Cultural and Religious Exemptions in the Multicultural Society - Essay Example

Does the idea of equal opportunity demand or prohibit cultural and religious exemptions in the multicultural society? Within modern society, the development of the various rights and obligations of citizens is usually depended on a series of criteria. In most cases, the social and cultural conditions as well as the traditions of a specific state are the basis on which the recognition of specific rights to certain categories of the population is based; however, the above fact leads quite often to inequality among the citizens of a particular state; there are categories of the population that are considered to be benefited more from the social ethics within a specific state. On the other hand, it should be noticed that in most countries around the world the development of various legal and social ethics is based on certain principles the most important of which is equality; the specific principle is often used by governments internationally in order to justify their decisions on a variety of issues related with people’s daily life. The principle of equality is further divided into sub-principles like the equal opportunity one. Generally, it could be stated equal opportunity should prohibit the exemptions related with culture and decision within modern societies; of course, there are cases where such exemptions should apply – when the criteria for the development of these exemptions cannot be related with the principle of equal opportunity (e.g. specific religious exemptions based on the existed religious rules of a particular region). In order to evaluate whether the principle of equal opportunity can be used in order to impose or prohibit cultural and religious exemptions in modern society it is necessary to refer primarily to the general framework of equal opportunity – as developed in modern states influenced by the relevant theoretical and empirical studies on this field. Other issues, like the relationship between the state and the church and the involvement of culture in the development of specific social principles could be also examined. In order to understand the importance of equal of opportunity within the modern society and its interaction with various social and cultural principles and ethics, it is necessary primarily to refer to its meaning and its characteristics. In accordance with a definition published by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2002, online version) equality of opportunity is a political ideal that is opposed to caste hierarchy but not to hierarchy per se; the background assumption is that a society contains a hierarchy of more and less desirable, superior and inferior positions’. The above definition leads to the assumption that the specific principle can present different context across the various countries in the international community (being influenced by the local social and cultural perceptions on gender, religion and social power). Under these terms the study of Morgan (2002) that refers to the differences on the influence of society and religion in the development of educational system of three European countries: Germany, Sweden and France led to the conclusion that ‘Intense, clerical-anticlerical conflict in France led to the incorporation of preschools into the national education system; in Sweden and Germany, the more accommodating relationship between church and state assured that no such incorporation took place’ (Morgan, 2002, 113). The above study refers specifically to the interactions between state and church that took place in nineteenth century in Europe. However, similar assumptions could be made regarding social, religious and educational frameworks of modern European states. The above assumption is also supported by Curry (1979); indeed the study of the above researcher led to the conclusion that ‘church-state disputes are quite common within nearly all world regions and among all religious groups; however, controversies are likely to continue as long as secular and religious leaders seek different goals’ (Curry, 1979, 19). From another point of view, it should be mentioned that the various social and cultural ethics can be differently evaluated under particular social and historical conditions. In this context, it is noticed by Mies (1998, 3) that ‘the woman question cannot simply be added on to any liberal, positivist or Marxist theory of society, as is being done, but if taken to its logical conclusions, the gender approach will revolutionize all existing paradigms and relations, particularly those of capitalist and socialist industrial patriarchy’. Towards the rights and the obligations of women within each specific social framework will be depended on the fundamental aspects regarding the role of genders in the social, cultural and scientific development of the society. Using the above aspects, the principle of ‘equal of opportunity’ cannot be used in order to justify differentiations in the various aspects of social life (including religion); only when these differentiations are set by fundamental rules of these social sectors (e.g. specifically explained rules on the role of gender and the rights of men/ women in all aspects of religious life). Despite the above the importance of the principle of equal of opportunity cannot be limited. In fact, the above principle is extensively used in order to justify differentiations in behaviour towards specific categories of the population within all countries around the world (even if such a use of this principle cannot be considered as justified as explained above). On the other hand, empirical research has proven that each part of the population that has different social/ cultural background can behave differently under specific conditions. Indeed, the study of Roseman et al. (1995, 23) that refer to the differences in social behaviour of Indians and Americans led to the conclusion that ‘in both cultures there was evidence that an appraisal of powerlessness characterized incidents leading to sadness and fear, rather than anger; and an appraisal that other persons caused negative events characterized incidents leading to anger, rather than sadness or fear’ (Roseman et al., 1995, 23). In other words, differences in social behaviour can be observed not only among people of different gender but also of different social/ cultural background. Under these terms, the social behaviour (including the behaviour within specific social contexts like the religion) is formulated under the influence of a series of factors. For this reason, there is no case that the principle of ‘equal of opportunity’ can be used in order to justify differentiations among people regarding specific social and religious events – only if a specific rule of each one of these contexts imposes specific behaviour then this rule should be respected. All the above assumptions are based on the fact that in society there can be no ‘equality’ in the absolute meaning of this term; the rights and the obligations of each person are defined using criteria that are applied commonly for all people in society but when having to exercise these rights people are likely to face constraints in case that these rights are opposite with the interests of specific parts of the population. On the other hand in areas like culture and religion there are cases that these exemptions can be justified if they are imposed by their nature or their mission within the society. In no case, these exemptions could be then related with a violation of the principle of equal of opportunity. References Curry, J. (1979) Church-State Developments Around the World. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 446(1): 19-31 Mies, M. (1998) Globalization of the Economy and Women’s Work in a Sustainable Society. Gender, Technology and Development, 2(1): 3-37 Morgan, K. (2002) Forging the Frontiers Between State, Church, and Family: Religious Cleavages and the Origins of Early Childhood Education and Care Policies in France, Sweden, and Germany. Politics and Society, 30(1): 113-148 Roseman, I., Dhawan, N., Rettek, S., Naidu, R., Thapa, K. (1995) Cultural Differences and Cross-Cultural Similarities in Appraisals and Emotional Responses. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26(1): 23-48 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2002), ‘Equality of Opportunity’, online, available at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equal-opportunity/ Read More