Hoffman, blog post for week 2; Comparing forms of "knowledge/power"

Christopher Hoffman

Week 2 blog post

Sorry for the delay!

This week’s readings offered three visions for scholarship on the nexus of Islam and gender studies, a sort of comparison of means of approaching these topics critically. Alloula’s work on colonial-era postcards describes how their visual composition had been sexualized and dehumanized; if Said had schematically described the stereotypes of media depictions of Muslim society and people (see for instance pages 284-288 in Orientalism), Alloula adopts a concise language for putting into language the exploitative themes in these postcards. Stoler’s work, as a historical-sociological comparison of the regulation of sex in colonial societies, writes essentially a literature review for the sake of sketching how the maintenance of the colonial polity and ‘white prestige’ guided the shape of sexual relations (cf. page 30 “Changes in sexual access and domesic arrangements have invariably accompanied major efforts to reassert the internal coherence of European communities…”). Though Stoler renders her work in a more classical fashion (for a social sciences class, at any rate) in terms of language and argumentation than Alloula or Wa’dud, it articulates the shared interest in each piece of the interrelation of knowledge, power, and discourse. As for Wa’dud, the work challenged me because I rarely read texts on theological topics, and for the strength of her faith in the Qu’ran, or to a “hermeneutics” regarding the ongoing interpretation of that text (see page 22, or 63 in the course packet). This week’s reading is out of my comfort zone simply for the breadth of topics that it engages – social scientific work to theological texts and photography – proving the interdisciplinary effort necessary to approach a broad topic like “Gender, Sexuality, and Islam.”

            Certainly each work can be brought back to Foucault’s concept of “knowledge/power” as we discussed in class, especially Foucault’s concern for who produces this knowledge and for which ends. The ends for Alloula’s postcards, for instance, could be seen as capitalist transactions implicated in the production and distribution of photographs like this, which involve the fetishization of a foreign body-space; or how the representation of Oriental bodies in some sense facilitated communication between separated colonial families (here I think of the cursory words on the postcard on page 45 of the course packet). Alloula is concerned with the influence of colonial authorities in the representation of Oriental bodies and how these integrate into a wider cultural and economic framework. Stoler’s work on the history of colonial sexuality pushes toward her thesis that the regulation of this sexuality related in intimate ways to maintaining the distinction between colonized and colonizer, which Europeans struggled with as they acclimatized to colonial environments and had children with native women. Sexuality thus offered both a means of perpetuation of the European-controlled society and the potential loss of white racial ‘purity’; around this latter subject eugenic, anthropological, and medical discourses proliferated and came to dominate colonial society (see page 23, course packet page 51). Finally, Wa’dud’s work offers a critique of Qu’ranic commentaries as perpetuated and benefiting mostly male figures in Islamic societies, preferring an engaged, I would even say humanistic recognition of the necessity for the individual to interpret equitably the Qu’ran for them self while acknowledging the limits of knowledge here. Knowledge here means access to the interpretation of the Qu’ran and the social structures it may endorse.

            Across these three works, I am most interested in how they can be interpreted in light of Foucault’s concept of “expert knowledge” which licenses a specific class of people to produce knowledge on the have-nots. Regardless of the significance of the works of these authors, each of these articles can be considered as another instance of expert knowledge which occupies a privileged position in the worlds of discourse. Specifically in Stoler’s case, I was interested in how that article offered primarily how the male European outlook as manifest in colonial policy and law morphed throughout history, as interpreted through Dutch, French, and English-language sources; if Stoler mentions briefly the hardships of Asian concubines (page 16-7 in Stoler), the roles of colonized men and women yet get little attention in comparison. Stoler is certainly working from a narrower topic, with necessarily limited language skills and a certain pool of primary sources, so I do not wish to fault her for writing an insightful paper; but I wonder where this leaves scholarship on those people excluded from the discussion. My initial reaction is that Stoler’s work, at least, illustrates the racial-sexual-class structure of these colonial societies, giving context for what might be unheard voices and records that might not be visible in Western scholarship because of the obscurity of their language to Western scholars (for instance, I do not expect that Stoler speaks an Indonesian languages). Just as Wa’dud interprets the Qu’ran in light of a certain ethical obligation to the text and to human voices, so my (our) comprehension of texts must be tempered by the presence of blind spots and the failure of my reading.

