í Assignments

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.

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.