The essay responds to Susan Moller Okin’s article titled “Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?” and supports Okin’s stance that an unquestioning and shallow adoption of multiculturalism can lead to the mistreatment of the very people it intends to protect. In this regard, it argues that within this specific framework, multiculturalism is harmful to women and hinders the advancement of women’s rights movements.
Liberal democracy aims to be inclusive and accept cultural diversity, promoting multiculturalism. However, it is important to question whether multiculturalism benefits women in minority groups. This is because certain traditions and values within these cultures may perpetuate oppressive conditions for women, making them inherently harmful.
By allowing the existence of these pockets of cultures and respecting their cultural rights, the state may inadvertently promote the long-term oppression of women. Susan Moller Okin correctly argues that multiculturalism is simply a system that permits such tolerance to exist in society. However, due to the emphasis on cultural respect, society may unintentionally hinder progressive changes for women in oppressive societies.
Okin used the culture of women being raped and forced to marry their rapist as an example. In this culture, sexual intercourse is considered exclusive for the woman’s husband. Therefore, according to this line of logic, the rapist becomes her rightful husband for life. This deeply rooted traditional value still exists today, but it goes against the values of the West and any liberal society.
According to liberals, this treatment of women is seen as highly against the interests of women. In a society that values multiculturalism, there are instances where sentences for crimes may be reduced due to consideration of cultural values that support such actions. This raises a question posed by Okin: if punishments for these crimes are lessened, what is the true impact? Is the promotion of a cultural perspective taking place or is it merely perpetuating harmful values and actions that harm women, ultimately blurring their worth within society?
Okin contends that the desire to appear liberal by embracing multiculturalism actually poses a threat to women. She asserts that only cultures which uphold liberal values should be respected. In other words, if a culture is internally sound and treats women with respect, it warrants respect in return. However, if a culture disregards women’s rights and its core principles perpetuate harm against them, it should not be esteemed. Rather, it should be modified as it ultimately undermines the well-being of women.
An example that is relevant to this response is a traditional value widely respected in Thailand. In this country, the dowry system—described as an act of money offering by the groom to the bride and her family on the day of their marriage—is a tradition commonly practiced and accepted as a norm. While Western culture may perceive this dowry system as objectifying women since it seems like the family is selling its daughter for economic gain, it is important to note that the act itself does not necessarily harm women.
This example highlights the contrasting perspectives between the West and the East in regards to multiculturalism. While the Western viewpoint may perceive the dowry system as selling daughters like commodities, the Eastern perspective sees it as a gesture of respect from the groom to the bride’s family. The dowry symbolizes the groom’s preparedness to establish and support a family.
Furthermore, it signifies a thoughtful contemplation, dedication, and devotion to the lifelong union that the groom is entering with his bride. It serves as a cultural safeguard to prevent women from enduring poverty caused by marrying a man who cannot provide for her. This value is not categorically anti-feminist; it can ultimately benefit women by ensuring their new family’s financial stability and overall welfare.
In a society where the banning of the dowry system is mandated due to its perpetuation of the objectification of women and consequent infringement on women’s rights, this law would also contradict the cultural values of communities that embrace beliefs similar to those in Thailand. In this scenario, according to Okin, the dowry system does not possess an intrinsic value that opposes the advancement of women’s rights, as determined by its intent and resulting consequences. Hence, multiculturalism may permit this cultural aspect to exist.
Okin’s final recommendations in her article suggest that frequently, when making decisions about what is beneficial for women and attempting negotiations in such cases, the authority tends to only negotiate with the cultural groups’ authority, which typically consists of elderly men who uphold the beliefs of a patriarchal culture. As a result, this further reinforces the values of a patriarchal society.
Even when women from minority groups are present in negotiations, they are usually older females who, due to cultural conditioning, believe in the need to submit to men. Okin argues that promoting multiculturalism should involve more participation from young women who can contribute to discussions on culture and determine what is culturally sound and acceptable.
By adopting a multicultural viewpoint, society can ensure that it respects women’s rights and protects them in the future. Okin illustrates this by referencing the attitudes towards polygamy. While it may have been revered in the past, younger women today do not view it as acceptable due to limited alternatives within their native culture.
The main premises advocated by Okin are generally valid in terms of logic and the examples given. In certain instances, such as clitoridectomy, multiculturalism does result in the perpetuation of harmful practices against women in order to preserve cultural diversity. While some older women defend the continuation of these cultural values, young women in the present generation are forced to endure these practices at great physical suffering and personal cost.
When the society sacrifices the autonomy of young women in order to preserve certain subjective values, even when those values no longer benefit society and are not endorsed by the women themselves, it is the responsibility of the state in any liberal society to intervene and break this harmful cycle. The state is obligated to protect its citizens who are born into these circumstances as victims. In many cases, we must firmly declare that a crime is simply that – a crime, and that there are universal standards for moral obligations that should always be upheld.
If there is something that women find terrible, it should be penalized and discouraged. The dominant culture should not permit these flawed beliefs that allow for the mistreatment of women because it is deemed necessary by their culture. In essence, culture holds no benefit for societal progress if it promotes discrimination against certain individuals and treats them harshly as mere tools to achieve a goal. The issue arises when one believes this behavior to be intrinsically wrong and imposes assimilation on the minority. Advocates of multiculturalism would argue that this approach reflects cultural imperialism and hampers the freedom to embrace diverse cultural concepts.
When it comes to the responsibility of minority cultures adapting to the morals and values of majority cultures, I side with Okin. I believe that as long as minority values respect women’s autonomy and rights, adaptation is not necessary. However, if minority cultures violate women’s intrinsic values and rights, their priority should be lower than the well-being of those affected. It is crucial to consider both the effects and intent when making judgments.
Human rights legislation serves the purpose of safeguarding all individuals in a given society, regardless of their sub-cultural affiliations. Its intent is not to undermine minority cultures but to ensure their protection. If a culture endorses or tolerates the mistreatment or harm of others, it can be argued that this culture should adapt its values to peacefully coexist with the majority in the future. There is no valid justification for abuses based solely on cultural or traditional grounds.
In summary, I believe that there are certain universal values that should be universally respected, especially in a society that already supports these values. These values are considered true regardless of cultural differences. Applying these standards equally and without discrimination is important to prevent harm and resentment caused by unequal treatment and double standards towards different subcultures within society. It is crucial for a fair system to treat all its members equally. For instance, one absolute value is that physical mutilation of a human being should never be justified by any culture, as it causes great pain and suffering for the victims.
In my opinion, promoting multiculturalism without considering the views and experiences of those directly impacted can be detrimental to women. While multiculturalism is not inherently negative, Okin and other critics have presented numerous examples that highlight the potential harm caused by blindly adopting multicultural practices.
When it comes to cultures that harm women, it is important to include the affected women or members of their culture in the discussion and decision-making process. However, in extreme cases of abuse like clitoridectomy, the state must intervene to prevent further harm and physical abuse towards women in these communities.
To summarize, I agree with Okin’s suggestion that a positive form of multiculturalism involves rejecting oppressive values and instead emphasizing careful examination, research, and consultation with legitimate cultural representatives. This approach provides the best insight into foreign values. Furthermore, I support the idea that cultural traditions should not be used to justify abuse as it would promote moral relativism and continue the oppression of women.
Furthermore, it is crucial to highlight the significance of not using young women from modern generations who are born into oppressive sub-cultures as a means for their culture to uphold a cultural identity rooted in the notion that women are subordinate to men. This belief is a fundamental necessity within any patriarchal culture found globally.
