This is a case study that could accompany any discussion on rights and cultural relativism. For example, it could be paired with any article in Contexts that deals with religion, culture, etc. Another option would be to use it with “Keyword: Culture” by Joseph R. Gusfield in Contexts, Winter 2006. Click here for a pdf version of the case study.
Kelly is discussing women’s rights with a group of her friends before their International Law class starts. As an avid feminist, she prides herself in her belief that women and men are equal. She says to her friends, “I feel sorry for the women that feel like they have to submit themselves to men. I mean, look at Muslim women. Why should they have to cover their heads or faces? They are beautiful. It’s a violation of their human rights to be treated as inferior to men. Why should they have to wear one if men don’t have to?”
Several of Kelly’s friends look uncomfortable and motion with their eyes to the right of Kelly. She glances over and realizes that Salma, who is originally from Kenya, is sitting next to them wearing her hijab. Thankfully for Kelly, their professor enters the room and begins the day’s lecture.
After class, Salma approaches Kelly as she putting her things away in her backpack. Salma explains that she heard Kelly’s conversation and that she wears a hijab because in her culture it is empowering. To her, a hijab is a sign of her submission to Allah. It also makes it so that men judge her by her personality rather than by her appearance. Surprised, Kelly apologizes. Yet, she is confused. She thought hijabs were degrading and a violation of women’s fundamental rights. How could two people view women’s right so differently?
Discussion Questions:
- Do you agree with Kelly that hijabs violate women’s rights?
- If human rights are universal, how do we account for cultural differences?
- Are human rights and cultural relativism fundamentally incompatible? Which one is more important?
- Who has the power to decide how human rights are interpreted?
Comments 3
eshamlin — February 5, 2010
The power is in the ability to choose your action.
I don't think hijab's specifically violate anyone's rights, but the common justifications for them and the assumed patriarchal climate do violate their rights. And that's whether they accept it or not. I liken it to an Uncle Tom situation or, perhaps, a Stockholm syndrome victim.
Does Salma really have the option to go without the hijab? Does that freedom of choice enter her psyche? Whether its patriarchal conditioning or religious conditioning I'd argue she doesn't have that freedom and therefore is not empowered in the way she claims.
As far as the larger argument of who decides how rights are interpreted - we only have to take a larger sampling of the population. Are all hijab wearing women equally defending the practice. If not, even if it's a small minority of women that question the practice, then to be consistent in our ideals we must speak for that minority that speak out against the forced practice.
It's the systemic requirement of the hijab that is the issue, and one worth fighting. If a young girl chooses not to wear one and is then ostracized or worse for choosing that option then there is now power in choices of an individual.
The argument that it makes men judge her for her personality instead of her appearance is a lame one. Her appearance is clearly one of submission (as she admits). The judgmental gaze need not be sexual in nature in order to be condemning or pigeonholing. Do the men who appreciate her personality further appreciate her equality & empowerment? I'd argue clearly not.
Let's not forget that often not seeing something is plenty times worse than seeing - the submissive hijab wearing woman may be more tempting (the temptation to corrupt) than the temptation of a bikini clad beach goer (who would be condemned as harlot).
eshamlin — February 5, 2010
"there is now power in choices of an individual."
should've been
"there is no power in choices of an individual."
Jennifer VanVliet — February 8, 2010
The different perspectives on the hijab illustrates the impact of socialization - how the cultural norms of one society forms a unique perspective, or a unique basis of judgement. These two societies, in which Kelly and Salma represent, demonstrate the difficulty in being culturally relative, or stepping into the other society's shoes to view life through a different lens. This difficulty stems from the norms that structure (or infiltrate) one's particular society, thereby viewing one's own society has acting in the "right" way. Therefore, it's not about the hijab violating women's rights because both cultures have come to define women's rights differently. According to Kelly, the hijab violates the freedom for a woman to choose her own dress, while Salma disregards this sense of violation because it expresses empowerment according to her society. I do not agree with Kelly after hearing Salma's story: if the hijab is not causing her to feel violated, then I do not find the hijab detrimental.
The second discussion question raises a good point. Human rights are certainly universal, but the degree to which human rights become violated differs among cultures. Salma's human rights were not violated because she did not view the hijab as a human rights violation. Therefore, I argue that the essential human rights ought to be experienced, regardless of how our human rights can be experienced. Once we sense our human rights being violated, then change is necessary. However, this could lead to societies indoctrinating its members to act in a way that clearly violates their human rights. In such a situation, the globalization of today must benefit each society by preventing such harmful forms of socialization. The root of such a cause must be examined, in order to understand the present context. Cultural relativism is important in preserving everyone's human rights, and as we understand each culture (and their unique perspective) one can obtain a sense of how one's human rights can be experienced and violated.
I do not think cultural relativism and human rights are incompatible because they both rely on each other for the purpose of understanding each culture. In Salma's case, Kelly needed to understand her perspective in order to know that her human rights were, in fact, not being violated. Everyone is ensured access to human rights, but we must culturally relate to each person to discern whether or not his/her human rights are still in tact. It is about viewing matters differently, and experiencing situations differently, but all can still be in action alongside the experience of human rights. Human rights, fundamentally, is true for all cultures, yet characteristically differs among cultures.
The power to decide how human rights are interpreted comes from an evaluation of the harm versus the benefit involved in the actions of certain cultures. Yes, Kelly could imagine the harm involved in wearing a hijab because it publically portrays women to be inferior based on their lack to choose what to wear, or to cover themselves to prohibit self-expression through the freedom to dictate appearance. However, this does not outweigh the benefit Salma feels through the empowerment of wearing the hijab. Therefore, each questionable part of a society's nature must be evaluated in terms of the benefit versus the harm by considering the outside and inside perspective (in order to prevent harmful socialization from occuring). If it's a matter of simply acting according to culture, without self-fulfillment as well, then the action must cease to occur. The benefit should reach the individual, as well as the entire society. The power to decide how human rights are interpreted should be given to the members of the culture to inform the outside cultures, who must reason through this description with a sense of cultural relativism in order to properly evaluate the harm and benefit involved. It should be a matter of debate because if a society urges a certain aspect to continue, then the benefit must obviously exist because the benefit is worth fighting for. Salma urged Kelly to believe that the hajib was beneficial to her: she urged Kelly to understand, and relate to her culture.