In addition, I wanted to quickly bring up the French intervention/invasion of Mali, which I think recalls the topics we have been discussing. Said discusses the ongoing expressions of imperialism and the imperial vision despite formal decolonization, and this offers an excellent example of how imperial policies continue. In addition, it occurs to me that the kinds of images distributed in the media I read end up looking (and certainly selling for this reason) like the sorts of action scenes present in the video "Planet of the Arabs" that Professor Savci linked...

Blog Post Week 2: Colonizer Men In Focus and In Control

Alloula's Women's Prisons and Stoler's Carnal Knowledge and Imperial Power analyze the same situation of colonial power being exercised to control the way that colonized women were portrayed and treated. On the surface, they seem to take very different approaches toward the treatment of native women in a colonial context. Stoler looks at the treatment of race and gender in colonies from the points of view of colonizer men, colonizer women, and to some extent colonized men and children of mixed race. However, she does not inquire into the reactions that colonized women had to their treatment by the colonial system. Alloula’s article, on the other hand, with its inclusion of postcards depicting what is meant to be an accurate portrayal of women’s lives in Algeria, would seem to be taking the women’s perspective on their own positions in society. Instead, it analyzes the point of view of the photographer, representing once again the colonial man.

Alloula sees the use of the postcards, and the images on the postcards, as a way of subjugating native women to a particular representation that revolves around a western need to sexually dominate them. The prison bars that play a pivotal role in every postcard represent the frustration of Europeans in being unable to access native women sexually, either because of cultural or religious differences. However, the photographer (presumably European) seeks to use these prison bars more overtly as a condemnation of Algerian gender standards and culture, thus casting the light of sexual frustration and uncontrollable, primal urges on colonized Algerian men.

This same hypocrisy applies to much of Stoler’s article, which details the many ways in which colonizer men attempt to sexually control native women and, by extension, politically control native men. Stoler also speaks about the negative light that was cast on colonized men by the colonizers, although in this context it applies more to fears of sexually aggressive native men attacking white women than native women. Both of these images appeared to be entirely created and manipulated by the European male, increasing in popular belief only around the time of political and racial dissent.

It is interesting to note that these images were in fact orchestrated as a part of larger schemes to maintain white status in the colonies. The conscious attempt to create racial separation through employment policies such as marriage bans, low salary pay, and encouragement or discouragement of concubinage shows, as Stoler puts it, just how much companies and governments saw “white prestige and profits [as] inextricably linked” (Stoler 18), as well as the connection between white prestige and sexual domination of the colonized population.

Week 2: The Female Subjugation Inherent in Colonialism

            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:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/23/why_do_they_hate_us?page=0,1

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.

http://race.iheartsociology.com/2012/11/americas-next-top-model-playing-dress-up-with-race/

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.  

Week 2 Blog Post: Sex and Control

“Sexual control was both an instrumental image for the body politic, a salient part standing for the whole, and itself fundamental to how racial politics were secured and how colonial projects were carried out” (Stoler, 31).

Alloula’s article, “Women’s Prisons,” and Stoler’s article, “Carnal Knowledge and Imperial Power: Gender, Race and Morality in Colonial Asia,” both serve to highlight the link between sex and the control of politics, sexual access, society, and the general population by the Europeans within colonized communities. 

Alloula’s article analyzes the depiction harem culture with the photographs of Algerian women.  These women were pictured as being imprisoned, like animals at a zoo—locked away as if they were on display.  They were imprisoned, thus were further unapproachable and not relatable; in essence, these women were “Othered.”  Later postcards started to reveal the nakedness of these women; which not only connotes a sexualized, erotic, and sexually frustrated native, but also reinforcing the “savagery” of the native.   As the photographer reveals the woman’s nakedness, his power grows, especially as the positioning of the camera reveals itself to be inside the place of confinement.  The photographer’s sexual access to the woman reveals his control over her as well as over his own fulfillment.

In a similar context, one of the main aspects of colonial rule that Stoler analyzes in her article is the sexual relations of the European men with the native women.  European men had free sexual access to the native women of the colonized land, forcing them to become concubines.  These men were also prohibited from marrying these women.  Preventing the legalization of “mixed” unions comment upon the establishment and maintainability of institutional control over not only the colonized, but also the colonizers.  These laws aided the advancement of racial politics, such as maintaining “White prestige” and White superiority and social class.  Such prevention of intermarriage also helped preserve European identity and nationalism. 

