The Practice of Wearing the Veil and Cultural Imperialism

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Multiculturalism and Female Headscarves
Recent Research and Headscarves
The Reality of the Situation
Conclusion
References

Introduction

In this paper, it will be shown what multiculturalism means today and what it should actually mean. The paper will also look into the matter of such laws and banning of headscarves or veils and its implications, with other related issues. The conclusion would summarize the arguments by stating clearly what should be done.

Multiculturalism and Female Headscarves

It was in 1989 in France that the debate whether headscarves should be allowed or banned started when three teenage girls were expelled from a school in Creil, France (Killian, 2003). Today, feminism and the veil have raised so much debate in Europe than it is on the tea table usually. The problem occurs when gender essentialism and cultural essentialism are seen differently by different people. This has given birth to such labels as “Western” and “Non-Western” culture and has even come to such laws as banning headscarves in public places to show neutrality and equality. However, the debate does not end here but starts from here.

The basic difference is how the Western and the Third World look at the situation; however, this contrast should be avoided (Narayan, 2001, pp. 86-106). The debate goes so hot that in Germany and the Netherlands even baseball caps and other headwear were banned (Duits, & Zoonen, 2008). Looking at the scenario in such European countries as the Netherlands, Holland, France, the U.K., and so on, we come to an understanding that multiculturalism and females wearing headscarves have come to confront each other. There are a number of arguments extended in this area both by the proponents and the opponents of multiculturalism and tabooing headscarves.

Some critics strongly argue that wearing headscarves is the essence of multiculturalism; while the opponents contend that it mars the secular outlook of multiculturalism. For example, according to Saharso (2008), it is against morality not to let specific cultural practices go on. Moreover, it’s not just now that females in countries like France, the Netherlands, etc. wear a veil. The practice dates back a long time back in the past.

However, the author argues that it is the personal choice of the female and must be seen from a moral philosophical perspective. Public neutrality is not harmed but strengthened because a female sees wearing a veil as a matter of her grace. The author presents cases from different countries and concludes that wearing scarves is not in conflict with multiculturalism because a female can follow state law while wearing one (pp. 1-17).

All this became political and people like Geert Wilders of the Netherlands even touch extremism saying that he would force others to accept the Western ways and talking about cultural differences is no more valid to such people. However, looking at the entire situation tells us that the focus is the Muslims only and not such groups as the “Dutch” extreme right which tells of the partial view (Krebbers, 2006). Even the last decade sees Islam being the major victim of cush criticism (Rosenberger et al., 2008). This is simply giving way to such waves as cultural imperialism because according to my personal analysis the way headscarves are being treated is a one-way track.

Recent Research and Headscarves

Looking into the situation tells us that recent research brings forward a different picture from what is perceived by authorities in France and elsewhere. The questions that are raised by recent research in this context are whether banning headscarves is not cultural imperialism because it means the death of another culture. Additionally, it sees a specific set of women being excluded from the common race of life simply because they wear veils and are not willing to shed it away and pay the price of quitting the race which in turn is seen as a problem for the overall progress of a country where veils are banned.

Gender restriction is another point put for scrutiny by researchers in this context. One very important question asked by researchers is that there are women who have very positive thinking toward the whole social fabric and can perform quality leadership roles if they are equipped with higher education which is not possible if the headscarves are banned because these women would not continue to accept this because it is something they cannot stand not because of their religion or somebody else but because it is their personal choice.

Moreover, the research bears such important questions as the need for redefining cultural diversity, cultural pluralism, and respect to common human needs and wants which are harmless to others. Banning headscarves to the critics who belong to this area is also a kind of gender inequality that is likely to have grave consequences in the coming future which in turn would have a negative impact on the progress of a country where headscarves are banned (Law Times, 2008).

In addition to this, this is also the point of focus of recent research as to what implications such a law as this would have on the inner circle of different Muslim communities inhabiting countries like France. It is clearly evident that this debate has spread in other parts of the world and is likely to increase with the passage of time and is seen as the coming global issue likely to influence the world negatively because the Koran, the holy book of the Muslims, directs women to wear scarves; this is another grave area to which the research today points. Moreover, the entire eruption is on the females who have been subject to this law.

According to a poll, the women show grave concern because they cannot quit wearing scarves as it is their religious duty; they receive pressure from the male family members; or simply because it is their choice. The most critical area in today’s research is the clash between cultures – Islam and Christianity – that has already taken to a furious start and is expected to grow more furious by thy day (Knox, 2005, pp. 4-6).

The Reality of the Situation

At this point, it is important to argue as to what went wrong. Where is the essence of the entire controversy with relation to cultural diversity, multiculturalism, and cultural imperialism? In this connection, we see that the link is found in the post World War II period which resulted in a massive migration of people to European countries and gave birth to multiculturalism that grew by the passage of time.

For other reasons, the number of diverse cultural groups increased in these countries. It is important to note that such diversity, cultural plurality, and ethnic differences were appreciated by the countries certainly to help boost their economy and appreciate a humanistic approach toward the affairs of the state. This continued and the population of the immigrant people increased mainly because of the high birth rate and partly because they continued to pour into these countries. At the same time, the Christian set of conduct was changing toward a more flexible, more secular approach to life.

