Sarkozy's Choice
23/06/09
Sarkozy’s comments that burkas are ‘not welcome’ in France touches upon a profound problem within liberalism; when does a choice become ‘unfree’? It’s an uncomfortable question for liberals, but a necessary one.
Liberals want, above all, to protect the ability of individuals to live the lives they choose. Most liberals tend to be overwhelmingly concerned with protecting individuals from coercion; from the state, and other individuals. From here, there’s a straightforward liberal argument against Sarkozy’s proposed ban.
But then things get complicated; as Sarkozy’s comments suggest, not all choices are equally free. If liberals are concerned with individual choice, then surely we should be concerned with how these choices are influenced, formed, manipulated.
In relation to the burka, there are severe social pressures on some - not all - Muslim women to make this ‘choice’. Preferences to wear the burka may be formed as a result of being under relations of domination or exploitation, and hence we can doubt whether they are ‘free choices’ at all. And if they’re not free, then liberals should worry about them.
Where, then, does this leave Sarkozy’s argument? There may be a good liberal case for banning the burka, but not a decisive one. Let’s not pretend, as Sarkozy argues, that banning the burka will free women from ‘imprisonment’. Women who feel strongly compelled to wear the burka are unlikely to find their lives any easier, or freer, if doing so is banned.
The argument should, then, shift to the wider consequences of a ban; would it gradually weaken relationships of domination and empower future generations? Perhaps, but perhaps not; it could equally exacerbate feelings of alienation and persecution. It’s unclear which side liberals should support.
What liberals should do, however, is take such theoretical questions seriously. Sarkozy, while illiberal in many ways, has raised issues which cut to the heart of the ‘liberal project’. Taking liberalism beyond a narrow concern with coercion certainly takes us into strange and ambiguous waters. By looking beyond coercion, and at social pressures on choice, we can end up with what seem very illiberal conclusions. One recent example comes from philosopher Clare Chambers’ book Sex, Culture and Justice, which offers a liberal argument for banning cosmetic surgery.
Yet a concern with individual freedom demands that we take up these difficult questions. Liberals can no longer keep their heads in the sand and pretend that freedom from coercion is enough.
Simon Hampson
I'm against a ban. Sarkozy's comments are more a piece of cynical political posturing than a real attempt to improve the lives of women who feel compelled (or, indeed, choose) to wear the burka: as I mention in the post, a ban is unlikely to achieve this aim. If one faces so many social pressures that one 'chooses' to wear a burka, being disallowed from doing so isn't going to help matters; the same social pressures will exist, just as powerfully, and will exert power over women in different ways (preventing them from leaving the house, being an obvious result).
But, although Sarkozy reaches the wrong conclusions, and is motivated by the wrong reasons, he does raise a serious, and neglected problem for liberals. For too long liberals have been overwhelmingly concerned with the discourse of individual rights, and not enough on the structures of power relations which underlie the choices people make within the framework of these rights.
If Sarkozy were really serious about freeing burka wearing women from 'imprisonment' he would concentrate on causes, not symptoms of this 'imprisonment'. This would mean reducing the inequalities of power that such women face; severe economic and educational inequalities, as well as marginalisation as a result of 'Islamophobia'. These are the key sources of the relations of domination that such women find themselves in. Being compelled to wear a burka is a symptom, not a cause of this domination.
So, I'm against the ban, and think it's a distraction from the real problem. But it does raise a real, and serious problem for liberals.
Michel Manteau, Paris Correspondent
This discussion over wearing the burka in France completely misses the point. As a Paris Correspondent with many years’ experience, I have many well-placed sources in the Elysée.
One of these sources, a M. Charlie Hebdo, has told me that the reasoning behind plans to ban the burka in France is economic rather than social. Spurred on by the stimulus to the French car industry created by the “prime à la casse”, President Sarkozy has decided to support the French clothing industry with a similar initiative. Under phase 1 of the plan, women will be able to trade in their old burkas for modern French-made clothing.
Phase 2 will focus on a trade-in plan where ordinary shoes can be exchanged for high heels and “le petit Nicolas”, as the French President is affectionately known, is expected to be one of the first to take up the offer.
Jamie
Simon. Which side do you support and why?