Abstract
French law 2004-228 and Quebec’s Bill 21 has prohibited wearing conspicuous religious symbols while discharging public duty, especially as teachers in public school. This has aroused robust public debate because it disproportionately affects Muslim women wearing hijabs. This paper investigates the philosophical/ethical argument on both sides of the debate. The key research question is whether liberal feminists have the justification to support the hijab ban. The paper outlines different types of liberal feminism and their views on just social arrangements. The paper uses Gheaus’s concept of gender justice and Kabeer’s definition of gender empowerment to structure the debate, stating that feminists will support the ban if it enhances empowerment and makes society more gender-just or internal working of social arrangements, at least procedurally just. The paper draws on the utilitarian argument, Nussbaum’s and Sen’s articulation of the Capability Approach and the importance of identity, and Bourdieu’s concept of Habitus, Doxa, and Symbolic Violence. The paper argues that there are strong arguments on both sides. Still, liberal feminists concerned about structural inequalities, economic empowerment, and individual freedom may not be convinced that the Hijab ban makes society more gender-just or improves individual empowerment.
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and feedback, which has benefited the paper. The author also wishes to acknowledge Tasnuva Ahmed Oni for their insightful words and suggestions and for providing the motivation for the thesis. Finally, the author wishes to thank Professor Stuart Charme, Rutgers University, for his insightful comments and reflection.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
2 It is worth noting that enlightenment and liberal values of individual rights and freedom can also be example of doxa, at least in the western liberal tradition.