å Monday, May 1st, 2017

Toni Mitchell

Assignment: Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?

In the article Abu-Lughod She explores how the paradigm of saving Muslim women has gained momentum particularly in the aftermath of 9/11. She skillfully deconstruct the symbolic significance of a range of high profile ‘moral crusades’ involving Muslim women which have captured the global imagination. Abu-Lughod highlights how the most basic conditions of these women’s lives are set by political forces that are often national or even international in origin even if they are local in effect. What are often seen as ‘traditions’, therefore, are in fact responses to war and uncertainty, economic and political upheaval and instability. For example, in debates about Afghanistan, there is an overemphasis on cultural practices and little discussion about the effects of the injustices of war and militarization. Against this wider geopolitical background, she argues that concepts such as ‘oppression’, ‘choice’ and ‘freedom’ are blunt instruments for capturing the dynamics and quality of Muslim women’s lives in these places.

In the article, Abu-Lughod characterizes the Western framing of women’s rights in Muslim populations as highly contextual. Bibi Aysha for example is an Afghan woman whose Taliban husband and in-laws punished her by cutting off her nose. she the co-optation and manipulation of women’s rights in the politics and justification of the War on Terror. She used Laura Bush’s radio address in November of 2001 constituted a cry to action for the sake of Afghan women, a galvanizing of anti-terror forces in order to “save” the female population of Afghanistan. According to Abu-Lughod, this mobilization of support for the War on Terror through the framing of the conflict in terms of top-layer feminism is a classic example of Western co-optation of women’s rights as a means of bolstering support for the war. Sadly,reports focusing on global gender discrimination consistently ignore the rampant rape culture, unpunished domestic violence, and workplace gender discrimination that regularly takes place in Western countries such as our own.

“We do not stand outside the world, looking out over this sea of poor benighted people, living under the shadow – or veil- of oppressive cultures; we are part of the world. Islamic movements themselves have arisen in a world shaped by the intense engagements o the Western powers in the Middle Eastern lives” (p.789). Lila Abu-Lughod examines the religious practices of Muslim women in Afghanistan, and the western beliefs that’s Muslim women are controlled by the Taliban (Muslim men). Lila Abu-Lughod talks about the US involvement in Afghanistan targeting the aftermath of 9/11, she talks about Laura Bush’s speech on Muslim women and how the US saved women from the unjust practices of the Taliban. Bush claims that the US interference in Afghanistan helped women and allowed them to “properly’ part take in the community, “white men saving brown women from brown men” (p.384).

Lila Abu-Lughod also highlights that the Taliban did not invent the burqa, “It was the local form of covering that The Pashtun women in one region wore when they went out. The Pashtun are one of the several ethnic groups in Afghanistan and the burqa was one of the many forms of covering in the subcontinent and Southwest Asia” (785). Why doesn’t Americans worry about other religions that use cover ups for women, such as Jewish women and men, I live in area in Brooklyn were there are lots of Hasidic Jews and like in the article I’m sure they don’t ‘enjoy’ wearing long sleeves and pants during a heat wave but they do because it is part of their religion. Lila Abu-Lughod also argues that women were being forced to wear burqa’s, but even after Afghanistan was liberated from the control of the Taliban women continued to cover up. Its interesting and questionable why America is obsessed with Muslim practices, particularly Muslim women. It also seems that Westerners are forcing and encouraging heterosexual norms upon Muslim countries and while doing so US coins themselves as heroic. The veiling of the Muslim women is in fact a choice and a belief that Muslim women follow; they are not being forced to wear a burqa. Instead of focusing on Muslim women and practices Lila Abu-Lughod suggests how we as a nation can make the world better. How we should stop trying to understand and change cultural practices, and realize that it may cause greater harm then good in doing so.

