Let Them Wear Scarves

Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

• Share
• Print View
• Comments

Can you explain to me why thoughtful people, including several renowned public intellectuals, oppose the right of women to choose to wear headscarves -- on campuses out of all places? The same people, commentators, editors, and other talking heads who strongly hold that a woman has a right to do with her body whatever she pleases -- third trimester abortions, abortions without notifying her husband, piercing everything that sticks out and a lot that does not -- but not to cover her hair with a piece of cloth.

Yes, yes I know (I have been paying dues as a sociologist for 50 years) that a headscarf is not simply a piece of cloth any more than a flag is, or for that matter a yarmulke. It is a religious symbol, alright. However, do women have the right only to choose secular symbols? Are there still people on the liberal left who believe that religion is passé, is history, a sign of narrow-mindedness and bigotry? Actually, religion is rising all over the world, with a few exceptions in northwest Europe, in part because secular humanism does not answer many of the profound spiritual questions religion addresses, such as why we were born to die, and what are our uncontested duties and obligations. But even if religion is a relic, since when are free people banned from worshiping outmoded idols?

Headscarves are said to be the insignia of the enemy, somewhat like the headgear of gangs (whether these should be banned, as they are in some cities, is a question for another day). Even if this was true, banning the symbolic expressions of a normative position will do nothing to undermine it and will merely alienate its followers. Indeed, it would grant them a strong cause.

Most importantly, religion in general and Islam in particular is not the enemy. Attempts to demonize all Muslims, as Bernard Lewis, Sam Huntington and their followers have famously done, are wrong headed. The majority of Muslims, I have shown elsewhere [here and here, for example], are opposed to terrorism, violence, and coercion. Labeling them all as fanatical people bent towards violence is to greatly enlarge the ranks of our adversaries and to push to the other side of the dividing schism many who are our natural allies if we seek peace (although not if we demand that everyone adopt the French and American model of separation of state and religion, a model not embraced by most democracies).

Headscarves are a test: a test of Western tolerance for legitimate differences among cultures and societies and within them. True, when wearing them is forced on women, as is the case in Iran and Saudi Arabia, they should be opposed like other such coercive dictates. However, at issue recently has been the lifting of the Turkish government's ban on students wearing these scarves at Turkish universities, the French ban on Muslim women wearing the scarves in public schools, and the German ban on the scarves in some government buildings. Here some say that wearing these religious symbols reflects peer pressure or pressure from traditional parents. Well, if we banned people from wearing that which their peers or families promoted, they would run around naked. It is not the role of the state to counter peer and family pressure, as long as it remains nonviolent and the door is not closed on other social forces promoting their views.

Others argue that the headscarf is not so much a religious but a political symbol, as Anne Applebaum does in Washington Post -- this only makes my point stronger. Since when do we ban people in a democracy from displaying symbols that communicate their political viewpoints -- whether these are, say, pro-gay rights ribbons, or the peace signs of those who oppose nuclear weapons?

As for the concern that one thing will lead to another, that soon women may be forced to wear the headscarf where now they are merely encouraged to do so, here is the place to draw the line in the sand and fight such an imposition. But to ban voluntary scarf-wearing out of the fear that one day it may lead to forced scarf-wearing is like saying that you cannot have dinner because one day you may be force-fed like some goose.

Let them wear headscarves, yarmulkes, and crosses, too.

Amitai Etzioni is a professor of international relations at The George Washington University and the author of Security First: For a Muscular, Moral Foreign Policy. For more on the subject, visit www.securityfirstbook.com. He can be contacted at comnet[at]gwu.edu.

Comments

[LarksNest]

In the communitarian world of today... the most dangerous and offensive attire... is that worn by the so-called power elite. And in Western society, that attire is most commonly recognized as the power suit - worn by male and female elitists alike - who conspire to steal away our freedoms... and disregard our national sovereignty altogether.

These are people - also described as "wannabes" and "opportunists" - who think nothing of your "rights" or your "freedoms" in the least. What they are consumed by is the notion that they might be recognized for their contributions in maintaining the status quo established by their authoritarian "betters" - as they pine for "benefits" and "privileges" in their climb up the "ladder of success"... they are all-too-happy to step... on or over... all who stand, kneel, or cower before them.

Thus, could it not be said that these particular "mind-controlled servants" of the power elite structure are the real collective danger to civil society? Does their dress not label them as "enablers" of the war-mongering, psychopathic elite... who consider themselves "superior" to those who don't quite fit "the establishment mold"?

Perhaps it's time we properly consider this "noble rot" as the true danger they actually represent. In fact, why shrink from the truth any longer?

