In
both Malek Alloula and Ann Laura Stoler’s essays, the two authors illustrate
how women, both those of the European and colonized cultures, were utilized to
maintain a stringent racial hierarchy and system of classification in the
colonies. After reading both essays, I think that in a way, both constructed
“categories” of women existed in artificial realities that were built by the
owners of white prestige and privilege, specifically white, male, wealthy
colonizing forces. For example, in Alloula’s “Women’s Prisons,” he has shown how
a postcard, benign in appearance yet a violent colonial instrument, builds
an artificial reality and body of knowledge of harem women that is devoid of the
real life experiences of the actual women who are in these positions. He states
by using models in these postcards, “the perfection and the credibility of the
illusion are ensured by the fact that the absent other is, by definition,
unavailable and cannot issue a challenge” (Alloula, 17). Once you shut out the
true Algerian women from the postcard, it “sets its own criteria of
truthfulness for the representation of Algerian women and for the discourse
that can be held about them" (Alloula, 17). Because the women are behind bars
and their world must be “penetrated” in order to gain their resources, the
postcards also become emblematic of the entire colonial project, whereby
European colonizers “penetrate” countries and ravage both their natural
resources and native populations.
However,
one idea I would like to point out is that conversely, as shown in Stoler’s
essay, male colonizers were also the ones with the power to create the
mainstream body of knowledge about what a European woman should be in colonial
society, thus constructing another artificial woman. Although the European
woman did perpetuate racial stratification in the colonies, the
responsibilities and expectations of the European colonial woman also aided
male colonizers in maintaining a system of white male privilege and a racial
hierarchy. According to Stoler, “European women were to safeguard prestige,
morality, and insulate their men from the cultural and sexual contamination of
contact with the colonized” (Stoler, 27). The prescribed roles of the European
woman as mother, wife, and guard of European racial/moral purity helped
reinforce the idea that Europeans and colonized cultures were set in a racial
hierarchy, where white privilege/prestige ruled above all else. Therefore, both
European and colonized women were ensnared in the web of white male privilege
and utilized to cement male power over female bodies and life opportunities.
Finally,
in Amina Wa’dud’s chapters, she attempts to illustrate how different
interpretations of the Quran reinforce patriarchy or gender equality. Wa’dud
reminds me of Said when she states that those who are given the power to define
Islam “have power over it” (Wa’dud, 17). Said’s emphasis on knowledge and who
is allowed to produce knowledge directly ties into Wa’dud’s desire for more
female scholarship and female experience incorporated into the understanding
and interpretation of Islam. When men are the main people to interpret the
Quran, it is not surprising when Islam becomes defined through a lens of patriarchy.
Some of my main questions, however, arise from her assertions that the Quran is
unchangeable since it is the word of Allah, and that the interpretation of the
Quran differs depending on one’s historical context. If the Quran is
unchanging, how could one justify changing its interpretation or meaning? In
the case of promoting gender equality, how can one persuade the power/knowledge
brokers in Islamic society to advocate for gender equality when some Quranic
passages do support or describe unequal relations between the two genders?
Finally, isn’t it possible for these power brokers to argue that Wa’dud wants
to apply so-called “Western” definitions of feminism and equal rights to Islamic
societies? Is it almost racist in itself to imply that basic human rights, and
the desire for human rights, is a concept that only originates in the European
world?
To
incorporate pop culture and current events into this week’s reading, I have
included the following links:
This link is to an article from Foreign Policy magazine that
attempts to explain the so-called oppressive nature of Arab societies for
women. What I want to bring attention to in this article, however, is the
pictures. They remind me of the colonial postcards in Alloula’s essay. In my
opinion, the pictures of the naked female model covered in eye makeup and black
paint to symbolize a burqa, hijab, or niqab exoticize and eroticize the Arab
woman. The article is supposedly dedicated to showing how Arab women are
oppressed in their own societies/countries. However, these staged photos in
this American magazine also take away the agency of the Arab woman by
transforming the wearer of a religious garment into a sexualized object.
This link is also another example of the colonial postcard.
In Cycle 4 of America’s Next Top Model, the female contestants had to dress up
as other cultures for Got Milk? advertisements. You had an African American
woman portray a Korean woman, a white woman portray an African woman, etc. I think
this example of recent pop culture perfectly, and unfortunately, resembles the
colonial postcard because models are being used to replicate realities of the
women of colonized populations. It’s very blunt to say this but this contest is
basically blackface on steroids because it is so incredibly offensive to so
many cultural groups. Events like this show that we are still in the era of
colonial postcards and cultural misappropriation.
No comments:
Post a Comment