptions instigates cultural imperialism.  However, if members of another culture ask for action to be taken of their own accord, you can consider it.  Multiculturalism in this instance is enacted by the outsiders meticulously following the insiders’ instructions, respecting their autonomous choices.

    In moderation, multiculturalism is not bad for women: it enables autonomy and recognizes agency.  It should not be used to escape tough issues, but rather to engage in critical, reciprocal dialogue that illuminates various perspectives.  As Shareefeh Hamid Ali, one of the original members of the UN Commission on the Status of Women, pointed out in 1935, “help and friendship…will be far more effective and will be cordially reciprocated” than “any arrogant assumption of superiority or patronage.”  Thus, actions taken by outsiders of any culture must await and obey specific requests of the insiders.  Multiculturalism requires seeing others’ lives as meaningful, accepting others’ contributions to and critiques of one’s own culture, and respecting the autonomous choices of another in determining their own destiny.

2 comments:

  1. Have you read Isabelle Gunning's "Arrogant Perceptions, World Traveling and Multicultural Feminism: The Case of Female Genital Surgeries"? She uses FGS as a primary example for establishing a framework to look at culturally challenging practices. It's a must read for the work you'll do next year.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I haven't read it, but the FGS debate is one that I bring up all the time when talking about Multiculturalism (I just didn't have space to go into it here). I'll definitely check it out though! Thanks for the tip.

    ReplyDelete