The Tensions of Susan Moller Okin’s Essay Essays

The Tensions of Susan Moller Okin’s Essay Essays The Tensions of Susan Moller Okin’s Essay Essay The Tensions of Susan Moller Okin’s Essay Essay Susan Moller Okin’s â€Å"Feminism and Multiculturalism: Some Tensions† is a well-argued paper that explores the â€Å"tensions† between feminism and multiculturalism (particularly the â€Å"group-rights† variety) from a consistent liberal perspective. The author writes as a liberal and as a feminist in putting forth a critique of the ways in which multiculturalism – as it was, and still is, being advocated by various activists and academics – poses real dangers to the rights and interests of girls and women that belong to minority groups. The way she does this is admirable: In a manner that is clear and with not-so-well-known examples, she shows how most of the major cultures of the world puts a premium on â€Å"maintaining control of women† and how the advancement of the rights and interests of women conflict and clash with particular practices within the cultures of minority groups. She is admirable in standing firm with the feminist insight that â€Å"more often than not, sex discrimination is far less overt. In many cultures, strict control of women is enforced in the private sphere by the authority of either actual or symbolic fathers, often acting through, or with the complicity of, the older women of the culture. † This, I think, is her central argument in making the case that there are â€Å"tensions,† if not contradictions, between feminism and multiculturalism. Despite my respect for Okin’s arguments and mode of argumentation, I also have a few critical remarks: (1) For a couple of times in the essay, Okin referred to â€Å"more patriarchal minority cultures exist[ing] in the context of less patriarchal majority cultures. † This, I think, is one of the great assumptions of her essay – the situation that is implied to be the context of her thinking and writing. The question therefore arises: Is she talking about North America and Europe? I wish that Okin made this assumption an argument, changed it from being implicit to being explicit. This would have made her case stronger, or at least clearer, and not prone to charges of Eurocentrism in this context, or the assumption that states in North America and Europe are liberal ones that are good or even better for girls and women to grow up in. Not that I disagree with this belief completely, but I believe that this must be shown rather than merely assumed. Had Okin made this explicit, perhaps she would have posed and addressed related issues such as the degree of â€Å"liberalism† or â€Å"feminism† of these states with regard to girls and women, especially when compared with cultures of â€Å"minority groups. † (2) I also hoped that Okin presented what advocates of â€Å"group rights† are fighting for, or what they themselves say they are fighting for. I think that she will agree that these advocates are not fighting for group rights for the sole purpose of controlling or oppressing women. By not presenting the objectives of these advocates, however, we are left with the impression – one-sided, surely – that the enforcement of these group rights by the state will only lead to the tighter control and greater oppression of women. Had she presented the objectives of these advocates, we readers will probably be given the chance to weigh these against the dangers that she had posed. It is not that the rights of minority groups should take precedence over the rights and interests of girls and women within these groups. But the fact that these objectives can constitute real gains for populations of minority groups, and not just attacks on the rights and interests of girls and women suggests that the struggle for the rights and interests of women on the one hand, and of the minority group on the other, could be seen as complementing each other, part of a struggle to expand freedoms of various peoples. (3) I wish to make a few comments regarding various points of Okin’s paper. (a) Okin defends feminists (needless to say, from one culture) who criticize anti-women practices in other cultures. I agree with her on this score. Such a view, however, should be balanced by the view that real change happens only when its constituents fight for it. I agree that we can pass judgment on the tyranny of Saddam Husein but I do not agree that this gives us license to attack Iraq. Real change in Iraq should come from its people, not from other countries. (b) I have the feeling that control and oppression of women in the family sphere is too systemic a problem for it to used as a yardstick for measuring gains that group rights can actually bring a minority population. (c) One more thing that’s sorely missing in Okin’s essay is an appreciation of how changes in history take place. I think that piecemeal reforms for oppressed people are important and can lead to bigger things. What she does, from one perspective, is to pit piecemeal reforms against systemic changes – which is not, I think, how changes in history take place.