The changing faces of liberalism

Women should wear whatever they want to

The controversy about the politicization of dress surfaced two years ago, following the French Government’s decision to ban the burqa in public places. The Liberals of the world were left divided as they engaged in heated debates about the principles of liberty and the freedoms of religion and expression. Many argued that such a ban violated the fundamental doctrine of individual freedom while others countered that the burqa in effect, inhibited the emancipation of women and served as a tool of sexist domination. Islamic scholars also offered their opinions on the validity of face covering—Dalil Boubakeur, the grand mufti of the Paris Mosque, issued that the niqab was not prescribed in Islam while the Jamaat-e-Islami held religious protests in Karachi, turning an important ideological discussion into a technical religious matter. Whether Islam orders women to cover their faces is of little significance in a debate that is essentially about the freedom of choice.

Issuing legal restrictions over any kind of dress is the government’s way of discreetly exercising power and control over individuals. Defining the parameters of an acceptable dress code is patriarchal society’s attempt to maintain uniformity; such regulations perpetuate a culture where anyone who dares to be different is treated as a social pariah or deviant. The defining element of fundamentalism, religious or other kinds, is intolerance towards difference and strict adherence to a specific set of principles. If one of the primary arguments against the Islamic concept of purdah is that it symbolizes the subservience of women as it is enforced upon them through the threat of God’s condemnation, then isn’t banning the burqa or coercing women not to wear it, based on a similar ideology of suppression? Here, God is replaced by The Law which upheld via the threat of punishment and social disapproval. Religious fundamentalists classify values and beliefs as beyond question, subsequently placing them in the realm of the Absolute. Deeming an article of clothing as necessarily oppressive and banning it altogether stems from the same branch of absolutist logic.

The argument that the philosophical underpinnings of the burqa convey the fear of female visibility in the public sphere and by extension, the destabilization of patriarchal authority, genuinely threatening advances in women’s rights made over the past century, is undoubtedly a strong one. Put simply, the burqa conveys the idea that women have to carry the burden of morality in society. Yet, are we to promote the active suppression of choice to rally against a supposed symbol of suppression? I think not. Liberalism stands for a state in which humans are free and equal, so that any limitation of this freedom and equality stands in need of justification. J.S Mill’s classic statement on freedom dictates that where no one else is harmed, a person’s right to self-determination is unconditional. As Mill had it “The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute.” The Western world’s alienation from Islamic culture allows them to stereotype the burqa as inevitably oppressive while the fact is that some women actively choose to cover themselves and strange as it may seem, find it empowering. The burqa is a dangerous tool of repression where it is made compulsory as is the case in many parts of Saudi Arabia, however the principle of obligation and enforcement stands in breach of liberalism more acutely than the dress itself. In a culture such as ours, it is difficult determine whether a woman has chosen to cover herself or whether she is being forced to do so. As the prominent American philosopher, Martha Nussbaum, argues, choices are distorted by “adaptation to (and even eroticisation of) a state of affairs in which men’s desire for control governs the course of life.” Yet, in circumstances in which women explicitly say they want to be covered, head to toe, skepticism about their choices does seem like a curiously illiberal direction for liberalism to head in. Sure, we can try to change another person’s mind, but we cannot coerce or harass them on matters which can reasonably be called private, even if it goes against what the majority in the community feel is ‘right’. It is important to differentiate between ‘speaking as a woman’ and ‘speaking for women’ as the first type of discourse is based on the principle of essentialism which presupposes that all women have similar needs, desires and opinions. The ban on the burqa epitomizes ‘speaking for women’ by perpetuating the idea that the burqa is oppressive for all women and must be prohibited, undermining personal choice and the right to self-determination. Former French president Nicholas Sarkozy’s statement that the “the burqa is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience” is reminiscent of a fundamentalist’s proclamation that a bikini is surely an indication of immodesty. What is missing in such discourses on modesty and oppression is the voice of the wearer, the woman, the one who should ultimately decide what, if anything, her clothes stand for.

The attempt to regulate how women adorn their bodies is a way of strengthening patriarchal authority. As a feminist, liberal and a woman, but more so, as a human being, I believe that my body belongs only to me. While I do not advocate the burqa or support any other symbolic manifestation of oppression, I do believe that women have a right to choose to wear the burqa – or whatever else they wish to wear.

The writer is a staff member of Pakistan Today and holds a degree from Mount Holyoke College.