In Lila Abu-Lughod’s essay “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others” she argues that the “saving” of Muslim women has become the main building block and/or stepping stone for debate and communication of human welfare in Afghanistan. This is a problem because it has made Muslim woman the focus of an on going “messy” political battle. It is my understanding that she feels as though American people have decided to take the historical Muslim culture of women and try to change it based on their beliefs and they have done so without taking into consideration the differences of all women around the world. Lila Abu-Lughod also references to Transnational Feminism, which we have touched on before in previous readings. In her essay she makes a point that feminist and activist didn’t take much notice of the “women of cover” also known as Afghanistan women  until after the events of September eleventh two thousand and one. During a radio show Lila Abu-Lughod noticed that all the questions being presented were trying to pin point some underlying issue or cause of both the horiffic and tragic  events of September eleventh two thousand one. However. all the questions were not just speaking to Afghanistan women but to there religion of Islam and/ or Islam. Lila Abu-Lughod was trying to understand as well as make us aware of the fact that the United States of America had been trying to understand the maltreatment of Muslim and Islamic women and its connection with nine eleven, instead of focusing on why and/ or what caused Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden to plan and execute a terrorist attack on the United States of America. During this time the United Stated or America and the late first lady, Laura Bush decided to intervene and try to “save” the Muslim and Islamic women. Stating that Afghanistan “women were rejoicing at their liberation by the Americans”, but was this truly the case or just a fallacy created but the United States of America. Lila Abu-Lughod brings up a very controversial issue of the Burqa and the covering up of Afghanistan women. She speaks on the “veiling” of these women and what the United States of America fails to recognize. They fail to recognize that covering up or the “veiling” of Afghanistan is a choice made by these women not a “maltreatment” forced upon them by Afghanistan men. The Afghanistan women are clearly misunderstood not in the need of saving.

As Lughod begins pointing out quite early in her piece, the entire approach towards Muslim women, particularly in Afghanistan post-9/11 wasn’t coming from an appropriate place. Mainstream US media doesn’t often stop to examine the women of a group (be it cultural, religious, geographic etcetera) unless the examination is fueled by some ethnocentric bias, or the examination is being put into media spaces by the government to help better serve their point. A misunderstanding of Islam was all that could be hoped for by shallow reporting on the way Muslim women live, of course by the light of US standards Muslim women seemed to be oppressed. Lughod points out that religious and cultural differences were being scapegoated as causes of terrorism, while mainstream US media ignored long-simmering political issues. Regardless of if a true study of Islam does or doesn’t bring up women’s rights issues, the Western narrative was create a narrative of oppressed Muslim women to justify a war in a Muslim region. Lughod points to the language used in Laura Bush’s speech that worked to not only divide the East and the West but to blur lines along issues women in Afghanistan were facing, again ignoring historical issues by pretending that malnutrition was an issue that had begun with terrorism (pg. 784). Laura Bush was trying to equate women’s rights with the war on terrorism, while her husband wasn’t equating women’s right’s with human rights, as we do in our class. Western history is full of stories of white men in power using women’s issues (real or constructed) to justify their own actions, actions that are usually damaging and undertaken with some other true purpose.

One of the major issues with Western constructions of Muslim female identities, and the meaning of veils and burqa’s is that it’s commonly assumed that burqa’s are something the Taliban imposed to oppress women, when actually it is a part of their religion. If wearing a veil was something we had grown up with within our culture we wouldn’t think twice about it. In debates about burqa’s and the uncomfortable heat I always think of the Hassidic Jewish men I see in Brooklyn – I sincerely doubt they enjoy being in full pants, long sleeved shirts, coats and hats in the middle of the New York summer, but no one calls their dress a sign of oppression. I really loved Lughod’s conclusion about forgetting all this vocational saving and veil debating and focusing on working against true and global injustice.

In the beginning of their article, Lughad in a way challenged the presenter from PBS and asked if he or she could substitute the muslim word with Christian or Jewish word and then asked of that made sense to the presenter. After further perusing the project, she asked “Why were the female symbols being mobilized in this war against terrorism in a way they are bot in other conflicts?” In my opinion they are in need of protection, education and many other things. “Although i am not an expert on Afghanistan, I imagine that the majority of women left in Afghanistan by the time the Taliban took control were the rural or less educated, from non elite families, since they were the only ones who could not emigrate to escape the hardships and voilance that has marked Afghanistan’s recent history.” In her article, she tells the reader about how Afghan women are treated. “The Burke, like some other forms of “cover” has, in many settings, marked the symbolic separation of men and women spheres as part of the general association of women with family and home, not with public space where strangers mingled.” In one part of the article, an Afghan woman wanted to wear dress fancy , but the Afghan man told her that she knows that shes not allowed to to wear pants to to a WASP wedding. Later in the article she says that women who had an education and women who “stood up to the Taliban” were women who refused to wear the burka. However, the lady that the article was about said that when she had greying hair, she was covered in a veil and that she didnt question the Chandon or the scarf. So what i think, this means is that the burka was optional for people who had opportunity had an option to wear the bucks but those who didn’t jive an education or opportunity wore it because they lacked the education. Another way to tell if a woman had an education is if they adhered to the modest dress that any educated Muslim women had taken on. This marks piety and it is a sign of sophistication, modernity, and education. Wom,en adopted it as a way of having virtue in hopes of getting close or closer to God.

