Jack Straw, a British politician who represents a constituency that includes at least 25% Muslim voters, recently stated that he felt uncomfortable trying to talk to someone who was wearing a veil over their face and might ask them to remove it (note: ask, not tell).
The topic, then, is whether there is any justification for Mr. Straw's comments.  Before getting to that discussion I would like to make two points very clear:

• This is NOT about religious practices.  It has been made clear, by a number of experts, that the wearing of a veil, of any description, is not mentioned in the Koran and is not a requirement of the Islamic faith.
  It is possible that the wearing of a veil may have it's origins outside of any religious context, dating back to the time when most Middle-Easterners (Arabs, Afghans, Persians (as they were then called), etc.) still lived in nomadic tribal groups and often in pretty inhospitable terrain.  In that situation a veil served various purposes, including acting as a sign of modesty, as well as being a practical necessity.  Thus the veil served to protect the face from the effects of scorching sun, dust storms, etc.  Indeed, it is still not uncommon for Middle-Eastern men who wear the shimagh (headscarf) to draw one side across their face to achieve the same result when conditions require it.
• This article is not about what anyone should or should not do.  It is solely concerned with the significance and potential results of covering the face in relation to the communication process.

One other technical point concerns the types of veil used by Middle-Eastern women, which come in two forms:

• The niqab is the form of veil most commonly used by Middle-Easterners living in the West who choose to wear a veil at all.  It is designed to cover the lower part of the face (usually from the bridge of the nose downwards), but leaves the eyes more or less visible.
  (Note: Strictly speaking a hijab is simply a headscarf, but it may incorporate a veil.)
• The second type of veil is known as the burqa (or burkha) and is really a complete head covering rather than a veil as such.  When someone is wearing a burkha no part of the face can be seen, though the front of the covering will include a latticework pattern of holes so that the wearer can see out.
  The burkha seems to be relatively uncommon these days, though when the Taliban controlled Afghanistan all women were required to wear a burkha.   
  Having said that, some women choose to position the edges of the hijab and niqab so close together that the result is almost as complete as if they were wearing a burqa.  Based on several televised interviews and newspaper pictures, it appears that Mrs Aishah Azmi, the Dewsbury, West Yorkshire teaching assistant removed from her post for refusing to unveil her face whilst in the classroom, appears to have adopted this almost total style of face covering such that even eye movements cannot be seen clearly.

The Face As a Channel of Communication

As new born infants, it seems that one of the very first things we become aware of is faces.  Even a baby of only a few weeks old will normally be able to recognise faces in general such that, if shown a picture or even a simplified cartoon of a human face it can tell whether the face is right way up, or upside down.  Not surprisingly then, still at this very early age, the evidence suggests that a baby will very quickly learn to recognise the face of it's mother/primary carer in particular.  Clearly, then, the face is our very first "communication channel."

Having said that, babies obviously do not consciously set out to learn to read and interpret the meaning of facial expressions.  It is a strictly unconscious skill, and for most people, many aspects of this skill remain at an unconscious level throughout their lives.
For example, when talking to another person, what clues do we use to make sense of what the other person is saying?

According to research carried out in the late 1960s and very early 1970s (see The Evidence, below), we take account of three factors in particular: What the person actually says, How they say it (vocal characteristics such as tone, tempo, etc.), and Their facial expressions and body language.

We use the information that comes through these "channels" in two ways.  Firstly, compare the signals coming through each channel to check for inconsistencies.  So, if you tell me you're willing to consider a new idea, but you're shaking your head slightly, or your holding your body in a "closed" position (arms held tightly across the chest, for example), then in the context of Western culture, the overall message is inconsistent.  Your "verbal signals" say you're open, your "non-verbal" signals suggest the opposite.

Whenever someone does send out a "mixed message" the three channels serve a second purpose in helping us to decide what the "real" message is.
According to professors of social psychology Albert Mehrabian (UCLA, at the time), and Michael Argyle (Oxford University), we attach differing degrees of importance to the messages coming through the three channels.  Facial expression and body language account for around 55% of our interpretation; vocal characeristics account for around 38%,; and the actual words account for around 7%.

In other words, we (human beings in general) place a far heavier reliance on facial expression and body language - more than on the other two channels combined.
This is especially true in NLP, of course, since the calibrating process used to assess a person's responses in any interaction is primarily to do with clues provided by eye movement and the actions of the facial muscles in general (see reference to Paul Ekman, below).
The other key factors in the calibration process are breathing patterns and, to a lesser extent, hand movements.

