Family Fireplace

Jun 25 2009

What to do about burkas »

by William Haines

I was struck by this article about burkas as it was written by a French journalist and it is always interesting to see things from another perspective.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6565064.ece

I sent it out to some friends and it generated some discussion. Here was my contribution to the ensuing debate:

The article caught my attention because it revealed a clash of values, and ways of thinking, which are usually only implicit in discussions and debates about the European Union. Some people think there are universal values to which everyone can sign up. Actually some values are incommensurable but, because of the way the EU is set up, one set of values has to triumph and be imposed. Since the UK is in a minority of one in the EU, it is continental values, such as are revealed in this article, which are imposed on us. Anyway, let’s get back to the article itself.

The article reveals two different competing visions of freedom and of the nature of society and role of the state. The Anglo-Saxon emphasis is on individual freedom – one is free to do anything one likes as long as it is not against the law. That’s what the word freedom means – free within the law (doom). These laws create an inviolable space and protect one from the arbitrary action of the state which tries to control one’s life. The Gallic/European emphasis is on the freedom of the state to regulate its members so as to achieve/maintain social peace, unity and protect the national identity. Thus one is permitted to do what the law, made by the state, says one can do.

Balancing the purposes and needs of the whole or society with those of the individual is something that each society has to do in a way that fits their culture and history. Too much of the former leads to totalitarianism and oppression. The individual is expected to serve the purposes of the state or church and dissent is not allowed because it leads to disunity and conflict. Too much of the latter results in social fragmentation, disintegration and nihilism as people become isolated, not feeling the need to participate in and contribute to society. This same tension exists in families and we all know how hard it is to achieve a balance. I certainly don’t think there is a universal one size fits all version that can, or should, be adopted by all the countries of Europe, let alone the world. The universal values way of thinking has led to expansionist communism and the neo-conservative project, which is the other side of the coin. It also underpins the totalitarian tendencies integral to the European project except it is enforced not through tanks but incrementally through thousands of regulations and directives. Oh dear I seem uncharacteristically to have wandered off the subject! Anyway, the point I wanted to make is that every country has the right establish its own equilibrium and to protect its culture and traditions and expect newcomers to conform if they wish to settle.

In the UK we now have some Muslims who want polygamy to be legally recognized and supported by the state; some Hindus who wish to cremate their dead out in the open; some Sikhs who wish (and do) carry a kirpan (a knife) when other citizens are not allowed to and the occasional African who practises witchcraft and child sacrifice. All but the last, as far as I know, claim it is their ‘right’ to do these things as they are part of their religion. How should one react to such demands? Abstract rights, such the right to practise one’s religion, do not exist in English political culture. So the human rights discourse is very damaging to the fabric of our society because so-called ‘rights’ undercut and trump long established, though often not written down, liberties that are embodied in tradition and custom and occasionally in law. And these laws are there to preserve and protect the way of life of a community, marking down by precedent the contours of acceptable behaviour.

Getting back to the article again, women who wear burkas usually do so voluntarily and as an expression of their faith. So Sarcozy is wrong in his analysis. He has to argue that they are demeaning and being worn involuntarily in order to justify banning them as an affront to French sensibilities and political culture. It also reveals his Franco-centrism and lack of empathetic imagination. However I also don’t think they should be allowed to be worn in public in the UK and other European countries for different reasons. The first are the obvious security implications – terrorism, robbing banks, sitting exams, going through immigration, visiting schools, driving licences, impersonation etc.

The more interesting reason is epistemological. Speaking to a person wearing a veil is like talking to someone who is behind a one-way mirror. It can be quite intimidating. One cannot recognise or know to whom one is speaking. There is a cognitive inequality. A person wearing a burka can read our facial expressions but we cannot read theirs. In conversation so much communication takes place not through the words that are spoken, but also through facial expression – smiles, frowns, grimaces, grins etc. as well as other body movements.

