OCR Text |
Show Hingkley Journal of Politics 2006 Western feminists, the four highlighted above are perhaps the most crucial to assist in developing a clear understanding of the perspective. Thus far, this paper has addressed the history of Eastern and Western feminist responses to veiling, the main arguments of these theorists, and the key concessions Centrists make regarding these arguments. In the remaining pages, the central concerns of the Centrist perspective relative to veiling practices will be addressed, along with the Centrist prescription for feminist action regarding this issue. Concerns As has been mentioned briefly above, the Centrist perspective is largely concerned with the examination of choice, the 'analysis not just of whether the choosing subject can act on her choices but how that subject and her choices are constructed in the first place" (Hirschmann, 2003). Assumptions regarding "what people appear to want" often misrepresent oppression as free agency and free agency as oppression (Hirschmann, 1997). For Centrists, it is the challenge of feminism to examine free agency as exhibited through choices, such as veiling, and to attempt to identify where oppression is Present. When an individual chooses to act in a certain way, they are largely selecting from a set of socially constructed options. The parameters within which they choose from these options are not unrestricted. They encompass the traditions, customs, ar*d religious values of the community within which the chooser lives. This is true of virtually all societies. What varies ls the extent to which all persons within a society are allowed to participate in the construction of the parameters under which they operate. Often these parameters are explained aWay by calling them "culture," "religious values" or "tradition." However, these descriptions can be manipulative. As ^usan Okin points out, culture and tradition passed down trough history, literature and/or philosophy (largely written ar*d disseminated by men) often excludes women from the discussion and may encode very specific gender inequalities, ^he argues, "discrimination against and control of the freedom of females, to a greater or lesser extent, is practiced by Vlrtually all cultures, past and present, but especially by strict-lY religious ones" (Okin, 1998). Framing the debate as one of Cultural or religious values "guarantees that individuals will ^ to do what perpetuates the system" (Hirschmann, ), If a woman is operating within society where she risks ^er culture, religion and/or customs if she challenges the Parameters she is faced with, the choice becomes one between ^er community and (if operating under a system of inequality) her freedom. This is certainly a much graver choice. This concern becomes much more distinct when we highlight several arguments made by Eastern feminists about the nature of Islam. Many Eastern feminists contend that cor-rect interpretations of the Qur'an run contrary to traditional °r cultural practices that, they readily admit, favor inequality. These feminists highlight Islamic texts that sanction equality and contradict traditional practices that advocate otherwise. Liela Ahmed asserts that it is politics that oppress Eastern women, not Islam (Ahmed, 1992). Fatima Mernissi echoes that contention and further asserts that "patriarchy runs contrary to the tenets of Islam" (Hirschmann, 2003). Through Feminist interpretations of the Qu'ran and the institution of "new veiling" women may have redefined the veil and "turned its norms against itself however, the practice is still one that was originally created and encoded into the society by men. Therefore, the "underlying power structure" is unchanged. Veiling is still a practice that, if not currently, originally represented women's separation from the public sphere, women's responsibility to subdue men's sexual urges, and their responsibility act as the "guardian's of identity and culture" (Hirschmann, 1997). The "new veil" may only serve to reinforce the existing patriarchal parameters and ensure that the choices within them remain limited (Hirschmann, 2003). Therefore, the Centrist perspective demands that women from all cultural and religious backgrounds examine the construction of choice and the parameters under which those choices are made. This practice is central to identifying where unfreedom is present within cultural and social norms. This leads to the second most important concern for Centrists: that the "act of choosing is necessary but not sufficient for freedom. Women must also be able to formulate choices, and this requires that they have meaningful power in the construction of contexts" (Hirschmann, 2003). If the parameter within which one makes choices is a cultural one, which is almost invariably the case, women must be as involved in the creation of those cultural parameters and traditions as men. This may seem a difficult task, largely because traditions are often thought of as practices that have been in place for centuries. However, it is important to note that cultural traditions are "variable, they change and evolve in response to changing circumstances." This presents the possibility for a "redefinition of 'culture' that gives women a voice equal to men's, and that gives consideration of women's rights an equal place" (Hirschmann, 2003). If women have an equal hand in the construction of the social contexts within which they must operate, at the very least, their social roles will not be imposed upon them by men. It is possible that they will initially accept traditions, cultural practices or social roles that are oppressive, but they will have the opportunity to reject them. Because cultural traditions are ever changing, there is the constant possibility of transformation as women engage in an examination of their social position and make determinations about where their liberty is limited. As mentioned previously in this paper, the Centrist perspective does not simply develop a theory regarding veiling practices; it provides a theoretical framework that, if applied, can be a tool for the optimization of liberty. 41 |