In
this week’s readings, each author attempts to problematize the nature of
European/so-called “Western” feminist scholarship and thought about
non-European women. They question mainstream feminist works and ideology,
namely the movement’s ideas that non-European women need Caucasian lady
saviors, have no agency of their own, and constitute one, homogeneous group
with no unique differences across ethnic/cultural/class lines. However, in
reality, non-European women rarely fit the tight mold of the ‘third-world
woman’ that their European counterparts have fashioned for them.
In
Chandra Mohanty’s “Under Feminist Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial
Discourses,” she illustrates how white feminist discourse on the alleged
third-world woman propagates myths about non-European women and reinforces an
Orientalist/colonial hierarchy and discourse. She attacks three foundational
faults of this feminist scholarship. First, she states that the idea that
women, no matter their cultural and historical context, make up one coherent
population group who share the same desires and oppressive situations is
reductive and “implies a notion of gender or sexual difference or even
patriarchy which can be applied universally and cross-culturally” (64). Second,
the evidence often presented to prove universality exists among women is
usually minimal at best. Her third and final core complaint is that in becoming
the definition forgers of what constitutes a third-world woman, Western
feminists are also given the power to define themselves, which reinforces
colonial notions of superiority of the West, specifically Europe.
In
their so-called benevolent mission to bring justice to the burqa-clad women of
the world, European feminists often view third-world women as one singular
group whose experiences are generally the same. According to Mohanty, the
identity of this group is often articulated in terms of how the women are
objects; the only way in which these women are discussed is usually by how they
are “affected” by other, namely male, actors. This alone strips any agency away
from non-European women. They frame women as victims of patriarchy and
dependent beings, but in reality, this framework serves to objectify
non-European women, disregards historical/cultural/colonial heritage, and
forgets that “women” are often created and developed through social interaction
and practice. Finally, one of Mohanty’s most interesting points is that by
defining non-European women as powerless, oppressed, and traditional, Western
feminists also in effect define themselves. Their language reinforces the
colonial hierarchy where those in the West are far more superior and advanced
than those outside that sphere. Through this problematic scholarship, “we see
how western feminists alone become the true ‘subjects ‘of this counter-history.
Third-world women, on the other hand, never rise above the debilitating
generality of their ‘object’ status” (79). Thus, the third-world woman’s agency
is erased to elevate the status of the Western feminist.
In
Lila Abu-Lughod’s pieces, she shows how female agency of non-European women
often becomes the subject of political debates in both their home countries and
the international community. In “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?” she shows
how U.S. politicians co-opted the issues of Afghani women to further their
political agendas on intervention in Afghanistan after 9/11. Instead of talking
about how U.S. foreign policy helped support regimes in other parts of the
world, politicians like George W. Bush stated the U.S needed to invade
Afghanistan in order to save ‘women of cover’ from the oppressive Taliban
regime. Abu-Lughod says this type of colonial feminism is ultimately dangerous for
it often involves spreading and using false information about cultural
practices (like reducing all Muslim women’s problems to the veil) and puts
forth the idea that non-European women once again need saving by the Westerners
who were previously the colonial masterminds of the world. Abu-Lughod’s other
article focuses more on Egypt, which she claims is a good model of the fact
that while some governments in non-European countries view Western feminism as
a dangerous import, “those who claim to reject feminist ideals as Western
imports actually practice a form of selective repudiation that depends on
significant occlusions” (243). Her biggest point that really resonated with me
was her idea that instead of linking the traditional roles of women as mother
and wife to Islam, she sees this theory and its application’s origin in the
import of Western ideologies like capitalism. For example, Qasim Amin, who is
often seen as the father of Egyptian feminism, borrowed his ideas that women
should be devoted to their families and to their social status from
middle-class, bourgeois values of the capitalist West. He called for “a
liberation of women that would make them good bourgeois wives and mothers in a
world where state and class ties would override those of kin, capitalist
organization would divide the world into the distinct spheres of private and
public” (261). Therefore, the non-European and European worlds do share some of
the same ideologies when it comes to the role of women.
