I wouldn’t be at all surprised to discover that the current controversy surrounding our former Foreign Secretary’s indiscreet remarks about the dress of Muslim women have been reported widely in other countries. Just in case you have missed out on this, Boris Johnson (who is one of those people who seem to court controversy) published an article in a British newspaper, making disparaging comments about the burqa and the niqab, which are items of clothing worn by some traditionally-minded Muslim women, both of which cover the face with the exception of a small opening for the eyes. It seems that he would like to see them prohibited in the UK, as I understand they are in France. The argument rages vigorously, not only about the appropriateness of Johnson’s comments, and whether or not they foster “Islamophobia” and are disrespectful of Islamic culture and tradition, but about his future as a leading member of the Conservative Party. For those of us who dislike and distrust the man his discomfiture is both welcome and entertaining. There is, however, an issue that does require serious and careful thought.
Despite the rather thoughtless language chosen by Johnson to make his point, there is an important point of principle at issue here. Is it the case that the British way of life sets such store by the visibility of another’s face as a component of mutual communication, that we would be entitled to expect that this would be enforceable by law? People do appear to be adopting quite strongly opposed positions on this matter. Some insist that “when in Rome, do as the Romans”, believing that it is at the very least discourteous to flout norms which are quite important elements of our way of life. Some see in the practice of covering the face in public as a fundamental denial of individuality, which is a central value of the western European view of the world. in opposition to this, others see these items of clothing primarily from the point of view of their place within another culture, and depict opposition to them as yet another instance of the legacy of colonialism and the systematic disregard for the culture of other peoples. If you attend to our media you might be forgiven for thinking that there is no possibility of reconciliation here. Nevertheless, I had an interesting experience this morning that has made me reflect on the matter.
I was in the supermarket buying groceries, and being in a good mood I was going about my business feeling genial towards the human race in general. As I walked along one of the aisles I encountered a young woman, fully veiled, who was having to deal with a small and very sulky child. Sympathising with her problem I gave her an understanding smile …. and she smiled back. How do I know that, as she was wearing a niqab? Because I could see her eyes, of course. The veiling of her face did not interfere completely with the possibility of our mutual communication. The point of this anecdote is to emphasise the fact that discussion in this area does not have to be conducted in terms of mutually exclusive polar opposites. There is room for negotiation, particularly in relation to the relevance of situations.
I understand that several senior Islamic clergy have involved themselves in the debate, pointing out that the items of clothing in question do not actually have koranic legitimacy. (I’m told that they are the legacy of the dress of some pre-islamic Saudi tribes.)* This has prompted me to reflect that quite a long list could be compiled of items that are believed by some Christians to be normal accompaniments of and expressions of their faith, but which have absolutely no Biblical legitimacy. What is the origin of the peculiarity of clerical dress, for example? How on earth did the practice of using incense find its way into Christian worship? More examples could be listed. There is a degree of openness about these practices that is often overlooked by those who take up dogmatic positions on either side. It is not only Islam that should be scrutinised for the rationality or appropriateness of its customary practices.
Just how much, and under what circumstances, does veiling a woman’s face obstruct communication? There are some situations in which I would want to insist that a person’s face should be seen. As a former university teacher, for example, I would have wanted assurance that the person sitting an examination was indeed the person she claimed to be. A job interview surely must carry with it a similar requirement, or participation in a court of law. Equally, there must be other situations in which (literally) face-to-face communication is not germane to the success of the exchange. Let’s face it, enough of our communication takes place these days by ‘phone or the internet. As my experience this morning shows, veiling the face does not actually close off all possibility of interpersonal non-verbal communication. Negotiation is important, and I believe that over time it should be possible to evolve mutually satisfactory codes of practice.
*Certainly my lengthy experience in Bosnia would support that, as neither the burqa nor the niqab were ever seen during my travels there.
Thanks for this balanced reflection on this current issue John.