5 Assignment 10

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.

I really enjoyed this reading, she brings up so many relevant points that I myself had had the same sentiments on. The US as usual is always purposely or unknowingly creating their own interpretation of things that are going on in other countries that may or may not be true or that are probably half truths. I like how for the most part on the issues of the veiling as well as the topic on  the vocation of saving others she plays a little bit of devils advocate. When talking about the vocation of saving others she immediately has question about the real motives of the US main reason for the war on terror. She says yes this is a country that is suppressive and the women in this country do need our help but could the main reason of invasion be simply for women who where burquas. She then talks about how its amazing how the US is always basically the one who always goes to save the worst countries but never talk about what their role is or was ” In other words, the question is why knowing about the “culture” of the region, and particularly its religious beliefs and treatment of women, was more urgent than exploring the history of the development of repressive regimes in the region and the U.S. role in this history,” and its like this time and time again. When talking about the Veiling culture she talks about how this was meant to be or is looked at how the men and women are in different spheres which has show up an other works but she tells of how the woman being made to be veiled in public is a symbol of the private sphere which includes home and family the man is in the public sphere and the two for the most part are always separate. This covering sent a message to men who were strangers that she is not to be touched because she belongs to a family. It was a form of protection in that sense as well as a way for the woman to be incorporated in the public sphere. Once the woman wore the veiling she was able to move about freely  and conduct the business of the family. Without this she would have to stay home never being free from her house. She raises the question why would the US think that the women in this region would be so quick to throw off a garment that gave them protection and mobility.

In the essay of “Do Muslim Women Really Need saving? ” by Lila Abu-Lughod, she points out many factors of the ideas and focuses of what the westerns views and obsesses when it comes to helping Muslim women, she first points out that why do we now have concerns after the events and aftermath of September 11, 2001. Abu-Lughod suggest that one should be skeptical about the focus on the “muslim women” if it begins with the U.S public response. Abu-Lughod is concerned with the views of reporters or modern western feminist, that show they are more focused on the basic issue on women from Afghanistan, the terrible encounters with the Taliban’s or why was they understanding of “culture” of the region and its religious belief and treatment of women was more important than exploring the history of the development of oppression regimes/government in the region and the U.S role in the history of muslim women. Abu-Lughod also points out ‘haunting’ words from the First Lady Laura Bush’s radio would state that towards the issue on the “War on Terrorism”  that “Because of our recent military gains in much of Afghanistan, women are no longer imprisoned to their homes. They can listen to music and teach their daughter without fear of punishment. The fight against terrorism is also a fight for their rights and dignity of women” (U.S Government 2002) (2002:784). Abu-Lughod would point out on the politics of the view that since Laura’s Bush would freely say that Afghanistan woman claim their rejoice of liberation, that it was known that the burqa was a sign of oppression on Afghan under the Taliban the women were forced to ear them. But liberals would confess that even after Afghanistan women were liberated from the Taliban, they still wore their burqa, In reality Pashtun one of the several ethnic group in Afghanistan was where the women would wear them when they were outside. The burqa symbolized separation of men and women sphere from the public, an association of women with the family and home wore when outside-where strangers mingled. The burqa would symbolized women who were modest but Aba-Lughod would question why would women become ‘immodest’ if they suddenly did not where their burqa or any form of cover up, which supposedly assured them protection of harassment. Another critique and one of the most important thing is that especially since it has little focus to is that she believes that Afghanistan women should have the right to freedom from violence, global inequality from the ravages of war, enough food to eat, having homes, for their families, make a decent living, education, medicine and so on.

In the essay, the author, Lila Abu-Lughod discusses various factors, which are connected to her argument and supports her claims. The first aspect that caught my attention was why culture and more specifically religious beliefs and women treatment, was more vital than exploring the history of the development of repressive regimes in the region and the U.S role. The history and how politics used to work didn’t seem important and expects were asked to give a full research on the religion and culture. Abu-Lughod prefers questions that leads the researchers to the exploration of global interconnections to have a better understanding why certain things works differently. The U.S is more focus on the cultural and religious beliefs of Afghan women and they are using the Burqa and vail as a reference. The Burqa and veil are symbols of oppression because Muslim women are forced to wear them sometimes it can turn into unjust treatment by man and full control over women. Abu-Loghod states, that the Taliban did not invent the burqa, they came from different places and in a way, were connected for the same purpose. The Taliban was used in one region by the Pashtun women for a form of local covering. And the burqa was another way to cover in the subcontinent and southwest. With time passing the burqa started to symbolize women’s modesty and respectability. A woman without the burqa was disrespectful and immodest (even if she wasn’t the burqa has more meaning than the person itself). In my opinion, all different types of covering form of faces and bodies created a separation spheres between women’s and men’s spheres. In other words, because of this rules that women need to follow on their everyday lives and if they don’t they are seems as someone bad influence for society, man have more opportunity to always be in charge and not be judge. All types of covering are also to prevent harassment from strange man, but I believe wearing full cover doesn’t prevent a man from committing sexual harassment. My question is, does wearing the burqa or other types of covering helps to stop harassment from estrange man. The covering form for women has different meanings depending on the region. I think the burqa and vail are important topics. However, they are more important topics to talk about referring to Muslim’s women and they are not being address. The call to saving women does not focus on women rights, human rights, or women safety of Muslim women. From my understanding, Abu-Lughod at the end of the article is basically saying to put aside the way muslim women dress and look at the things they need. There is a huge lack of women protection, little opportunity of women getting educated, and malnutrition. She states, when saying someone, you are implying that you are saying them to something.