In the article “Do Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and its Others”, by Lila Abu-Lughod, the author talks about anthropology and tries to explain the reasons why America intervened in Afghanistan with the intention of saving women. She also focuses primarily on cultural differences between women in the world and her goal is to develop an appreciation of it because it has a meaning and is the product of a history that has been changing over the time. The author advocates for an exploration of the roots and nature of Afghan women, their culture rather than a political and historic view.  She studies what is the significance of Afghan women wearing a veil, it is because they are forced to wear it as a sign of oppression, or it has a deep personal meaning. First,  It was believed that Afghan women living under the Taliban and the terrorist rule were forced to wear a burqa, however, now they are no longer under the Taliban rule and continue wearing burqas. Lila Abu-Lughod explains that Southwest Asia has developed the thought that covering up with a burqa symbolizes modesty and respectability. She cites the anthropologist Hanna Papanek who described the burqa as “portable seclusion” because it allows women to move out of segregated spaces as well as separating them from unknown men. It also maintains women’s sanctity according to the ideas of the author.

“People wear the appropriate form of dress for their social communities and are guided by socially shared standards, religious beliefs, and moral ideas” (Abu-Lughod, 785), unlike Afghan women who choose to wear the covering style because it signifies respectable class and it was imposed by the Taliban as religiously appropriate. Even if they are liberated from the Taliban and the imposition of wearing burqas, not only afghan women but also Hindu women, women from Malaysia, Pakistan or muslims women would still find a modest clothing to wear because good respectable women from strong families wear burqas and in addition, wearing a burqa is thought to mean bodily virtue that takes women closer to God (786).

The author points out clearly that she do not support the oppression of women. She advocates for the human rights and especially women’s rights of afghan women that for her should be universal human rights such as the right to freedom from violence of global inequality and war. However, even when afghan women are liberated from oppression, people should respect and appreciate their differences, not always what we want is the best, a sense of respect for their culture the author draws attention to.

Lila Abu-Lughod examines the justifications for the “War on Terrorism” launched by the US post-9/11 in her compelling and well-argued piece, “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and its Others.” She begins by refuting the notion that the US military bombing of Afghanistan had anything to do with bringing liberation to women supposedly oppressed by their culture – despite the overwhelming narrative led by Western women in powerful positions proclaiming feminist motivations for the devastating attack on one of the world’s poorest countries. Indeed, Abu-Lughod makes a strong case that the discussion about “culture” actually works to mask a real discussion about the political objectives and the long history of US support for some of the most egregious and brutal regimes throughout the region.

Abu-Lughod also shows that this western obsession with Muslim women, in particular, isn’t new and has served in the past as justification for earlier western intervention in the region, as was the case with England into Egypt. The rhetoric of saving women and the championing of women’s rights is old hat for the west when those in power seek colonial domination. The point is to portray Muslim women as one-dimensional, sad figures who need someone else – someone who knows what they want and need better than they do – to save them from the men who oppress them who supposedly force them into wearing veils. The hope is that people don’t ask how exactly bombing their country can help women achieve any kind of liberation. And that people will accept the caricatures of the liberated western woman vs. the enslaved eastern woman.

A long-standing myth that Abu-Lughod’s critique helps to destroy is the notion that wearing a veil is the reflection of some form of oppression. Aside from going through the myriad reasons that different women wear different kinds of veils – history, social class, region, religious affiliations – she also reminds western readers that there are all kinds of cultural norms when it comes to how people dress in different parts of the west that nobody would ever think to question. Why then is there a different standard for Muslim women?

Abu-Lughod’s piece underscores the importance of questioning the motivations of the US (and other governments) when “culture” is used as an explanation for military intervention. Rather, we should look at the historical relationship of our own government in the region and understand that all people have the capacity for self-determination. That is, “we” do not know what is “best” for everyone else, and we certainly cannot dictate the way that people in different countries with different histories should express their own freedom.

