Nussbaum on Religion and Womens Rights - Essay Example

Nussbaum on Religion and Women’s Rights Introduction Religion and women are two of the integral ‘components’ of the society, and interaction between the two gives rise to various perspectives as well as debates. Martha Nussbaum, an American female philosopher with interests in politics and ethics, has addressed this complex issue of relationship between religion and women’s rights, in a number of works. In most of those works, she has taken stance strongly favoring the rights of the humans, including men and women, to freely practice their religions. At the same time, she also opined that those religions could have certain practices and traditions which restrict women’s freedom and go against their equality. This paper will first discuss Nussbaum’s views on religion and women’s rights, particularly focusing on why states should not intervene in this complex issue. Then, in the second part of the paper, we will critically discuss these views of Nussbaum on religion and women’s rights, from personal perspective and with perspectives from other thinkers. Nussbaum’s views on religion and women’s rights Martha Nussbaum in most of her works, including her books and various essays, took a balanced stance regarding religion and women’s rights, without criticizing either of the two key integral components. She is of the opinion that good aspects of religion has to be followed without fail, and at the same time, the aspects, which are in contravention with the women’s rights have to be viewed critically. Her balanced stance can be gleaned through these words of her, “I argue that any good approach to this problem [that is, the conflicts between religion and gender equality] must balance recognition of religion’s importance in the human search for meaning (including women’s search) against a critical scrutiny of religion when it threatens valuable areas of human functioning” (Nussbaum 9). This way, she implies that religion is a crucial part of human existence, and although certain aspects of religion may be detrimental to the women’s rights, it cannot be totally dismissed. In that direction, she also chided certain secular Western feminists like Susan Okin for being more dismissive of the religion, when it acts against the women’s rights. “Incidentally, this echoes her recent indictment of Susan Okin’s Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women and Okin’s Western secularist dismissal of religion” (Hackett 8). Nussbaum criticized those views of Western feminists by pointing how women particularly in non-Western countries view religions favorably for its optimal mobilizing properties, and how they give more importance to religion even forgoing their personal rights. States understanding this perspective of women avoid intervening in areas where there are complex conflicts between religion and women. In addition, Nussbaum points out more certain aspects regarding how religion can have a positive influence on all humans, particularly the women. First, she puts forward the perspective that religious tenets including faith, membership and related religious activities can aid the humans optimally, in the pursuit of general capability goals, including in the search to find inner peace and other ultimate meanings. When one focuses on religion based restriction on women, the religion of Islam is viewed in negative stereotypes. However, according to Nussbaum, Islam does not view women inferiorly, and has a set of moral code, which is similar to both men and women. Nussbaum further states that this fact is being accepted by the Islamic feminists as well. “Is Islam sexist in its origins? Not to many Islamic feminists, who stress that women and men are held to share a single essential nature, and that the Koran recommends similar norms of modest conduct to both women and men” (Nussbaum 106). Thus, Nussbaum views religion not in negative light in relation to women’s rights, and even criticizes the western feminists for treating non-western religions as patriarchal and regressive. In line with her balanced stance regarding this complex issue, Nussbaum points out that although religion on the whole may not be completely against women’s rights, there are certain superstitions in every religion, which act against the women and try to restrict them. Nussbaum raises this negative side of religion by stating, “Religion is not seen as offering human beings anything of value. It is little more than a bag of superstitions, frequently organized around the aim of maintaining control over women” (Nussbaum 105). That is, each religion will have certain traditions, mainly ‘formed’ by the male population, which stereotypes female to play only particular roles and do only particular duties. These restrictive traditions make the women inferior to men, and impede them from carrying out activities, which they wish and want to do. To solve or even aptly manage these problems relating to women’s rights, Nussbaum is of the view that “more public dialogue over norms of sex equality within the religious codes” has to be promoted (Nussbaum 217). To conduct that public dialogue, Nussbaum opines that non-government organizations, women’s groups and other social groups should play a major role, with states playing only a facilitating part. According to her, states should not take any active role in these issues, because they could get ‘stuck’ between two key ‘components’. The states could face a fundamental dilemma, because if they support the women and other religious liberty groups in issues of women’s rights vs. practice of one’s religion, it may “entail the denial of other liberties and forms of self-definition by religious groups themselves” (Hackett 2). This is particularly visible in states where religion and central legal systems are intertwined like in many Islamic countries, because if the state supports one of the institutions, it will likely be disfavoring the others, leading to more conflicts. Critical analysis From the above elucidation of Nussbaum’s views on religion and women’s rights, it is clear that she takes a balanced stance, without dismissing both sides. She does not view religion as the only one reason for the depriving of women’s rights, as sizable people including women view religion as a positive influence. Still, she is of the opinion that certain religious traditions are acting against the women, suppressing them in their day-to-day lives. “She is primarily concerned with conflicts between claims of religious free exercise and women’s claims to other important rights” (Hackett 2). In addition, she opines that the state should not intervene in the conflicts between the religious rights and the women’s rights, as it will complicate the situation. When these views are viewed critically, it gives interesting and different perspectives. That is, Nussbaum’s “balancing approach” regarding the religious rights and the women’s rights may lead to more complicated situations, particularly for the women. When the women’s rights are not strengthened because of the fear that it might impinge on the religious rights and traditions, then the struggling group of women will be let down. Although Nussbaum challenges the religious traditions that subjugate women, she does not aggressively attack those traditions and does not favor its phasing out to actualize more rights for the women. By taking a balanced stance, it appears she does not focus more on the deprived sections of women in many countries, who only need major help, and not the already strong religious institutions and traditions. “The centrality of her metaphysically neutral political liberalism may indeed ensure cross-cultural appeal for some, while alienating others who require questions of human dignity and the quality of life” (Hackett 7). As pointed out by Okin and other like-minded feminists, women have to be freed, or they themselves have to free from the shackles of religion and other cultural traditions, to achieve complete equality and autonomy. Although it does not mean that women must stop having religious beliefs; the fact is that the society and the women themselves have to phase out the traditions, which are negative and do not have major religious or cultural significance and their only purpose is to suppress the female population. Thus, women should avoid participating in religious traditions and activities, which undermine them and subjugate them, leading to mental and physical suppression. That is even while respecting and following their religious beliefs without any disruption, the society and the women in particular should question the negative areas. “Contrary to…religious leaders who seek to justify gender discrimination, women today are piercing the veil of religious sovereignty, asking whether discriminatory practices are essential to the faith” (Witte and Green 282). Thus, it is clear that sizable women of today including in non-Western countries want to practice their religions and follow their traditions based only on their own terms. In a way, they are seeking to modernize as well as harmonize their religion, particularly certain archaic and oppressive traditions in line with global and local norms of gender equality (Witte and John 282). Conclusion From the above analysis of Nussbaum’s views on religion and women’s rights and its critical evaluation, it seems that both views can stand on their own and appear valid. That is, Nussbaum’s balanced approach is replicated in many scenarios and has provided positive results, satisfying both the religious sections as well as the women’s groups. In other scenarios, instead of balanced approach, women’s groups have put their weight behind movements demanding greater equality and autonomy, thus moving away from the oppressive traditions, and that has also provided beneficial results to them. Works Cited Hackett, Rosalind I. J. “Is Religion Good News or Bad News for Women? Martha Nussbaum’s Creative Solution to Conflicting Rights.” The University of Tennessee, n. d. Web. 6 March 2012. Nussbaum, Martha Craven. “Plea of Difficulty.” In Susan Moller Okin (Ed.) Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011. Print ---. Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Print. Witte, John, and M. Christian Green. Religion and Human Rights: An Introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2011. Read More