Because I loved this article - and because I think the link between "Muslim women" and the 911 tragedy is absolutely ridiculous and stupid.
The below are some random thoughts on the article as I was reading it. I recommend reading the whole article; it's short anyway. Now there's a book with the same title by the same author, too.
"Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?" (the article) by Lila Abu-Lughod
Ethics Forum: Septemeber 11 and the Ethnographic Responsibility
Abu-Lughod did not feel comfortable having to address the question of
women and responses to the purported reasons for the war on terror. While she
wants to appeal to anthropology to suggest how anthropology might help in
understanding the Other, she is at the same time being critical of the fact
that anthropology has been rather complicit in the reification of cultural
difference. Where one might have expected that she would have been pleased to
partake in the dialogue on Muslim women and the problem of women as a rationale
for the war on terror, she did not, and she reflects on this discomfort at the
start of her article to situate her perspective. The three programs that the NewsHour show hosted in response to the
9-11 attacks (the first on women in Islam, a panel that addressed
"hopelessly general" questions on women and Islam that would not make
any sense in a discussion on women in any other religion; the second program a
response to the bombing; and the third to the speeches by Laura Bush and Cherie
Blair) resorted to the cultural, as if the topic of Islam and women and the
attack on the WTC were in any way related or that one would help people
understand the other. Abu-Lughod wonders why the debate was (and continues to
be) about Muslim women in general and Afghan women in particular when everyone
is implicated in this cultural mode of explanation. She references the
paradoxes of the question of women in colonialism, such as not giving any support
to women's education but focusing on the veil as a symbol of oppression for
women in Egypt--all the while opposing women's suffrage back home in their
English, "more civilized" worlds. While Laura Bush claimed that the
Afghan women had been freed from the Talibn after U.S. involvement in the
country, liberals were surprised that Afghan women did not immediately start
taking off the blue burqas that the Taliban had imposed on them. Abu-Lughod
goes on to explore the possible reasons for this, focusing on understandings of
modesty and the sanctity of women, such that even if the Taliban had not made
such impositions on them, most of them would probably have still worn some kind
of modest clothing or head-covering. She proposes that 1) seeing veiling as the
quintessential sign of women's unfreedom is a reductive interpretation of the
practice; 2) we need to give up our western obsession with the veil and focus
on some more serious issues with which feminism is concerned. Other issues that
Abu-Lughod identities are that we need to accept the possibility that even
after "we have freed Afghan," they might not want the same things we
wanted or would want for them; and second, our rhetoric of saving people is
utterly misplaced and misguided. She asserts that she is not against the idea
of cultural relativism and that she does not believe "it's their
culture" is a justification for whatever goes on around the world, but we
need to acknowledge that there might be different ideas of justice and that
different women might want or choose different futures for themselves from what
we envision as best.
In response to her own title, Abu-Lughod writes that "it is deeply problematic to construct the Afghan woman as someone in need of saving.... Projects focused on saving other women depend on and reinforce a sense of superiority by the Westerners, a form of arrogance that deserves to be challenged" (789). She instead offers that a more productive approach might be to ask how we can contribute to making the world a more just place, thereby focusing on justice in the world rather than on Muslim women and the obsession with their veil; a more egalitarian language of alliances, coalitions, and solidarity--rather than salvation--might also be more productive.
The full article can be read online here (retrieved January 25, 2013).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Dare to opine :)