Both articles, I believe, relate to Faucault’s theory regarding sexuality and power.  One of the arguments of Faucault’s theory that I felt really spoke to these articles was how institutional knowledge about sex and sexuality was conceived and utilized in order to establish control or perceivably “normal” social constructs, which oftentimes are prejudiced or racist. Stoler’s article beautifully captures this usage of institutional knowledge as a method of control and manipulation; examples include:

“In metropolitan France, a profusion of medical and sociological tracts pinpointed the colonial as a distinct and degenerate social type, with specific psychological and physical features” (Stoler, 24),

“Colonial medicine…affirmed this…Neurasthenia was…a mental disorder identified as a major problem in the French empire…a phantom disease…encompassing psychopatho…conditions and intimately linked to sexual deviation and to the destruction of social order itself…caused by a distance from civilization and European community and by proximity to the colonized” (Stoler, 25), and

“Medical experts and women’s organizations recommended strict surveillance of children’s activities and careful attention to those with whom they played” (Stoler, 29). 

These quotations speak to how institutional knowledge provided by medicine and “experts” preserved racial segregation and promoted European nationalism and identity.  This “expert” knowledge as well as the boundaries and limitations surrounding sex and sexual access and relations of the colonizers with the colonized aided in the European control of these people through the domination of their land, bodies, as well as through the establishment of racial politics and social constructs vis-à-vis the inferiority and segregation of the colonized.

Week 2 Memo by Safiya Merchant and Phillip Kemp Bohan

-->

Safiya Merchant and Phillip Kemp Bohan

Group Memo on Week #2

Summary

            In Malek Alloula’s “Women’s Prisons,” the author illustrates how the colonial postcards serve to perpetuate preexisting European stereotypes concerning the harem culture. In these postcards, women consistently appear as sexualized objects, sources of sexual frustration, and prisoners. Each of these images is staged, and Alloula notes that this staging process can ultimately produce an artificial reality based on the expectations and desires of the European photographer as opposed to the lives of the actual women in these cultures. Therefore, the postcard can be viewed as yet another instrument of colonialism, whereby European authorities silence the voices of the colonized and produce an alternative and supposedly authentic knowledge of these cultures.

            Ann Laura Stoler suggests in her essay, “Carnal Knowledge and Imperial Power,” that European gender roles played a part in strengthening the idea of white privilege and  “imperial authority” in colonial settings. In early stages of colonialism, colonizing powers and companies preferred concubinage and interracial companionship over European nuclear family arrangements because European women were viewed as a financial hindrance to colonial success. Over time, class politics and a desire for a clear racial demarcation and hierarchy between colonizer and colonized fostered the inclusion of European women into colonial societies, although their new roles in these societies were strictly defined. Overall, the role of European women in colonial society reflected the evolving European goal of creating a distinct identity separate from the colonized.

            In the two chapters from “Inside the Gender Jihad,” Amina Wa’dud argues through her idea of the tawhidic paradigm that all people, regardless of gender, are created equal before Allah. She also states that it is important to acknowledge the power and importance of interpretation of the Quran, and how these interpretations are heavily influenced by one’s historical context. Wa’dud emphasizes that the absence of female scholarship and experience from discussions of Islamic law helps to reinforce gender inequality in some current interpretations of the Quran.

Questions

-How do the arguments presented in the piece about the colonial postcards reflect or contradict the arguments expressed in Said’s “Orientalism?”

-Wa’dud claims that the Quran is the word of Allah and, hence, unchangeable. How can this be reconciled with her theory that the Quran can be interpreted in different ways?

-How is the European struggle to create a colonial identity expressed in the strictly defined role of European women in the colonies?

-How are Western standards of feminism and human rights reflected, if at all, in Wa’dud’s chapters?

Quotes

“Sex in the colonies was about sexual access and reproduction, class distinctions and racial demarcations, nationalism and European identity—in different measure and not at all at the same time” (Stoler 31).

“When a person seeks to place him or herself above another, it either means the divine presence is removed or ignored, or that the person who imagines his or herself above others suffers from the egoism of shirk” (Wa’dud 32).

Hey guys,

To kick off our blog, I am posting two videos below that I wanted to show on Wednesday, but you all know how that went. Because we are a bit short on time, and there is another video I want to show on Monday, I figured I can just ask you to watch them before class. The first one is called "The Planet of Arabs" –a montage of a number of movie scenes that shows you what the Orient as an archive looks like in popular culture. The second one, in case you find these dated, is from Sex and the City II. You might say but no one takes that movie seriously, think that it made close to 300 million dollars world-wide.