Liberalism, Multiculturalism & Feminism

[Gary Childress]

I'm currently taking a class on Political Morality where we are discussing various liberal values and how they relate to other moral ideals.

I've heard it argued at times that Liberalism, multiculturalism and feminism are sometimes in conflict with one another. So for example a feminist may argue that a particular culture that mistreats women is morally wrong. A person who argues for multiculturalism may argue that trying to impose "western values" such as women's rights on minority cultures is a form of "cultural imperialism". And so too liberalism has often been a strange bedfellow of European/western colonialism, for example western colonial powers have perhaps used perceived moral superiority (in the form of liberal values such as toleration, equality and liberty) as a reason for colonizing the "less developed" peoples of the world.

My contention is that these three tendencies share many similar moral concerns and should not really be in opposition to one another. I think all three tendencies are about treating others with respect and dignity and ensuring that society is fair to everyone. Yes, they can be abused but abuse of these ideals is immoral and not the intrinsic purpose of these ideals. In short, it seems to me that abusing an ideal is not the same as upholding an ideal. For example using liberalism to establish moral "superiority" over others is not the purpose of liberal values. Pointing out the moral errors of another should not be done to elevate oneself over others, rather it should be to help the perpetrator of these wrongs become a better person and in practice make the world a better place.

Liberalism tries to ensure all individuals rights, dignity and moral worth.
Feminism tries to address oppression of women
Multiculturalism tries to address oppression of cultural minority groups.

At first glance I personally do not see where these things are in conflict with each other. But perhaps that is my uninformed view. So my question is what would represent some examples where these political tendencies truly conflict with one another? Perhaps others may be able to think of some good examples, where I am unable to?

 

[Core Imposter]

There is no such thing as Political Morality.

 

[Gary Childress]

There is no such thing as Political Morality.

What does that mean? Does that mean we should just cut to the chase and fire up the gas chambers? Does it mean anything goes? Or should political leaders try to organize their policies around moral values such as justice, fairness, liberty, etc?

 

[Pegasus_77]

I think your example is good enough. It is not easy to think of other ones.

 

[Glassfan]

Doesn't multiculturalism often expresses de facto tolerance for those folks (ie., Muslims) who feel women are inferior to men?

 

[Gary Childress]

Doesn't multiculturalism often expresses de facto tolerance for those folks (ie., Muslims) who feel women are inferior to men?

Hi Glassfan,

That seems to be a classic example used by feminists to point to a supposed conflict of interest between multiculturalism and feminism. However, it seems to me that I can be respectful of Muslims and not discriminate against them and at the same time acknowledge also that women are often unfairly treated in some cases in Muslim culture. It seems to me that there are ways of addressing Muslim oppression of women which don't involve me trying to belittle their culture.

So for example should a "multiculturalist" say that a tribe of cannibals has every right to make me their dinner? I would think it could be acknowledged that these cannibals cannot practice their cannibalism but they can still be respected as a separate group of people with rights and should not be oppressed or marginalized based on who they are or the fact that their group once practiced cannibalism. It seems to me that multiculturalism and feminism are about ensuring dignity and fair treatment toward groups which often are or have been marginalized. I don't think either is about giving free license to oppress someone else.

 

[Mise]

I agree that, at first glance, they are not in conflict. The problem comes when people misinterpret some of the "bad stuff" that feminism and multiculturalism says happens as if it were a problem by itself, without reference to liberalism. Really and truthfully, there is only liberalism; feminism and multiculturalism (both of which I will avoid defining) are subsets of liberalism and subservient to it. When feminists say that sexism in the workplace is wrong and should be stopped, what they "really" mean to say is that sexism in the workplace decreases the liberty of women by preventing them from living their lives free from harassment and so on. And sexism in the workplace is wrong insofar as it reduces liberty; if it doesn't reduce liberty, then it's not wrong. But not all liberty-reducing things are "within scope" here: they need to be of the kind and extent that all of society has an interest in. If they are not, then they are personal issues that are best left up to private individuals to resolve; if they are, then they are societal issues that might be resolved through social pressure, government action/legislation, etc.