In her article “Do muslim women really need saving?” Lila Abu-lughod explores the ethics of the war on terrorism and argues that humanitarian and human rights structures Muslim women. The U.S concentrates on cultural and religious beliefs of Afghan women wearing veils which is a sign of oppression. But they have been freed from Taliban but still chooses to wear the veil. They do not seem to be taking it off. The veil symbolizes separation of men’s and women’s spheres. These women aren’t not being forced to wear these veils. So what do they really need saving from? They can choose not to wear them but hey do instead. They wear these veils knowing what they mean and stand for. Since they are making the choice to wear them then they must accept everything that come along with wearing them. I understand that most of these women wear these because of religious reasons but I feel that they should let something like a veil define their religion.

The author Lila Abu-Lughod, in her essay “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others”, she brings the reader to ponder upon how one’s own culture has an impact of misinterpretation that could mislead the judgement of perception of understanding another style of living from another origin of the world. That the western lifestyle should not be a fixated form of solution, especially advertised as a form of salvation to those who have their own personal beliefs and activities based on the personal own culture.

The fact of the matter is that countries that offer the militaristic armament do not necessarily provoke a change to coincide to the feelings of those who are rescued. That it should not be of any kind of astonishment to the “rescuers” to live under their own cultural relativism that of which identifies them of the ownership of their past history and customs, whether religiously or by traditions.

For instance, one of the misconceptions of misinterpreting the veil is that for certain ethnic groups, depending on the region, its veil represents a level of respectability and at the same time portrays women in conducting themselves as humble of the simple life (Abu-Lughod 785). I think that it is clear before anything, the history of foreign cultures, that of which are in part unknown fully to us, have a major role of how “superpower” countries want or think that their culture is the right way of living life, and that one must desert the old customs of which were implanted from the beginning. Leaving to think, back to the question that resonates during the last class session of whether there should be emancipation of religion for the greater cause of political reform? Needless to say, it is definitely not something that women who have usage of the veil will leave from one day to the other.

Interestingly enough, the veil for the western eyes or culture would seem to be viewed as a base for oppression as supposed to when those who have lived under the veil identify to it as what the author calls it a “mobile home”. By viewing the other point of view of the carrier that must place the veil, we can consider that by she may feel safe, privatized under the veil and not letting men, to some degree, pass beyond the veil in any shape or form because it is hers to own. Perhaps it is something that she may feel honored in doing, or just, it is part of her identity to the culture of which she lives in. Not far from it, the author relates of how our manners, dress codes, and other attributes of culture diversity can encounter to disagree, often causing tension that displays each distinctive cultural habit. If such misinterpretations of language and manner on the table can happen, one can only come to the conclusion that for nations, it is the same when they meet.

In the essay “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?” by Lila Abu-Lughod she mentions that one of her principal points is to make us as reader aware of all the differences in the world. When she talks about differences she is telling us about religion, cultures, and behavior.  Lila Abu-Lughod makes as to learn how in different cultures women have to follow rules or traditions in order to be considered “good women”.  Lila Abu-Lughod mentions how Laura Bush in one of her speeches mentioned that American help Afghan women get their liberation. She stated “Because of our recent military gains in much of Afghanistan, women are no longer imprisoned in their homes. They can listen to music and teach their daughters without fear of punishment”(Pg. 784).
The essay also talks about how Afghan women under the Taliban were forced to wear a burqa as a sign of oppression. The burqa was also seen as a demonstration of deep faith to the Islam maybe this is the reason why even now they still wear a burqa even though they don’t need to do it. But as the essay mentions some women still do this as a sign modesty or respectability. If they do not use the burqa doesn’t mean they have freedom. On the contrary, they are still prisoners of a government or a society that believes to be superior, to dictate how they should dress. At least wearing the burqa makes them feel part of their community.
When she talks about women wearing a veil she mentions how some people confuse this type of clothing as a unfreedom, on the contrary women wearing this veils, are free to decide for whom they feel it is appropriate to wear a veil. As the essay mentions wearing a veil or a burqa is a choice that women can make or decide to, sometimes they do it because of the commitment to honor their family or religion.
The Islam has presented itself as a religion that oppresses women. One of the justifications for US intervention. In Afghanistan was to defend the rights of Muslim women, who were oppressed by the Islamic faith. This intention to “save” Muslim women had nothing to do with human rights or defend women to be better treated. As Lila Abu- Lughod mentions in the last part of their essay we a society should focus in treat Afghan women as a human being and not look in their ways of dressing or follow traditions “ Our task is to critically explore what we might do to help create the world in which those poor Afghan women, can have safety and decent lives”(pg 790).