The
European view of female agency is highlighted in both Juliet A. Williams’ study
on temporary marriage in Iran and Saba Mahmood’s “The Subject of Freedom.” In
Williams’ piece on temporary marriage, she shows how the concept of Iranian
temporary marriage, although portrayed as backwards in U.S. media, is actually
quite similar to U.S. marriage practices. Some similarities are that U.S.
marriages are considerably short if you look at national divorce rates; because
of historic inequalities, some U.S. women also exchange sexual resources in
marriages for financial security; and the U.S. government is involved in issues
of marriage and reproduction as much as the Iranian government. Finally, in
Mahmood’s piece, she uses the women’s mosque movement to interrogate readily
accepted definitions of agency and what constitutes as resistance to
oppression. She argues “we should keep the meaning of agency open…the concept
of agency should be delinked from the goals of progressive politics, a
tethering that has often led to the incarceration of the notion of agency
within the trope of resistance against oppressive and dominating operations of
power” (34). Therefore, when women take control over teaching the Quran and
other religious texts of Islam to other women, this in itself is a form of
resistance. What all of this week’s readings suggest is that instead of the
West defining and attempting to save non-European women, we need more
non-European women to possess the opportunity to represent and speak for
themselves. However, I have one question that still went unanswered. What if
cultural practices, in either European or non-European countries, do infringe
on the rights of women? How does either international actor respond, or do we
just turn our head away from human rights violations in other parts of the
world? And how do we address this if even our conception of “rights” is the Western
definition of rights?
For outside sources, I have included the following links:
The 2012 presidential election was an excellent example to
reinforce Juliet Williams’ idea that the West, specifically the United States,
is not that different from countries like Iran when it comes to governmental
intervention into the sex lives of its people, especially women. How is the
U.S. any different from Iran, who promoted the idea of temporary marriage, when
our politicians constantly argue about the legality and morality of abortion,
gay marriage, access to contraception and other reproductive resources, etc?
In this New York Times article, the agency and aspirations
of women are highlighted, which is a refreshing change from the usual dialogue
of the oppressed women of the Middle East. However, there are some pieces of
very problematic language, such as the following:
·
“Women in Arab countries have long lagged behind
those in other countries in terms of opportunities and leadership positions in
politics and business, and this has hurt the region’s overall progress”
·
“In Tunisia, the most Western and liberal of the
Muslim countries, women won 49 of the 217 Constituent Assembly seats in last
year’s election.”
The first sentence is problematic because like our readings
have shown, this language does not explore the historical or cultural context
of why women in Arab countries may be “lagging” behind. Another problem is that
the journalist grouped women of Arab countries in one category. It also implies
through mere face value that the women are lagging behind because of their own
fault. The second sentence is problematic because it is basically saying that
Western ideals are the highest values of the world and since Tunisia
incorporates some of these so-called ideals, they have shown greater success in
electing more women. This sentence demonstrates the ethnocentrism of Western media
outlets.
Although I personally love this famous photograph, it does
unfortunately exoticize the girl a bit since it is only a portrait, which rips
her out of her historical and cultural context, and focuses on her beauty. The
way the photographer is introduced in the story is also very sensual, and
reminds me of Alloula’s article on postcards, where the photographer is allowed
to penetrate the hidden world of women in countries like Afghanistan. The
article itself focuses on the Western perceptions of the woman, reduces the ‘Afghan
girl’ to a mere object, and doesn’t take her claims that she liked wearing the
veil and living under the Taliban was better seriously. This is a grave offense
because instead of allowing her to speak for herself or even respect her wishes
to not answer questions, the article focused on how she was being interpreted
and defined by the writer and photographer.
Safiya, for some reason the image from National Geographic does not open. Do you mind re-posting the link? Thanks! ~Evren
ReplyDelete