Scruples and Veils

[yrieithydd]

I was going to call this post `When in Rome ...' but then I decided that that quote did not seem to work for the situation, partly because dressing modestly is more of an imperative than dressing immodestly. This made me think about St Paul's comments about respecting other people's scruples and also about how at Taize, a place in which a variety of traditions meet, one is asked to cover one's shoulders when in the Church. In some cultures, for examples Italian, it is disrespectful to enter a Church with bare shoulders. In that circumstance, it is easiest for those of who do not have such taboo to put somthing over our shoulders (and white cloths are provided at every entrance for this purpose) because there's no imperative for us not to cover our shoulders. That now reminds me of the argument I had with someone in MethSoc over the use of Alleluia in Lent. He tried to argue that to be ecumenical I should put up with the use of Alleluia whereas my argument was that seeing as I had a reason for avoiding the use of Alleluia and it was a matter of indifference to him, then ecumenically it was most sensitive not to choose chants with Alleluia in them. The problem with this approach comes when two imperatives clash. For example, I have heard that the Orthodox actually use Alleluia more in Lent which would clash with the Catholic tradition of not using that word.

So how does this work in the whole veils debate? Well, with headscarves, it works. It's a matter of indifference to me whether my hair is covered or not, but if someone believes that for religious reasons one should one's hair, then that's fine for her and if I wanted to enter a building where that is the tradition (and I suspect there are still some Churches where this is the case)* I would be perfectly happy to do so.

However, in the case of veils which cover the face, I think a probelm arises. Covering the face is not a matter of indifference in our culture.** It implies secrecy and threat. One is asked to remove motorcycle helmets when entering a bank so that your face is visible. Passport photos must show an uncovered face so that one is recognisable. Faces are important in our culture and have been for a long time. We still talk about losing face for example, and meeting face-to-face which was actually the phrase which sparked off Jack Straw's thoughts on this matter. In the case of veils, there is the added aspect of oppression/inferiority of women which also goes against our culture. Thus we have an imperative towards showing our faces which conflicts with the imperative felt by some Muslims that women should cover faces when in the presence of non-related men. This cannot be solved by application to the idea of scruples, because there is a scruple in both directions, but we seem to lack any other way of solving it either. It then becomes a flash point in the wider debate about culture and integration. In the UK, we prize tolerance over conformity and live with diversity. But, though we sometimes seem reluctant to recognise it, there are limits to tolerance. We do not tolerate crime for instance. The problem is that there are areas where we disagree over whether something is tolerable or not.

*Interestingly, in the Church I went to in Greece, the older women covered their heads and were dressed modestly, but younger women had bare heads and shoulders. I had bought a shawl so as to cover my shoulders because I wasn't sure what the norms were and I did in fact continue to wear my battered sun hat inside.

** It is relatively recent that women have gone about outside bareheaded in this country but I do not think that women have routinely veiled their faces, but I could be wrong. Even where we do have veils (primarily at weddings, although that is less common these days) it is a gauzey material which does not entirely obscure the face.

Comments

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

I think that the imperative to veil is probably stronger than the imperative not to mask the face. The imperative to veil, for a woman who considers it obligatory, applies whenever a man is present who falls outside certain very narrow categories of relationship. The imperative not to mask applies in a much more restricted range of contexts - you mention banks and passport photographs, both of which are security-related, but there are not many others. Indeed, there are occasions in our culture on which masking the face is celebrated and even positively encouraged (masked balls, Hallowe'en, certain charity events - even those where it appears physically dangerous, such as the London Marathon).

If both imperatives are equally strong, though, the solution seems quite simple to me: surely the only thing to do is to leave the choice to the individuals and try to get as comfortable as possible with it, on the basis that both sides are making that choice with good intentions?

[yrieithydd.livejournal.com]

I would say that the imperative not to mask, whilst most clear in security-related circumstances, goes further than that. Culturally, we want to deal with people face to face as equals not cut off from them by a veil. Yes, on occasion we go against that with masked balls, but part of the fun of that is that it is different from the norm. Also, masked balls tend to be masks that cover the eyes but not the mouth whereas veils do the opposite. Though I do remember a couple of Saturday evenings in the Chalet School books where they all wear identical hoods which obscure everything but the eyes and they have to try and identify each other.

If both imperatives are equally strong, though, the solution seems quite simple to me: surely the only thing to do is to leave the choice to the individuals and try to get as comfortable as possible with it, on the basis that both sides are making that choice with good intentions?

But you still have an issue about how the interaction between someone who chooses to veil and someone wants to talk to the other person face to face because you cannot have both, and I think there can exist an imperative to see the face (security and lipreading being the ones that spring to mind).

I've never known any Muslims well enough to know how they understand this issue and the wider implications it has for their culture. But whilst I can imagine getting to know someone wearing a headscarf I find it much hard to imagine getting to know someone wearing a veil because to me it says that they do not want to interact with people around them. I would feel very uncomfortable approaching them to start a conversation or even smiling to them in the street.

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

Good points. I think most security situations can be dealt with by asking the woman to come into a private room where another woman can check her identity. I don't know how deaf male Muslims cope with the need to lipread; possibly in the parts of the Muslim community that are conservative enough for women to wear niqaabs, the woman is also quite likely to bring a male relative with her to meetings, who would then be able to interpret for the lipreader if necessary.

I've usually found that if I smile and say hello to a veiled woman, I get a hello back, although not always. If they don't want to talk to strangers, though, I think that's perfectly okay; I don't like being approached by strangers for anything more than basic pleasantries or requests for directions, either. Even in traditional Western etiquette, it was rude to address someone to whom one had not been introduced, and for good reason, I think. Westerners nowadays usually use body language if they want to discourage approaches, and I don't really see that veils are any more objectionable than that.

[angelofthenorth.livejournal.com]

There is another consideration - clear communication.

In the UK we rely a great deal on inflection, facial expression and lipreading. Those from Muslim states seem to use gesture far more, although the women seem seldom to speak in public.

I would argue that as a guider, it was more important that a girl be heard but was modest, than she was silenced and fully veiled. Wearing the full facial veils makes it harder to hear someone, and when teaching the communications badge, a profoundly deaf friend comes to teach the girls. Being male, albeit gay, this would make life difficult for him with the guides.

There is a responsibility to be hear-able, if not a responsibility to make oneself heard.

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

There is a responsibility to be hear-able

I don't think there is, mainly because I don't think there's a general duty to communicate in the first place. There are individual duties to communicate to certain specific people in certain specific contexts - an employee has to communicate with her boss, for instance - but people have a lot of choice as to which of those contexts they put themselves in, and once there, there may still be choices as to modes of communication.

[angelofthenorth.livejournal.com]

If I am going to my MP, or going to a shop to seek a service, then I should act in such a way that will facilitate communication.
I shouldn't have to shout to make myself heard, but I should communicate in a manner that will be understood.

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

But how do you decide how much of the facilitation should come from which party to the transaction?