Religion, State, and the Problem of Gender: Re-imagining Citizenship and Governance in Diverse Societies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the controversy in France over whether Muslim girls have the right to wear a headscarf (hijab) in public schools to the debate surrounding the proposal to establish a private Islamic arbitration tribunal (dar-ul qada) in Canada, state and religion appear currently to clash on a regular basis in virtually every region of the world. While disputes over the scope and limits of religious accommodation are not novel, what is distinctive about this new brand of secular-religious quandary is that so many of the central issues raised revolve around the regulation of women, gender/sexuality and the family. In this article, I analyze the major implications for competing notions of citizenship of the centrality of women and the family in these new cultural wars. I then offer concrete illustrations of the institutional re-designs that are required in order to better protect the twin goals of promoting religious accommodation and gender equality. The discussion proceeds in four parts. After a few methodological comments, I briefly outline in Part II the thrust of the multicultural citizenship model, and explain why it is insufficient for understanding the controversies at the heart of the new cultural wars. I then identify two major strands of critique of the multicultural citizenship model. For the sake of analytical clarity, I classify them as falling into two distinct categories: internal and external critiques. Part III focuses on the internal critique, as represented here by the feminist critique of multiculturalism. The recent controversy in Canada over the Islamic arbitration tribunal illustrates the core arguments of this approach. Part IV critically appraises the external branch of critique, which challenges the wisdom of adopting any accommodation policy that legitimizes public expressions of cultural or religious difference. The most powerful external arguments against multicultural citizenship rely on three alternative conceptualizations of political membership: liberalism, civic-republicanism, and ethno-culturalism. I address each in turn, using the contemporary example of the hijab controversy in France. I close by revisiting the religious arbitration tribunal example, suggesting concrete amendments that help redefine the requirements of choice in consent to arbitration. I further recommend introducing an additional layer of judicial oversight as a condition for arbitral awards to become final and enforceable. By establishing a public veto point to which arbitrators are held accountable, the proposed review process can substantively improve the protection of the rights of women while at the same time allowing them to follow the tenets of the faith because it provides a practical legal mechanism for shifting the burden of finding such resolutions to the arbitrators themselves rather than the vulnerable party who has her loyalty to demonstrate. Encouraging such internal transformation represents a crucial improvement on the traditional multicultural citizenship model. Equally important, it offers the most practical hope for ensuring that women and other at-risk group members do not become the primary casualties of the new cultural wars between state and religion.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it