HIJAB-Multiculturalism and Muslim Headscarf
PRISMA: Reconciliation through art: perceptions of the Muslim headscarf
Athinais Multipurpose Space
Athens, Friday, 15 May 2009
MULTICULTURALISM AND MUSLIM HEADSCARF
Anna Karamanou, former MEP
Multiculturalism entered our vocabulary and our lives relatively recently. It refers to essential changes that have occurred in the structure of society due to migratory flows, resulting in the coexistence of population groups with different cultural traditions, values, and ways of life. Today’s diversity in Greece is unprecedented, although our country has never been monocultural. It is a fact that the presence of immigrants is associated with significant and lasting changes in all areas of economic, social, and cultural life. Multiculturalism is an empirically established fact. 1
The sudden transition from a society with linguistic, ethnological, and religious homogeneity to a multilingual, multinational, and multicultural society naturally creates tremors within these societies. In the minds of a large portion of public opinion, aided by the media, the perception has taken root that immigrants are responsible for unemployment, high crime rates, and the degradation of life, particularly in large cities. Those who feel threatened by these changes view the new reality with distrust and fear. It is true that the modern environment of multiculturalism generates tensions and fear. In Europe, an ethnocentric, xenophobic political discourse is gaining ground. Even political parties have been created based on racist ideology. The critical question is what our attitude is and what our positions are towards modern multicultural societies.
In 21st century France, which regards the secular nature of the state as one of the great achievements of the French Republic, the sight of the continuously increasing number of women wearing headscarves in schools and the emerging trend of a reactionary return to roots have long caused the bones of Voltaire, Diderot, and Montesquieu to rattle in their graves. Hence the radical decisions to rescue the educational system from religious exhibitionists and to maintain schools as zones free from religions. On February 10, 2004, the French National Assembly voted 494 in favor and 36 against a law banning the headscarf and other religious symbols in public schools, despite strong protests and criticism that the measure restricts religious freedoms. .2 In contrast to France, in Iran, the hijab is mandatory by law…
The headscarf undoubtedly symbolizes the subjugation of women to patriarchal norms. Those in power have interpreted Islam as they see fit, always with the aim of blind obedience from women and control over their sexuality. From the Muslim neighborhoods of France, horrifying stories periodically come to light about women who suffer persecution, rape, and torture for “transgressions,” such as the refusal to wear the Islamic headscarf. The fact that 39% of French Muslims supported the decision to ban religious symbols shows that a critical mass of Muslims is already becoming empowered, liberated, and preparing to migrate to another present.
A similar stance and concern exist in Britain, as well as in other EU countries. In October 2006, the then British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw asked women visiting his office to remove their niqab. These women were many, as Jack Straw is elected as a Member of Parliament in Blackburn, where 25-30% of the residents are Muslim. In his statements, he emphasized that in a western society, where facial expressions are of great importance for human communication, the Islamic veil creates separation and “parallel communities.” 3 It is also well known the incident with the teacher who was dismissed because she wanted to teach elementary school children while wearing a niqab.
As is well known, the Islamic way of life is externally expressed through the complete covering of the body, abstention from alcohol, and the censorship of art. The choice of style, according to the Islamists, is not a matter of personal choice, but is directly connected to the moral principles of the community. The obligatory covering of women’s bodies is one of the most widely discussed mandates of Islamic law. God Himself, through the Quran, provides clear instructions (surah 33, verse 59): Prophet, command your wives, your daughters, and the wives of the believers to let their veils hang down over their chests. This will make it more unlikely for them to be recognized and molested” This isolation, anonymity, and separation of women from men are reinforced by many other instructions of the Koran, in support of apartheid and the complete control of women.
In the ban on the headscarf, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk preceded European politicians by several decades, who did not hesitate to publicly, with a gesture of strong symbolism, remove the headscarf from his own mother’s head. It was at a time when Kemal was attempting to lead Turkey into the modern world, with the separation of church and state and a more modern interpretation of Islamic scriptures. The main symbols came under attack at that time – the headscarf, the men’s fez, and the beard.
The dress code was a key element of Kemal’s program for the Europeanization of the country, precisely because he had realized its symbolic, and not only, character in the battle against outdated institutions. He personally toured to teach people what “civilized dressing” means. In a speech in Kastamonu on August 30, 1925, Mustafa Kemal launched an attack against the veil, saying: “In some places, I have seen women who put a fabric or something similar to cover their faces and turn their backs or fall to the ground when a man passes by. What is the meaning and logic of this behavior? Gentlemen, can the mothers and daughters of a civilized nation adopt such a strange attitude, such a barbaric habit? Is it not a sight that ridicules the nation? It must stop immediately.” 4. However, the great reformer did not dare to propose legislation against face covering. The unveiling of the face, which had already been accepted by educated women in the large cities, progressed very slowly in the provinces.
