Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Theoretical Inquiries in Law

Editor-in-Chief: Klement, Alon

2 Issues per year


CiteScore 2017: 0.49

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.345
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.727

Online
ISSN
1565-3404
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 9, Issue 2

Issues

Privatizing Diversity: A Cautionary Tale from Religious Arbitration in Family Law

Ayelet Shachar
Published Online: 2008-06-23 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2202/1565-3404.1198

Demands to accommodate religious diversity in the public sphere have recently intensified. The debates surrounding the Islamic headscarf (hijab) in Europe vividly illustrate this trend. We also find a new challenge on the horizon: namely, the request to "privatize diversity" through alternative dispute resolution processes that permit parties to move their disputes from public courthouses into the domain of religious or customary sources of law and authority. The recent controversies in Canada and England related to the so-called Shari’a tribunals demonstrate the potential force of the storm to come. In this Article, I offer an alternative to the presently popular vision of private diversity. This alternative is based on a deep commitment to women’s identity and membership interests as well as their dignity and equality. Women’s legal dilemmas often arise (at least in the family arena) from their allegiance to various overlapping systems of identification, authority and belief: in this case, those arising from religious and secular law. I argue that only recognition of women’s multiple affiliations, and the subtle interactions among them, can help resolve these dilemmas. The recognition of multiple legal affiliations does not sit well with the traditional view that a clear line can be drawn between public and private, official and unofficial, secular and religious, or positive law and traditional practice. Instead, to recognize multiple affiliations is to require greater access to, and coordination among, these once competing sources of law and identity. Once we conceive of citizenship more richly, it becomes apparent that individuals and families should not be forced to choose between the rights of citizenship and group membership: instead, they should be afforded the opportunity to express their commitment to both. I offer a vision of how such an alternative might be realized.

About the article

Published Online: 2008-06-23


Citation Information: Theoretical Inquiries in Law, Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 573–607, ISSN (Online) 1565-3404, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2202/1565-3404.1198.

Export Citation

©2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Leah Bassel
Ethnicities, 2010, Volume 10, Number 2, Page 155
[3]
Wendy Kennett
International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 2016, Volume 30, Number 1, Page 1
[4]
Mara Revkin
The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 2015, Volume 47, Number 2, Page 246
[5]
Daphna Hacker
Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2010, Volume 7, Number 2, Page 322
[6]
Maryam Razavy
Religious Studies and Theology, 2013, Volume 32, Number 1
[7]
Alison Diduck and Frances Raday
International Journal of Law in Context, 2012, Volume 8, Number 02, Page 187
[8]
Pascale Fournier
International Journal of Law in Context, 2012, Volume 8, Number 01, Page 47
[9]
Davina Bhandar
Citizenship Studies, 2010, Volume 14, Number 3, Page 331

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in