MUSINGS

On the Burqa

This is obviously a controversial topic and whereas I do not hold out to be an expert but only seek to share my opinion on it.


Some will agree that when the Burqa is compared with other types of dress, there seems to be one major difference - one can see the face for most of the other types of attire. It is probably the harsh weather conditions that force people mainly from the desert and arid regions to cover their faces, a practice that subsequently took on religious and cultural undertones. This custom or tradition is common also in some hamitic tribes of mainly north, east and central Africa who tend to have pastoralist traditions or influences(J.H. Speke, Journal of the Discovery of the Source of the Nile, London: Blackwoods, 1863, p.247).

The Bantu speaking groups of Africa do not generally have this tendency although it is cropping up due to mixed marriages or the search for variety in fashion today. However, depending on how one is constructed, it seems that when exposed to other communities, shielding one's face all the time, be it with either dark shades or veils complicates communication and opens the door for as many assumptions as one can imagine.

Interestingly, the argument on the Burqa has taken on various paradigms. Many have argued in terms of "greater society's good", "dictatorship", "human rights", "majority rule" "education” or “empirical evidence" as opposed to (probably) "religion" or “culture”? I think that is where the rubber hits the road. The questions therefore become - What is society? Whose/ which society? How much leverage does one give to cultural or legal relativism? which religion supersedes the other? It seems these questions are a result of the perils of globalization.

Can we therefore have a compromise? http://vimeo.com/3004295

The reed dances performed by the virgin girls of Swaziland raise eyebrows in some societies in the same way that the Burqa or belly dancing would do in others. The “global village” is undergoing a struggle within itself to find a common ground on what should be the minimum standards for association. That is why I think our responses are based on our appreciation of these issues from our various cultural or religious world views.

How I would wish that my interpretation or world view of these issues should take precedence over other people. However, I know that is probably not possible to convince all and the debates will forever continue. As discovered by Jared Diamond in his stellar book, Guns, Germs and Steel, the opinions of those with the power to convince by either coercion or otherwise do and will take the day. It is unfortunately very Machiavellian and explains why some countries’ harsh human rights records have been ignored in the name of economics.

We will therefore continue to see this “new” global village struggling to form a new religion and culture. Ideally, I think the Darwinian backed theories of "survival for the fittest" will take prominence but that does not stop theorists and philosophers from dreaming of a “better” world where all views are respected and all types of yardsticks considered or implemented in the name of cultural and legal relativism. However, as noted earlier “reality” is that it all remains theoretical until a coercive or convincing power decides to implement or cajole others to implement it. This explains why France has been able to ban the Burqa totally while England grapples with the issue.

As the global village continue to wrestle within itself, I hope the solution compromise position will be in line with my worldview which urges me to propose, that at a bare minimum, human beings should be able to associate with each other on the same level plane – whereby we are able to see each other's faces and facial expressions when we communicate in each other's physical presence.

For now, let the debate continue

http://vimeo.com/3004295