The honour-killing debate falsely frames individual freedom as opposed to collective

Evidence

In her PhD research, Bredal begins by declaring the concerns she brought to her study of young racial minority youth and their attitudes to marriage. Chief among them is her observation that in Norway forced marriage has been the focus of a polemic between those who claim that we ignore the violence of honour killings in the interests of respecting cultural diversity, and out of fear of being called racist (the Unni Wikan position), and those who say that the incidence of honour killings is greatly exaggerated and that the issue is used to stigmatize minorities, primarily Muslims. Underpinning the polarity is the idea that the individual stands opposed to the collective. Individuals give up the right to be individuals (the right to exercise free will) in the interests of the collective’s need to reproduce kin and caste networks through marriage. As Bredal saw, this approach pits the autonomous individual against the collective and leaves no room for the complicated issue of who an individual is. — Sherene Razack, Casting Out, 319

Categorization

• XREF: This false individual-versus-collective binary echoes the liberal-communitarian debate and also my notes on how moral panics flatten complex social phenomena.
• DEEPTHINKING: The idea that opposing individualism to collectivism forecloses the question of ‘who an individual is’ — that identity is partly constituted by belonging — is a genuinely load-bearing analytical insight that resists easy summary.