In 1935, in Turkey, the prohibition of the feredje was proposed at a congress of the People’s Party, but even then no corresponding measures were taken. The headscarf was banned only in public buildings, schools, and public services, while there was tolerance in other areas, particularly in rural regions. The headscarf was associated with rural life, which is why women abandoned it when they moved to the big cities. This mainly occurred with the wave of urban migration that began in the 1950s. However, in our days, the struggle for the headscarf and Islamic identity has reignited, both within Turkey and in the international arena.
On November 16, 2005, according to the Turkish newspaper “Milliyet,” the Prime Minister of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdoğan stated that the European Court of Human Rights“did not have the authority to validate the ban on headscarves in Turkish universities… On this matter, the court did not have the right to decide. That right belongs to the religious scholars of Islam.” On the same day, Mr. Erdoğan was responded to by Haluk Koç, a member of the Republican People’s Party: “Erdoğan has shown his true face, but Turkey will not become a state of Ayatollahs” (To Vima, 17.11.2005). As Anthony Giddens aptly said (2004), “the battle for the headscarf is intense, emotionally charged, and truly global.”
The issue of the hijab and chador, according to many, constitutes humiliating treatment not only of women by the Quran but also of the men whom it collectively considers sex maniacs, ready to attack any “uncovered” woman. This system of moral values of Islam has for many years led to daily political conflict between liberal modernizers, supporters of the secular state, and conservative Islamists. It is true that many see the modernization program and the European orientation of Turkey not as a step forward for the country, but as a sacrifice of the authentic Islamic/Turkish identity at the altar of the materialistic values of the West.
The study of the situation shows that the Islamists, having had political power in Turkey since 2002, seek once again to control the public space through the restriction of women’s presence and the imposition of the headscarf, an effort which actually aims at controlling female sexuality and gender relations. On February 7, 2008, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, after a discussion that lasted more than ten hours, adopted a constitutional reform that allows the use of the Islamic headscarf in universities. 397 deputies voted in favor and 112 against. Without a doubt, the headscarf, as an element of identity, also functions as a form of political activism.
As the vice-rector of Bogazici University in Turkey, Yesim Arat argues, it is very difficult to reconcile Islamic ideology, where men are privileged, with the feminist perspective that seeks gender equality.5 Indeed, in contrast to the “right to choose,” which feminists advocate, Islam wants to regulate all aspects of economic, social, and political life, as well as the rights and obligations of women. Under these circumstances, it is reasonable for the women’s movement to align itself with the secular state and Europeanization, defending the interests of women and fighting for a democratic framework that will recognize and promote equality between men and women.
In conclusion, I would like to raise some critical questions, some of which are also posed by Aristides Hatzis in his related article, for reflection and thought, such as:
- How far can the dialogue of cultures progress when different communities possess different forms of rationality, knowledge, and rules of ethics?
- How can “the other” and their system of values be accepted when these clash with universally accepted human rights and fundamental freedoms?
- Can the rights of cultural heritage prevail over human rights and the mandates of the rule of law?
- Can universal values, based on reason, ultimately be unconditionally accepted by all cultures, or should we accept the cultural relativism of postmodernism, reinforcing any particular culture and the preservation of the cultural identity of each distinct group?
- Is there compatibility between the demands of feminism (gender equality, human and individual rights of women) and multiculturalism?
The well-known professor of political science at Stanford, Susan Moller Okin argues that the culture or religion that offends human dignity and the rights of women does not deserve to be preserved6.
Personally, I agree and adhere to the view expressed by the educational advisor P.E. Konstantinos Papachristos in his article, “The Dialectical Process in Intercultural Dialogue: an Alternative Proposal Based on Constructivism,” which suggests that there can be a dialogue of cultures and a common ground can be created through a logical dialectical process, in which all parties wish to subject their views to critique, dialogue, and revision. This dialogue is important because it allows people from different cultures to collaboratively work on issues of mutual interest. The argument that “cultural differences should be respected” is not, by itself, a justification. The dialogue and coexistence of cultures must go beyond “respecting cultural differences.” The constructivist approach subjects all existing cultural traditions to reflective critique, recognizing that no culture has a monopoly on good ideas and none is above criticism.
anna@karamanou.gr, www.karamanou.gr
1Demertzis Ν., 2003, “Who is Afraid of Multiculturalism?”www.media.uoa.gr
2 Landorf Hilary, Pagan Luis, 2005, “Unveiling the Hijab”, The Social Studies
3 Hatzis A. 24.5.2007, “The limits of Multiculturalism”, e–rooster.gr.
4 Lewis B., 1961, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, trans. Papazisi Publications, 2002, pp. 532-534
5 Arat Yesim, 2000, “From Emancipation to Liberation: The Changing Role of Women in Turkey’s Public Realm” Journal of International Affairs, No 1, 107-23
6 Berkowitz Peter, 1999, “Feminism vs Multiculturalism?”, The Weekly Standard