[apeman]

The headsarves do no harm . The full veil is a different matter, as anybody could be behind the mask. The same laws should apply as they do for wearing, say, a motor cycle helmet in a bank. Take it off. If this 'offends' cultural sensibilities then that culture needs to adapt it's concepts of female modesty to the greater social importance of protecting the public from criminal acts, and allow everyone the freedom to be able to communicate with each other in an open and honest manner. I think the whole headscarves issue is really to do with what they represent. There's no disguising the fact that the Islamic ideology seeks to, among other things, suppress women, kill gays and dominate the world. Personally I would rather live in the flawed but free West than under Sharia law. Eventually Islam, for all it's violence and threatening behaviour, will die out, - for two reasons; First the suppression of women will never play in the West. Women are used to running things now. Secondly, and more importantly, Islam is considered to be a 'perfect political system' and therefore unchangable. It's based on the word of Allah in the Koran. But anything that does not adapt, cannot evolve, and therefore dies. Unless Islam adapts it will die. In the meantime we must grapple with the ideology, and not worry too much about the fashion accessories.

[Beaux510]

There is a "but" though and you mention it but don't explore the details of the ramifications, which is where the rub lies, especially in our multicultural society. That is, this choice has to be made by the woman of her own free will, not mandated.

Who then polices (for lack of a better term) that it is left up to the woman and not mandated? The state cannot mandate either way and oversight protects that, but what of the practice of religion that DOES mandate it in our free society?

The First Amendment states : "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.."

What if that "free excercise" includes the mandate of the headscarf, burka or even abaya? How do we protect those women who choose not to comply with the mandate? Can we affect the mandate while upholding the 1st Amendment? It gets rather sticky.

A few months ago a Canadian teenager was killed for choosing not to wear Hijab. Aqsa Parvez, 16, was strangled by her father for making her choice. Killed over a piece of cloth. Amina and Sarah Said, 17 and 18, were shot to death in Texas by their father Yaser, not for abandoning Hijab(which they had), but for merely having become "too western" and having American boyfriends.

[Beaux510]

Choice is a right for all of us, but for some of us, "having the choice" and "making the choice" can carry with it deadly consequences. How do we protect those who assert their rights, BEFORE they become headline, or are simply intimidated into a de facto renouncement of those rights?


That 250 word maximum is tedious, but it sure tightens up the writing.

[Retrofuturistic]

A Muslim woman wearing a headscarf is the equivalent of an American fundamentalist woman shoving the wearing of a big old cross in your face. It is a way for these people to bring religion into non-religious situations and try to impose it on others. Therefore, it is a not so subtle but just as offensive form of proselytizing.

I think that trying to repress it would just make it worse. Personally, I guess I don't mind knowing where the religious fanatics are; at least that way, I can avoid them.

However, if the wearing of religious symbols undermines the separation of church and state, say if someone is wearing them at a taxpayer-supported school where diversity is supported, it should be discouraged.

To take this one step further--- the only way to keep religious groups from getting so much power that they are going to put your daughers in a burka or a cross is to put a limit on how much money religious institutions can acquire.

[elbzee]

Wait, you lost me there... "school where diversity is supported, it should be discouraged...."? A school that supports/values diversity should discourage displays of others' cultural dress? Yes, a lot of times it's cultural at the same time as being a religious symbol. There seems to be a paradox here. Or am I missing your point?

[j.gold]

To force someone to wear a scarf is just as bad as to force them not too.

I have heard Muslin women complain that their choice of clothing should not be a political battle ground. I have heard stories of women having scarves ripped violently from their heads and I have heard of people violently demanding they wear scarves.

Obviously the problem is not the scarf, but the politicization of it. A government or a school making laws/rules about the wearing or not wearing puts it into the public political arena and legitimizes the scarf as political tool and symbol. It needs to stop. Women should be able to wear whatever they want without government intervention, that is freedom from oppression.

[ghostwriter5]

Of course we have a man writing about a women's right to follow rules set out by men and enforced by men--they don't get it. Free women do not chose to do this. Maybe they delude themselves into thinking it is a choice. Show me a religion founded by women that would insist that women hide themselves and be forced to wear any specific article of clothing.

[j.gold]

Like I delude myself into putting on eye shadow. I really don't want to do it, it is men that really set the rules and if I were really a free woman I wouldn't put it on.

[klondiker]

Well, let's try to understand the logic behind the French scarf-ban. As far as I understand, the ban only applies to public schools.


And, where public schools are concerned, principals have always been given the right to set clothing standards, based on values they want to promote. For instance, if a student came in wearing a shirt with a racist symbol on it, the principal would be within his/her to ask the student to change it.


Obviously, wearing a scarf is not the same as wearing a racists shirt. BUT, the point is that In this case, one of the values that the school board has felt is important is secularism. And, as a result they have the right to enforce clothing rules, as per this value.

[jdm58]

Wouldn't it be nice sometimes, to ask the woman who wears the scarf, why she does it? We can argue the pros, cons, meanings, ad nauseum. But there are as many reasons to wear, or not wear, head coverings as there are women who do it. If we can accept the Quakers in Pennsylvania, who cover their heads, and the Catholic nuns, then somehow we must learn to do the same for Moslem women. Attached is video from Canada, of an interview with a Jewish woman, who converted to Islam, and what covering her head means to her. Enjoy:

http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/2007/12/121607_1.html

[NABNYC]

There was a time after 9/11 when I was against allowing schoolgirls to wear headscarfs. But then I thought of my childhood, and didn't remember anyone feeling particularly threatened by the nuns with their headgear, or seem to feel any obligation to "liberate" the nuns by ripping off their uniforms. So I ultimately decided it was a racist ethnocentric and stupid objection. Let them wear scarves.