I agree with your post above, Gary: you can respect an individual, and you can respect that individual's right to believe that women are subordinate to me, without also respecting actions taken by those people based on those beliefs. So there are three separate things here:
1) The individual
2) The belief
3) The action that the individual takes based on the belief

Breaking it down into those three parts can shed light on certain problems that multiculturalism poses. Taking each in turn:
1) Does restricting the freedom of individuals to live wherever they want to live increase or decrease liberty? Clearly it decreases liberty.
2) Does restricting the freedom of individuals to believe whatever they want to believe increase or decrease liberty? Clearly, it decreases liberty.
3) Does restricting the freedom of the individual to take actions based on their beliefs increase or decrease liberty? This one is not so clear, and depends on the action. Forcing a woman to stay at home, paying them less at work, dress a certain way, etc etc clearly decreases liberty. Other actions, such as establishing a mosque in your local area, or choosing to wear a veil, increase liberty. We should therefore restrict the former, but not restrict the latter.

But either way, the question is always about liberty, not about multiculturalism, not about feminism, not about social cohesion or anything else. (I) Does it increase or decrease liberty? (II) Is the effect on liberty of the kind and extent that all of society has an interest in it? Answering those questions will tell us how we should respond to areas where multiculturalism, feminism and liberalism apparently clash.

 

[luiz]

So for example should a "multiculturalist" say that a tribe of cannibals has every right to make me their dinner? I would think it could be acknowledged that these cannibals cannot practice their cannibalism but they can still be respected as a separate group of people with rights and should not be oppressed or marginalized based on who they are or the fact that their group once practiced cannibalism. It seems to me that multiculturalism and feminism are about ensuring dignity and fair treatment toward groups which often are or have been marginalized. I don't think either is about giving free license to oppress someone else.

What if they feel cannibalism (or wife-beating, or whatever) is too big a part of their culture to be abandoned? Should we try to convince them they are wrong (cultural imperialism), throw them in jail (oppression), or just let them be?


PS: This is just a hypothetical, folks. I'm not talking of any real culture, mmmkay?

Edit: Good post, Mise. But you do know a lot of feminists and multiculturalists disagree with you, right?

 

[Mise]

Edit: Good post, Mise. But you do know a lot of feminists and multiculturalists disagree with you, right?

Yes of course. It's incredibly frustrating, having to defend them in one breath while being very careful about what exactly I'm defending. A lot of discussions basically come down to "this pisses me off" vs "get over it"; in this case, both sides might be "right" in their own way. For example, the "this pisses me off" side is right to be pissed off by it, because someone has clearly done or said something wrong/illiberal. And the "get over it" side is also right that it's a "personal" problem and not one that all of society should care about (therefore, deal with it yourself). But since they're talking about different things (the former about what is wrong/reduces liberty; the latter about whether it is the kind and extent that all of society has an interest in), they can never find the acres of common ground and connect the two trains of thought. Hence endless conflict over what is, for me, a very settled matter. That's incredibly frustrating to watch...


EDIT: I also agree that a lot of feminists and multiculturalists are actually not liberals at all. But I think the majority of them would be good liberals, if only they knew what liberalism was.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Mise I must very much disagree with you on virtually all accounts. And I further think that a proper understanding of liberalism, feminism and multiculturalism makes it abundantly clear how they will come into conflict.
Because I don't agree at all that feminism and multiculturalism are just subsets of liberalism.
You say feminism is liberalism because it is actually about women being free.
But from what I understand liberalism is not about practical freedom. Meaning the actual freedom you can realize on the ground. The contrary is rather the case: Liberalism wants private actors to sort their business out among themselves as they see fit. Free of the state interfering. Which makes it about political freedom. About the state not unduly standing in the way of you and protecting essential rights of yours. The whole point of this is the believe that the freedom realized in an environment of private anarchy (within some basic constraints) is superior to freedom realized on account of the state regulating your freedom.
Feminism used to be at least mainly about political freedom. Things like voting, being allowed to open bank accounts without the husbands approval etcetera. Nowadays, at least in the Western world, feminism is most of all about practical freedom (even though political tools are on the table).
Same thing with multiculturalism.

But both also don't have to clash with liberalism as long as those practical freedoms are supposed to be realized without political tools. Ie. just raising awareness etcetera (the state sponsoring such campaigns could be argued to be a grey area). As soon as it gets really political, both isms clash with liberalism.

