Feminist Theories: Multiculturalism & Feminism
In “Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?,” Susan Okin’s argument is that minority ethnocultural groups that are more patriarchal than the Western societies to which they have emigrated should not be given the special groups rights that multiculturalism offers, if these group rights impede on the individual rights of group members, particularly those of women. She continues her argument by stressing that we need to look beyond the legal matters and into the domestic lives of these groups, because traditional private practices can oppress women, even if, legally, they are liberated.

In response, Katha Pollitt suggests that multiculturalism and feminism are inherently incompatible, because “multiculturalism demands respect for all cultural traditions, while feminism interrogates and challenges [them]” (27). She suggests that the West’s willingness to legally accommodate practices oppressive to women and children through the multiculturalism defense stems from women and the family being inferior within the West as well.

Will Kymlicka’s response is that feminism and multiculturalism are compatible; at least, they can be, as they are “allies engaged in related struggles for a more inclusive conception of justice” (34) by challenging liberalism’s historical practice of oppression.

Bonnie Honig disagrees with Okin almost entirely, accusing her of seeing the issue too narrowly and from too biased a perspective. She suggests looking within the ethnocultural groups as well as giving our own culture as critical an eye.

Azizah Y. Al-Hibri also disagrees with Okin, accusing her of not separating cultural from religious practices. She suggests that cultural practices are more open to change than religious ones, and therein lies the need to distinguish the two. As a Muslim, she admits her own struggles with issues like the head scarf, but gives examples of Muslim feminists reclaiming this practice. In addition, she criticizes practices the West considers “liberating,” reiterating Honig’s point of looking at our own culture as one in as much of need of reform as others.

Much of the debate—and in particular, Okin’s original essay—centers around the difference between the public and private spheres. This approach, however, seems inadequate, because it brings up the issue of individual freedom. Should we restrict people’s personal lives? Therefore, I propose we create a three-sphere system: the public, the social, and the personal. What is now considered the private, I break into the social and the personal. The social indicates interpersonal relations, and the personal indicates the individual. I believe that making this distinction will allow a more nuanced argument. For example, domestic violence would fall under the social sphere, which could be protected by the law as interpersonal relations that conflict with personal freedom. However, social relations that do not conflict with personal freedoms—e.g., same-sex partnerships—would not be impeded upon by the state.

I’m not sure if this approach will offer any more insight into the issues of multiculturalism, but it might offer another way of viewing the debate, which is never a bad thing. I like it because it challenges the dualism of the current public-private sphere system. Though it could be viewed at a “trioism,” which might not be any better, I think of it as offering a way to view our lives as interconnected between these states, overlapping, and blurring boundaries.