At the end of the 20th century in her 1996 public lecture for The Tanner Lectures on Human Values Series, titled Social Justice in the Age of Identity Politics: Redistribution, Recognition, and Participation Professor Nancy Fraser said among others, "Today, however, we increasingly encounter a second type of social-justice claim in the “politics of recognition.” Here the goal, in its most plausible form, is a difference-friendly world, where assimilation to majority or dominant cultural norms is no longer the price of equal respect."
Today, nearly 15 years later, we are confronted with the treat to a 'difference-friendly world' in the guise of the Muslim women's attire.
These last few months in Europe especially there's been a continuous debate over the legality of the burqa. A day ago Spain became the few European key players who "rejected" the ban on the burqa almost weeks after France declare a ban on the burqa and that it was not "welcomed" in the country. Britain, on the other hand, realising that the need to accomodate the plurality in its midst is a necessary compromise to the imperialist mindset that governed the nation in the heydays of the Empire takes a more 'moderate' approach.
The question is can the Muslim women's need to dress differently to the majority of women in the society be recognised as their right as a member of a culturally plural society? To quote Fraser, can these women be given "equal respect" despite the choice of attire? Or should they be bulldozed into respecting the laws of the land and thus giving up their public right as a free citizen of the land simply because their choice of attire is considered "strange" or "unnatural" by some? As a point of reference, why is it not 'strange' or 'unnatural' to be clad in nothing but the undergarments simply because the majority says its the right attire on the beach?
No comments:
Post a Comment