Tuesday, November 20, 2007

MULTICULTURALISM VS. UNIVERSALISM

I've been re-reading this middle section of a speech by Donna M. Hughes. She says several things worth thinking about. In this section, she's answering a question she is often asked: Is Christian fundamentalism the same as Islamic fundamentalism? To answer the question fully, she illuminates one of the reasons why feminists in the West ignore the Islamic oppression of women.

At the same time, she draws a distinction between multiculturalism and universalism — a distinction we can use. We experience some resistance from our fellow infidels when we try to educate them about the scope of the Islamic threat. Where does this resistance come from? I believe a great deal of it comes from the lack of this distinction. Once it is clearly understood, the distinction can help us reach (and convince) more people.

Here is the key section of her speech:

I want to talk about why this flawed equivalency between Islamic fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism has become so popular and why it seems to have become so hard to differentiate between oppressive political systems and practices and democratic political systems and liberal practices.

Today, advocacy for multiculturalism has replaced support for universalism.

Universalism is based on universal principles of human rights, equality, freedom, and democracy, as laid out in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and before that the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Other democracies have their own constitutions and founding sets of documents.

Today, these visions and commitments to universal equality among people have become secondary to advocacy for multiculturalism.

Embedded in multicultural ideology is cultural relativism, the principle that all cultures are equal, must be respected, and cannot be criticized. Or if one does criticize another culture or religious practice, the speaker must immediately point out deficiencies in other cultures and religious practices, or at least those of his or her own, in this case, the U.S.

One cannot advocate for relative rights and freedoms without rejecting universal principles of freedom and rights. If you unconditionally accept and respect other cultural and religious practices, the first group that always loses is women. Most discriminatory attitudes and practices are based on culture, tradition, and religion. Women’s greatest hope for freedom and rights comes with the promotion of universal principles of freedom and rights; then women can claim their equality.

Today, I see students in class being fearful of discussing types of violence against women or the oppression of women. Although they may be horrified by honor killings or female genital mutilation, they feel they have to accept it because it’s someone else’s culture or religion.

They think it is unacceptable to advocate for other women’s freedom and rights because it might violate the others' cultures or religions, and that would be imposing their view on another culture or religion. While at first glance this may sound respectful, it translated into remaining silent and accepting some of the worst human rights violations against women.


Following acceptance of multiculturalism, they withdraw into isolationism. If we must respect all other cultures and religious practices, then there is nothing to do about violations of women’s rights around the world. They often oppose any efforts to improve the lives of women in other countries. They justify this isolationism by saying they have enough work on women’s issues here at home and they should concentrate on that.

Read her whole speech here:
Women's Rights and Political Islam

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

In order to promote 'community cohesion', Britain is rapidly becoming a Stalinist police state where the police have assumed the power to censor and intimidate the media. See

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/19/nofcom319.xml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/11/20/do2003.xml

At least they can't gag the bloggers - not yet.

Citizen Warrior said...

They actually CAN gag the bloggers. YouTube has removed videos when people complained they were "offensive."

And TheReligionofPeace.com recently had some servers block him.

But on the other hand, they probably can't gag bloggers completely because the web is global and there will probably always be someone who is willing to host just about anything for money.

Resume Writing Service said...

Excellent Article! Thanks very much for the info, and I will be writing my own (admittedly simplified) article on this shortly. As for my professional works, I will be taking your advice and "standing on the shoulders of giants," so to speak.