But then I saw the Burka: women covered head to foot in tents, hiding them from the world as if they were dirty, shameful, nasty creatures. And then I heard about some girls left to burn to death in some school in Saudi Arabia because it was better they burn to death than leave the school without being covered up. And then I heard about women being beaten in Afghanistan for not wearing the Burka, and women having lye thrown in their faces for not covering up.

And then I decided, once again, no headscarves. It's just a small part of a larger theory that women are evil and must be hidden away from the world. Screw the scarf.

[j.gold]

Many women in places like India where burkas are a choice say they like it because then men leave them alone and there are not seen as sex objects. Yes, I know that men should leave them alone anyway but the point is they want to wear it and it is a choice and I feel their right to choose.

[LeftRight]

BUT, as the author has pointed out. In case of MANDATORY head scarves, or burkhas, then we need to draw the line. IF, however, a woman chooses to wear the headscarf, or even a full burkha, OF HER OWN VOLITION, who are we to deny her right to do so??

[appleknocker]

I have read ( and don't ask me to document this) that in the Muslim ghettos of France "voluntary" scarf-wearing does in fact mean compulsory scarf-wearing because girls who refuse to wear them are brutalized by fundamentalist thugs. Gang-rape, it seems, is a favorite tactic. If this is true, then the issue is more complicated than the author or most of the posts suggest.

[LeftRight]

And once again, we need to consider the whole thing, but as long as the woman chooses to wear the scarf of her own volition, who cares?

Now then, they DO need to clamp down on those in the ghettos who would attack/rape a woman for NOT wearing a headscarf.....

[klondiker]

It is true. And, I remember reading something similar too. The article that I read it in was a piece by Marie Brenner in Vanity Fair, a few years ago. You might be talking about the same one.


I remember her interviewing this young woman from the ghettos outside Paris, who said something like, If you don't wear one, you're considered "fair game" for rape.

[TXfemmom]

If there is certainty that the individual selects to wear the headscarf, fine, but as in this post, often there isn't any choice to it.

[Robert59]

Having lived in a secular Moslem country, Turkey, I understand the secularists' fear that religion will continue its insidious creep, but I also don't buy their argument. As long as people have choice and aren't coerced or coercing others a scarf is nothing but a symbol of piety.

If the wearing of it is used as a way to discriminate against those who are secularists or of another faith, the government should use the law to ensure it stops.

Saudi is a different story because religion permeates everything. Ditto for Iran. Increasingly I want to say ditto for the U.S.A.

[NoMoreHawks]

Stereotypes HURT people!!

If we can get along and be friends then there shouldn't be a problem for anyone else.

Just treat each other with respect, don't dismiss each other based on religion or politics.

Everyone wants to be happy and healthy at the end of the day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rdAiT6p7U8

[chasgoose]

Making it illegal for women to wear headscarves is just as bad as forcing them to wear them (and in the case of many European bans on headscarves, somewhat racist). If a devout Muslim woman wants to wear a headscarf, or anything else for that matter, of her own accord who are we to say she can't. I agree that it is horrible that women are legally bound to wear them in Saudi Arabia and Iran, but who are we to judge someone else's personal decision when they have the choice to wear them or not.

We as Westerners are simply perpetuating the damaging Orientalist and imperialist discourses that are the legacy of years of colonialism when we demand that women stop wearing the hijab.

[jdm58]

Tried posting this earlier- but it didn't take for some reason. Wouldn't it be nice sometimes, to ask the woman who wears the scarf, why she does it? We can argue the pros, cons, meanings, ad nauseum. But there are as many reasons to wear, or not wear, head coverings as there are women who do it. If we can accept the Quakers in Pennsylvania, who cover their heads, and the Catholic nuns, then somehow we must learn to do the same for Moslem women. Attached is video from Canada, of an interview with a Jewish woman, who converted to Islam, and what covering her head means to her. Enjoy:

http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/2007/12/121607_1.html

[legalclubs]

This is crazy. I've never heard of any such attempt to ban headscarfs in U.S. schools and even if it is occuring in some school somewhere, it certainly is a widespread problem. On the other hand, when people attempt to claim they can use headscarfs which conceal their face when taking a driver's license photo (thereby defeating the point of the photograph), they need to either drop the headscrarf or skip the license.

[LeftRight]

I heard about this a few weeks ago, but it was in England, I don't know if it's moved to the US.....

[legalclubs]

Where does such a ban exist? Is this some isolated problem in some backwater town somewhere in America or is it occuring overseas? I'm a ferocious consumer of media content and the only thing I've heard that resembles this is some legislation in France.