 

[aelf]

There's liberalism and there's libertarianism. They are distinct.

Anyway, feminist and 'multicultural' bashing is rather the fashion these days, especially in right wing circles. I can't find any position that indulges in it reasonable unless I know for certain that there are no pretenses involved.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

There's liberalism and there's libertarianism. They are distinct.

Liberalism is the principle all Western nations are found on.
Libertarianism is the call to limit oneself to this principle.
That is at least my understanding.
So yeah, they are distinct. Doesn't make liberalism about practical freedom.

 

[aelf]

Liberalism is sufficiently broad that that definition cannot possibly encompass its breadth adequately and is therefore of no use. Different Western nations do not have the same idea of liberalism, even if one accepts this mythical notion of founding principles as coherent sets of philosophical tenets.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Its use you don't see is that it gives a frame of reference to work with. Especially for this thread. But also in general.
I admit/agree that it is possible to understand liberalism in a way which calls for more action by the state to improve chance equality or other things. But that leads us down a road where the word isn't just not adequate but fundamentally meaningless. Because live ain't fair. Which is why I think that what you apparently understand as libertarianism is the only meaning of liberalism which does has use. And further measures with the aim of practical freedom should simply be understood as modifications of liberalism.

 

[aelf]

I admit/agree that it is possible to understand liberalism in a way which calls for more action by the state to improve chance equality or other things. But that leads us down a road where the word isn't just not adequate but fundamentally meaningless. Because live ain't fair.

That's actually how a large number of people seem to understand liberalism today. Unless you want to call them and the societies they live in 'socialist'. We know where that path leads.

 

[Core Imposter]

Politics: the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, esp. the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power.

Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Political Morality is an oxymoron. The exercise of political power can never be moral.

This class is just an indoctrination of liberalism in which people are trained to rationalize their attitudes and future behavior so that they will be inoculated from feeling guilt associated with their future participation in the ongoing incremental confiscation of liberty from the individual and the repudiation of the role of God and family as human society transforms into a hive-like hierarchy of elites.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@aelf
Perhaps so (though I have my doubts about that).
But people understand such buzzwords in terms of public political debates. And oublic political debates are known to suck the meaning out of those words, reducing them to symbols of approval and virtue or disapproval. Which brings me back to my point.

Unless you want to call them and the societies they live in 'socialist'.

I would call them not stuck in a simplified ideology.

 

[illram]

About the state not unduly standing in the way of you and protecting essential rights of yours.

I don't know, I don't think this definition, if we accept it as correct, gets us very far. Since we still will fight about the definition of "unduly." Isn't that what it boils down to?

--Is enforcing a minimum wage an "undue" restriction of an employer's freedom?
--Is forbidding businesses from refusing to serve black people or gay people an "undue" burden on a business's freedom?
--Is forbidding a person from carrying a gun to school an "undue" burden on that person's freedom?
--Is forbidding a woman from getting an abortion within a specified time frame after conception an "undue" burden on her freedom?

and on and on and on. All of these are things people disagree on, and quite vehemently.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I don't know, I don't think this definition, if we accept it as correct, gets us very far. Since we still will fight about the definition of "unduly." Isn't that what it boils down to?

I agree. And I also think that it is not the place of a definition to settle such fights. Reality is a wee bit too complex and imperfect for that The definitions just give the compass, the direction one actually wants to go / should go is a different matter. After all, a definition is dogmatic by nature. But what you name seems like things we need to debate.

 

[Tahuti]

Liberalism tries to ensure all individuals rights, dignity and moral worth.
Feminism tries to address oppression of women
Multiculturalism tries to address oppression of cultural minority groups.

Liberalism is mostly about the absence of compulsion. What constitutes the 'absence of compulsion' usually marks the divisions in liberalism (i.e. modern liberalism, classical liberalism).

Feminism tries to advance the interests of women, which includes addressing oppression of women, but may also includes strains that are misandristic and hostile to transgenders, for instance.

Likewise, multiculturalism can include both benign tolerance of cultures and compulsory love of all foreign things to the point of ethnic self-loathing.

In short, all three things have sub-movements that are good, and sub-movements that are bad: Almost every political tendency is healthy when applied in moderation.