Lila Abu-Lughod is discussing how the ideas of human rights and humanitarian efforts are in essence being forced on women of other cultures particularly those from Muslim countries. She is explaining how there is no real respect or understanding of differences among cultures and histories  and that Muslim women are not realized as individual persons with different notions of freedom and justice.

Abu-Lughod is trying to understand why the US is focused so much on  cultural and religious beliefs of certain cultures but particularly the religious and cultural beliefs of Afghan women and using the Burqa or veil as a symbol of oppression as well as a tool to justify military interventions by the US in certain regions of the world. She argues that the western views of human rights does not address the injustices faced by women in Muslim countries( education, poverty and health concerns) including the affects of war but instead are a site of cultural generalization where region, community membership and class are not taken into consideration. Wearing a veil, burqa or hijab signifies community membership modesty and respectability.  She makes an interesting point regarding the Jewish community and how women wear wigs which is a  part of their “religious belief and community standards of propriety require the covering of the hair” (Abu-Lughod, 2002, p. 785).  The wearing of burqas also signifies the difference between the public and the private realm in Muslim countries. These distinctions are a part of their culture and are a  mark of modesty. Overall I think the veils have more to do with identity and inclusion in one’s own community as opposed to oppression or lack of agency.

The call to saving others has very little to do with human rights or justice or safety for the women in Muslim countries it has more to do with the US and other powerful countries imposing its values,  beliefs and morals on other nations. The western view of liberation does not necessarily align with the views of women in Muslim countries, “they may want different things than we would want for them” (Abu-Lughod, 2002, p. 787). Again the vocations of saving others implies that the “other” ,Muslim women, need to be rescued. But it is really the West trying to gain control of many Arab countries based on “oil interests, the arms industry, and the international drug trade” (Abu-Lughod, 2002, p. 789).

Muslim countries have long resisted attempts by the west to impose their ideas of how to live and dress starting with the 19th century Christian missionaries. The west wants to impose its way of life on these countries especially its religious beliefs. Culture is closely tied to religion in Muslim countries and they hold on  to the practices and rituals that are a central part of their culture and way of life.

The use of negative associations between terrorists , the Taliban and the injustices women face in South Asia by the west  work to divide nations and cultures by implying that Afghanistan is an uncivilized country and the women are “victims” of the Taliban. But at the same time the west omits its role in the injustices that impact the lives of women from Muslim countries.

Women in Muslim countries are not forced to wear veils or burqas they wear what is considered appropriate based on where in the region they live, their status (professional, poor or working class, marital status, etc) and to  community standards.

References

Abu-Lughod, L. (2002, September). Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others. American Anthropologist, 104(3), 783-790.

In her essay “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?” Abu-Lughod uses various past and present examples of colonialism to explain how there’s an “Western obsession” with Muslim women. Laura Bush’s address to the public following the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001 prompted Abu-Lughod to pose the question: why was there a consistent resort to knowing the cultural meaning, specifically the women and Islam, or knowing the meaning a religious ritual in order to understand the attacks on the World Trade Center? In her essay she uses an example from the French colonization of Algeria where there was a demonstration gathering held where the French women would ceremoniously unveil the women of Algeria in front of a crowd. The was done to show that Algeria was in agreement with the French. Abu-Lughod’s point is, why is the unveiling of Muslim women an hot topic for the West? The Taliban does force women to wear the burqa in Afghanistan but the issues for women in that region are deeper than the veil. She emphasizes that the Taliban did not invent the burqa and it is not a symbol for women’s oppression. I like that Abu-Lughod explained the veil by calling it a “mobile home” (2002:785). The veil symbolizes the separations of men’s and women’s spheres and associated women with family and home, not where strangers lie. Each form of veiling symbolizes participating in a different community and moral life in which family and home is held to the highest standard.

Abu-Lughod tells us to forego all “veils and vocations of saving others” (2002:789) and urges us to have a more productive approach to humanitarian efforts. Instead of focusing on the minuscule details of the lives of Muslim women, specifically the forced wearing of the burqa, to focus on the bigger picture at hand: creating a more just place for the entire world. Muslim women suffer from malnutrition, poverty and lack of opportunity to gain an education, but this is not solely a “third world” problem. These sorts of oppressive conditions can be found in most areas of he world. We should focus more on our input to the conditions of the world and our attitudes towards them. Abu-Lughod stresses that when you claim you are saving someone you are implying that you are saving them from something while simultaneously saving them to something, so we should respect each others differences when including oneself in humanitarian efforts.