The United States feminist organization discourse on humanitarian and human rights in Taliban clearly secured women’s safety. At the same time, the U.S. encompassed an oil deal with the Taliban. Obviously, the political relations between the two countries unveiled a significant emergence toward obtaining power. Both the U.S and the Taliban complicity concealed a relationship. This brings to my mind, suspicion. The development of a major capitalist project. The two countries were arranging a relationship that would have had a long history of interaction. An oil pipeline in Taliban. The shock to the conscience is in one setting the U.S. is approaching the Taliban with a negotiated deal yet on another setting the U.S. is systematically struggling for human rights and dignity for woman. What hypocrisy! The feminist organizations continuously advocated to protect the women. They fought vehemently for human rights for women. They persistently advocated for women’s freedom. This support for women occurred in multiple fashions. In accordance to Lila Abu-Lughod in Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? “She stated, [although we struggled for women to thrive and live decently] we must accept the possibility of difference…Taliban women might want different things than what we might want for them”. In other words, the U.S cannot always expect to shape the ideas of oppressed women. We cannot totally disrupt a culture and moral principle because the Western organizations considered themselves rescuers. America cannot ideally reshape Taliban women’s identity in exchange for a women’s freedom. The U.S closely linked Taliban women’s independence to stripping away the Burgas. They portrayed the unveiling of women as symbolic to autonomy. They described the Taliban culture as an alien culture.  The U.S deemed themselves as the savior for Taliban women. Their discourse was extremely bias. Now I do not critique the feminist campaigns that was truly instrumental in bringing awareness to the suffering of Taliban women. Although some organizations successfully empowered many Taliban women they were unsuccessful in transforming all women through their intellectual dialogue.  I find it questionable any women would have separated from their culture and moral principles. The deep-rooted interrelationship among Taliban women, men, family and religion not to mention culture and moral principle was interlaced. The U.S. attitude and behavior echoed a broader message. The created a reshaping in 11the women’s values. For instance, to remove the Burgas from Taliban women was symbolic in removing any memory of their past. Also, the Burgas represented importance in a women’s life. The disruption in the Taliban’s cultural and moral principle was troublesome. So, America’s intrusion in Taliban life quickly proved an inception of colonization which was not what Taliban women desired.

Reading Lila Abu-Lughod’s essay, “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others”, I was immediately reminded of both Grewel and Brown’s work that we’ve previously studied in class. Grewel because she speaks to feminists of the developed world looking at those in developing countries in need of saving (effectively pushing the notion of victimhood on the women) and Brown as she outlines how humanitarian issues can be used to further imperialist (and capitalist) agendas.

Abu-Lughod notes that by focusing on cultural differences, particularly as it relates to women (like the veil), allows us to avoid discussions on the political and historical reasons that may have led to extremism and terrorism. It also works to further a concept of ‘otherness’, rather than allowing us to find a common thread that unites us as human beings.

Abu-Lughod focuses on a speech made by Laura Bush while she was first lady, and while the Bush administration was invading Afghanistan in response to the September 11^th attacks. Bush’s speech worked to further the cultural divide mentioned above, focusing on nail polish and clothing (although to be fair, also employment and education) rather than extreme poverty and malnutrition. Abu-Lughod notes that Bush’s speech was reminiscent of colonial excuses for imposing rule, with colonial powers using cultural differences that were deemed barbaric (and in some cases may well have been…however the solution was not rule by a foreign power) as excuse for rule, to save the women from the men in the countries being colonized. Specifically referring to the calls to liberate Egyptian women from the veil, Abu-Lughod noted that the calls for liberating women had nothing to do with their political access, only their clothing (never mind that women’s access in the UK was also limited). It is important to note that Bush also conflated the ‘war on terrorism’ as a fight for human rights, women’s rights in particular. Abu-Lughod refers to the above as ‘colonial feminism’.

Also noteworthy is that while the veil is a symbol of repression in western states, that is not necessarily the case. As Abu-Lughod notes, members of a community dress in a way to adhere to the standards and morals within that community, using Hasid woman and even proper wedding attire as examples. Furthermore, veiling should not be confused with a lack of agency. We must not equate the wearing of a veil as suppression as many women freely chose to wear a form of the veil in an effort to honor their religion and their community morals. The definition of freedom should include the option of wearing a veil without being looked at as oppressed (one of the many reasons that France’s ban of the veil is problematic). We must not also reduce Muslim women, or any women for that matter, to their clothing.

Abu-Lughod is careful to say that the above does not mean she supports oppressive regimes like the Taliban. However, she is stressing that we cannot confuse true feminist human rights work with the ‘colonial feminism’ of administrations the George W Bush’s.