And our body and face are an expression or reflection of what is going on in our mind and heart – our posture and facial expressions reveal more than the words we say. To slide into jargon for a moment, the hyungsang* is a second sungsang*; or the mind and body are two aspects of one correlative being. Or as Wittgenstein put it more elegantly, “The body is the best expression of the soul.” So by wearing a burka, a woman is making it impossible for us to see her soul. One feels like one is conversing with a disembodied being – sungsang but no hyungsang. This reduces conversation to the words alone stripping away or making inaccessible many dimensions through which meaning is transferred and reactions can be discovered – the delicate smile or down turned corner of the mouth – and making it hard to engage with and really encounter the person behind the veil, making it hard to bond with or form an emotional relationship with that person. Thus the quality of interaction is more coarse and it is easier for there to be misunderstanding. But this of course is a one way problem. The person wearing the burka is at no such disadvantage being able to read the face of the person to whom they are talking. In cultures where wearing the burka is normal or common I am sure people have adjusted and found ways around this. But in the UK and Europe wearing a burka disrespectfully disregards the usual mores of social intercourse. So it is really rather self-centred, extremely individualistic and very rude.

Since face to face encounters are important facet of conversation and participation in European civilisation, people from other cultures should accommodate themselves to the local customs. This is merely good manners. As my parents always reminded me, “When in Rome do as the Romans do”.

*sungsang and hyumgsang are Korean words that mean internal aspect and external aspect. The Cartesian view of reality, which dominates European philosophy, is dualism. It claims that mind and body are different which of course led to the development of idealism and materialism as competing philosophies. The unification analysis is to emphasis the oneness of everything but to also recognise that everything has an internal and external dimension. Thus I hope these black marks on your screen convey meaning.

Written by William Haines in Blogs

“When in Rome do as the Romans do”. Why men from polygamic culture are not polygames in Europe?One can pretend religious raisons to do so but financially it cannot work. I think in France this law(if voted) can help people to save money...and not to cheat. I am joking!

Mulotwa Ngama - 25 June 2009

William, I am sure you do not mean to take the phrase "when in Rome" too far. If I visit a country certainly I will respect their customs but I will not take them on if they conflict. Actually I live in England and certainly do not do what a lot of English people do. At work a large portion of people (mostly men)use the F word, quite loudly and sometime quite often. Most people now will live with their partner before getting married -- if they ever do that. In other words it is not a good argument to say do as the English or British do. I like your point about seeing someones face as being important. People that wear sunglassess indoors (apart from medical reasons) do so to hide behind (seems often to be music stars). But it is difficult to legislate for good manners. If we want others to become more integrated into British society I think we have to make our society more desirable -- or rather to make the desirable elements of our society more prevalent.

Nigel Barrett - 27 June 2009

Hi Nigel, the phrase was coined by St Ambrose when Christians in different places fasted on different days. Visitors were sometimes put out by this and wanted to fast on the same day as they were accustomed to. Ambrose implied it didn't really make any difference and instead of making a big issue out of it one should just go along with the custom where one happened to be. In the modern world it might mean eating the local food instead of expecting to follow the diet one is accustomed to. E.g. visiting Koreans should be served bacon and eggs for breakfast, unless they are Jewish, instead of kimchi and rice. In other words one should fit in and not inconvenience one's hosts. And wearing a burka, or niqaab for that matter, is in the same category as walking down a high street in an Islamic country wearing a bikini. The phrase doesn't mean learning and using the local swear words. To pretend that it does and that therefore one can wear a burka is disingenuous. And by the way Mulotwa, for some incomprehensible reason foreigners with more than one wife can claim welfare benefits for all their wives.

williamhaines - 27 June 2009

I was not pretending that the phrase meant something other than I thought it meant. I genuinely thought it meant to do what the locals do in situations like drinking alcohol when you usually do not. I am probably not alone in thinking that. Your explanation of where the phrase comes from makes a lot of sense and limits the extent of the guidance. But I think my point still stands -- when religious people come to live here this country can sometimes appear to be a crude and offensive place -- I know that there are times that I do. I think that people would retreat into religious isolation less if we had a more moral, God centred society.

Well, England as a whole is less civilised than it was 50 or 100 years ago. Still, I am offended when foreigners characterise Britain by the loutish behaviour one might see on a Saturday night and imply that that is all there is to English culture and that there is nothing worth imitating and therefore they are going to walk around in burkas because they are much more moral than us. If immigrants find Britain such an offensive place to live in I would suggest they go and live somewhere they feel more comfortable. Even if this was a more moral or God-centred country these people would still be wearing burkas and niqaabs just as they do in their own very 'religious' and 'moral' societies. So this not the reason for retreating into religious isolation. P.S. I wasn't suggesting you were pretending, but one does hear people giving this as an excuse for not fitting in.