Female Autonomy, Education and theHijab

Abstract

This essay discusses one of the motives behind the recent ban on the wearing of Muslim headscarves (hijab 1 1. In this essay, I use the terms ‘Muslim headscarf’ and ‘hijab’ interchangeably, and I also loosely refer to ‘veiling’, by which I simply mean the wearing of a headscarf covering the hair and neck. This is done for ease of presentation, and is not intended to deny the variety and contestability of the cultural and religious meanings associated with the terms ‘hijab’ and ‘veiling’. ) in French schools: the belief that it assists the emancipation of Muslim girls from religious and patriarchal oppression. 2 2. For discussions of the other two arguments invoked during the ‘headscarves controversy’ (the secularist principle of separation of state and religion and the communitarian ideal of immigrant integration into the republic) see Laborde 2002 Laborde, C. 2002. On republican toleration. Constellations. An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory, 9: 167–183. Reprinted as Toleration and Laïcité in: McKinnon, C & Castiglione, D. (Eds), The Cultures of Toleration in Diverse Societies. Reasonable Tolerance, pp. 161–177 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003).[Crossref] , [Google Scholar] and Laborde 2005 Laborde, C. 2005. Secular philosophy and Muslim headscarves in schools. Journal of Political Philosophy, 13(3): 305–329. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]. The first section sets out a republican perfectionist case for the ban, based on Enlightenment assumptions about progressive secular rationalism, education to autonomy, and criticism of the pre‐modern, patriarchal nature of Islam. The second section mounts a critical response, which rejects republican paternalism and connects insights from the post‐modern sociology of religion with radical feminist theories of female agency. In the third section, I show that both arguments, even on the most sympathetic interpretation I present here, are flawed. I argue that although the ban on the hijab cannot be justified, republicans are right to worry about the dangers of domination in civil society. I then set out a ‘critical republican’ theory of non‐domination which avoids the pitfalls of coercive paternalism without, however, leaving individuals unaided in the face of domination.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 46 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.