It went to such height that in the year 1992, Catholic Spain signed a pact that was between the government and such bodies as Protestant, Moslem, and Jews. They together established the “Institution of Pluralism and Peaceful Coexistence” that ensured that such religion and Islam would be given due respect and liberty to flourish in the multicultural context of Spain. Freedom of movement, on the other hand, across European Union countries was another lamppost covered in this journey because now there was more linguistic and cultural mix than ever before (Rubinstein, 2006).

However, the other part of the picture is complex. The states were also looking for ways in which the “collective rights” of minorities could be addressed and implemented with the due course without damaging or harming any specific group, culture, or religion. This led to the demand that such governments must be culturally neutral and function as neutral bodies to bring into force any law and regulation.

Then there is also the emergence of books by scholars like Will Kymlika who stressed cultural equality except in specific areas like language, national symbols, and rest days. This ultimately led the states to bring into force such laws as banning headscarves of females at places like educational institutions to show their clinging attitude toward the multicultural way of life: they seriously focused on the ways by which the minorities and immigrants could be forced to absorb into the multicultural fabric of their countries.

However, this led to controversy especially among such minority groups as Muslims across European countries and the world saw a rising global conflict. Initially, some European countries had accepted such Islamic norms as forced matchmaking of minors and other minor issues. Then the Muslim crisis occurred and it changed the entire scene and the world saw France and the Netherlands, in particular, to ask this group to come to forced cultural assimilation. This is where the entire issue revolves (Rubinstein, 2006).

Now critics point out the flaws of this entire theory. According to them, there is a huge discrepancy in this approach because looking at the entire history of European multiculturalism, it becomes clear that this concept has not been applied in all the areas important. For instance, there has been no equality achieved in the political representation of the groups which are in minority. This has been noted in such riots as of November 2005, in France.

Looking into the situation it is obvious that without political representation, utmost importance to minority groups is not possible and the scarcity of political representation has led to such incidents as that of France. The effect is now doubled by the imposition of such laws as banning turbans, headscarves, and other such wears that are essential parts of minority cultures and groups. Moreover, the majority of these countries are also coming up with opposition that somewhere even touches extreme levels.

One very serious point to note is that a significant gap can be seen between these two poles in the same state and “in European countries, a significant gap has emerged between the proclaimed aims of multiculturalism and the monolithic representation in parliaments, governments, and courts of Law”. There is a serious need that the entire concept of multiculturalism (which is cultural imperialism) must be addressed by incorporating more important areas than banning the turbans and scarves (Rubinstein, 2006).

Conclusion

Today, there are critics such as Irshad Manji, have come to voice their concern that European countries are giving way not to multiculturalism but multiculturalism of segregation because the entire victim of headscarves ban is the Muslim girl; and that this would lead to a cultural clash among those who have up to now respected and loved each other disregarding what cultural, religious, and ethnic background they came from (Caulcutt, 2008).

Contrarily, there are those who think there must be a stop to recognizing Islamic customs into the fabric of European society because these are barbaric customs and would lead to massive conflicts and regression of the states (Skowith, 2008). There are still others who point out to relooking of such issues as education, language, citizenship policy, and political representation so that real multiculturalism can be practiced (Harrison, 2006). All this leads to looking at the situation from the actual concept of multiculturalism and not something that gives rise to cultural imperialism that treats a specific group with discrimination.

In this essay, I have shown that the concept of multiculturalism is flawed, and banning such wears as a scarf or turban would not bring true multiculturalism. It would, however, give way to cultural clash, feeling of deprivation among minorities. Thus, it is important to redefine multiculturalism which is healthy for all the citizens who must be treated as equal on all strata of life.

References

Caulcutt, C. (2008). Islamic feminist backs ‘clumsy law’ on headscarves. Web.

Duits, L., & Zoonen, L. V. (2008). Headscarves and porno-chic: disciplining girls’ bodies in the European multicultural society. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 13; 103. pp. 103-117. Web.

Harrison, D. (2006). Government policy on multiculturalism has been left to tatters. Telegraph United Kingdom. Web.

Killian, C. (2003). The other side of the veil: North African women in France respond to the headscarf affair. Gender and Society, 17; 4. pp. 567-590. Web.

Knox, N. (2005). Effort to ban headscarves in France set off culture clash. USA Today, pp. 4-6. Web.

Krebbers, E. (2006). The Netherlands: from multiculturalism to Forced Integration. Web.

Law Times (2008). Religious symbols, multiculturalism, and public education. Web.

Narayan, U. (2001). Essence of culture and a sense of history: a feminist critique of cultural essentialism, pp. 86-106.

Rosenberger, S., Sauer, B., & Rostock, P. (2008). Governing religious differences at the intersection of gender and ethnicity. Web.

Rubinstein, A. (2006). The decline, but not demise, of multiculturalism. Web.

Saharso, S. (2008). Culture, tolerance and gender: a contribution from the Netherlands. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 10; 7. pp. 1-17. Web.

Skowith, M. (2008). Should multiculturalism take a holiday? Accuracy in Media. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!