Headscarves in the Policeforce and the Court: Does Context Matter?
- PDF / 171,889 Bytes
- 19 Pages / 442 x 663 pts Page_size
- 12 Downloads / 172 Views
Headscarves in the Policeforce and the Court: Does Context Matter? Sawitri Saharsoa and Odile Verhaarb a Department of Social and Cultural Science, Free University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1081, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected] b Department of Theory and History of Law, Faculty of Law, Free University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]
In questions of tolerance to cultural minority practices, we usually follow a deductive approach, in which we first establish the limits of tolerance in principle and then determine whether or not a particular practice is consistent with them. The reason is that principles are considered ‘fundamental’ whereas other considerations are ‘contingent’; hence the outcomes of reasoning on principle are considered more ‘pure’ and fair. Critics, however, claim that this deductive approach cannot adequately deal with the particularities of actual moral reasoning and therefore propose a ’contextual approach’ to matters of tolerance. This paper explores the possibilities of that approach by discussing two cases from that perspective: the wearing of the ‘Islamic’ headscarf by teachers of public schools and by (uniformed) police officers in the Netherlands. We will concentrate on the claim that a contextual approach furthers social stability or ‘peace’ more than a deductive approach because it produces solutions that are more widely acceptable. We will also discuss possible disadvantages of a contextual approach, in particular the risk that it results in a form of ‘moral casuistry’. Acta Politica (2006) 41, 68–86. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500107 Keywords: contextualism; headscarf; moral theory; multiculturalism; public office; state-neutrality
Introduction The presence of immigrant groups whose religion or culture distinctly differs from the majority population regularly leads to deep social conflict and confronts us with the question whether liberal host countries should tolerate all of these cultural practices. When confronted with the question whether or not a practice should be tolerated, liberals tend to weigh the practice against fundamental liberal principles, such as ‘equality’ or ‘autonomy’ (cf. Williams, 2001). Recently, this standard ‘deductive’ reasoning from abstract principles has been criticized, and its critics propose a contextual approach. This article
Sawitri Saharso and Odile Verhaar Headscarves in the Policeforce and the Court
69
explores the possibilities of such an approach. After, firstly, laying out what we mean by tolerance, we will, secondly, sketch the difference between a deductive and contextual approach in theory and, thirdly, discuss the two approaches on the basis of two conflicts that took place in the Netherlands. Both cases concern recent issues, hotly debated in the Netherlands: ‘Islamic’ headscarves for teachers in public schools and for police officers. We end by discussing whether the contextual model indeed has surplus value over a deductive approach.
Tolerance
Data Loading...
