Susan Moller Okin’s Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? is a fascinating application of liberal feminist theory to a major issue in western politics. Okin starts with the proposition that many ethnic minorities in multicultural societies do not believe that women are equal to men. This poses a particular problem for those who fight for equality if one of these ethnic minorities seeks constitutional protections under the policies of multiculturalism. Okin maintains that any ethnic minority that demands protective rights must not be granted those rights if it means the subordination of women. It would mean a liberal majority endorsing illiberal practices. Okin asks us to make a choice: if there is direct conflict between women’s and minority rights, the former should prevail.
The book is organized in a readable format. It starts with Okin’s original 1999 essay on the topic, a series of responses from fellow academics and writers, and Okin’s rejoinder to their arguments. All of the essays are relatively brief, and there is a good balance between those who support Okin and those who don’t. Most of the essays (though not all) are free of unnecessary academic jargon, and the book in general strikes a good balance between thoroughness and brevity.
Though I generally liked the book, there are some weaknesses. The most obvious to me is Okin’s refusal to say that, in the West at least, some values (especially gender equality) ought to be considered superior to others. She implies this several times, but she never seems to come out directly and say it. In addition, much of her evidence about gender discrimination comes from high profile court cases. I would feel more comfortable with more comprehensive statistical references. Nevertheless, I generally find Okin’s position (and rebuttals) to be very persuasive. Her emphasis on the fluidity and fractures within minority cultures is commendable, and she argues convincingly that young minority women – who are not yet assimilated into discriminatory values – ought to have their autonomy protected. Many of her detractors focus on the illiberality of western societies, and never seem to confront the even greater illiberality in many religions and non-western cultures. They seem to miss that Okin herself uses the promise of liberal universality against those who don’t practice what they preach. Others criticize her for not going far enough to include issues of race and economic inequality. Yet it seems that one essay cannot really be blamed for not discussing all forms of inequality, and Okin’s point of view certainly doesn’t exclude such considerations. Similarly, her argument is really about minority cultures in western societies, and is not a global condemnation of hierarchal cultures. Her critics sometimes go beyond the scope that Okin sets for herself. Finally, many of Okin’s most vehement critics are Muslim men, and the irony of their defensiveness never seems to dawn on them.
On the whole, I would recommend this book for those interested in multiculturalism, equality and the hierarchy of values within open societies.
Edited on: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 9:43 PM
Categories: American Politics, Canadian Politics, In a Philosophical Mood