66
E
UR
A
MERICA
sacrifice and sometimes even grief and anguish. But the possibility
of such an outcome does not mean we ought to abstain from
cultivating social bond and instead live in isolation. To write off
comprehensively these forms of human relationships is a fantasy, so
too is maximal autonomy. As Kwame Anthony Appiah has recently
argued, autonomy can also be exercised by assuming a role of
servility and submission (2005).
With regard to the specific case of the institution of
polygyny, the compromise of granting it protection is
‘temporary.’ Protection in this form, which is worked up
from democratic consultations with group members,
especially young women, is revisable and ‘insisted upon
only for the purpose of discovering the views/positions of
the more vulnerable, normally less empowered, members
of the group’ (Okin, 2005a: 87). This democratic solution
stands in contrast to the ‘liberal solution’ in which the state
imposes equal rights on everyone, ‘even for those who
would abjure the rights for themselves.’ The liberal
solution has troubling implications; by mandating the same
treatment for all, the state shows neither sensitivity nor
sympathy to the claims of individuals who value their
memberships in ethno-cultural and religious groups.
36
And
here we have come to what ought to be the distinct
advantage of the contextually wise and deliberative-
36
United Nations documents routinely condemn the justifications of VAW in the
name of culture and religion, see Women’s UN Report Network (2006).
Notwithstanding these documents, let me draw out some connections between
certain practices, including forced marriage and polygyny, and their justifications
which are often said to be found in elements of religious traditions and
ethno-cultural norms. First, I know of no religion that gives justification for
forced marriage. Although not condoned, forced marriage still characterizes some
“cultures” in that its rationale(s) could be found in patriarchal and fundamentalist
interpretations of ethno-cultural group’s societal norms. Thus, forced marriage
cannot be dismissed as an act that reflects nothing more than the eccentric wishes
of particular fathers or parents. In forced marriage, consent is not possible at all,
unlike potential partners in an
arranged
marriage where each partner can always
walk away (Phillips & Dustin, 2004: 534, 537-541). With regard to polygyny,
Islam allows it; its acceptance and incidence vary across Muslim societies.