The Evidence

Professor Mehrabian first documented his findings in this paper:

Inference of attitudes from non-verbal communication in two channels, Mehrabian, A. and Ferris, R. (1967).  The Journal of Counseling Psychology, No. 31.  pp.248-52.

And subsequently wrote a book on the subject:

Silent Messages, Mehrabian, A. (1971).  Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc. Belmont, California.

Mehrabian's findings were later supported by the work of Professor Michael Argyle's team, described in papers such as:

The Communication of friendly and hostile attitudes by verbal and non-verbal signals, Argyle, M. Alkema, F. and Gilmour, R. (1970).  European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, pp.385-402.

Further evidence that we need to see the whole of a person's face in order to read their feelings accurately can be found in works such as Paul Ekman's extensively illustrated Emotions Revealed (Time Books, 2003).  Ekman is currently a professor of psychology in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of California Medical School, and his book reflects the findings accumulated over the last forty years.

I Hear What You Say, but What Do You Mean?

What, then, can we say about the effect of a veil on face-to-face communication?

In a word, it seriously undermines meaningful communication and does indeed distance the person wearing the veil from whoever they are talking to.  Especially when the gap between the top of the veil and the bottom of the headcovering is kept to a bare minimum.  And even more so if the person wearing the veil is also wearing quite voluminous robes which would tend to make it difficult to detect their breathing patterns and, to a certain extent, their hand movements.
For Westerners, at least, if we can see nothing of a person's facial expression other than their eyes, or their body language, the first consequence is that we are aware, usually unconsciously so, that an important part of the communication process is missing.  So when someone, such as Jack Straw, says they feel uncomfortable trying to have a conversation with someone wearing a veil, they are not just talking about a cultural difference.  They are genuinely identifying a missing element that holds true for all communication between human beings.

In other words, this is not only true for situations where one or more people are wearing some kind of facial covering.  There are certain cultures where it is not polite to look at another person whilst talking with them.  In Japan, for example, when a younger person is talking to an older person it is the custom for the younger person to keep their eyes averted as a mark of respect.  If the younger person fully obeys the rules of etiquette this can make it difficult for them to accurately judge the meaning of the older person's message (if it is not strictly factual) since they, too, are deprived of the information which comes through the most important of the three channels of communication.

So, whether people chose to wear a veil or not is of course a matter of choice.  At the same time it is only fair to point out that this choice has consequences, of which distancing themself from the people with whom they communicate is arguably one of the most important.

The Veil as a Shaper of Culture

One further consideration applies at a rather higher level in that the way we communicate inevitably has an effect on society in general.
That is to say, whilst wearing a veil is neither right nor wrong in itself, insofar as it limits the ability of the wearer to communicate effectively, it may serve to limit the part that person can play in society as a whole.
If we return for a moment to the subject of the Taliban rule in Afghanistan in the late 1990s, it is the case that women were both required to wear the full covering known as the burqa, as well as being removed from all occupations other than certain jobs in the media.  In a very real sense this left the Afghan women "without a voice"; so no wonder one of the first reactions of many Afghan women, after the fall of the Taliban regime, was to return to wearing just a headscarf at the same time as they resumed their positions as teachers, doctors, etc.

Without trying to guess what goes on in anybody else's mind, when a person, or group of people, cannot fully enter into the communication process it becomes easy to see their contribution as being in some way less important.  When this situation persists for a long enough period of time it may be that the members of that group become second class citizens whose ideas and opinions are of only secondary importance.  This can happen without any kind of deliberation or decision, but simply as a consequence of the people in that group "losing their voice", so to speak.

In a recent UK TV programme on this subject (What Not to Wear, Tonight, ITV1 - Oct. 16, 2006), Saira Khan, a young British businesswoman who is herself a muslim, spent some time walking in the streets of Manchester dressed in the black robes, headpiece and niqab.  She summed up her reactions to this experience by saying she felt as though she had become a "non-person".
Since she had voluntarily deprived herself of an important part of her basic communication skills that may have been a very good description of what was going on.

Now, if we can only explain to Coalition troops in Iraq why it is important for them to remove their sun glasses or goggles when in close contact with the local population ...

Update:   The controversy over the wearing of female facial covering was refueled during the trial of the 21/7 "bombers" in London when the Prosecution produced a CCTV tape which allegedly showed Yassin Omar fleeing from the scene of his failed attempt - at Warren Street "tube" station - wearing a burkha (apparently borrowed for the occasion from a girlfriend's mother), to conceal his identity.

 
If you'd like to let us know your thoughts on this subject, please write to:

bradburyac@hotmail.com