This is where I was this weekend with Erin, Abbie and Allison. All in all, another weekend of like 14 hours of driving, but it was so much better this time. I was impressed by how so much crowded small space time resulted in so few irritated outbursts. In fact the grand total was NONE. We got along just great. We laughed a LOT, hung out in the hot tub, drank wine, ate cookies, and listened to a few presentations on "Feminism, Sexuality and the Return of Religion".
I actually was NOT impressed with most of the conference. It was further proof that I do not want to become an academic. I love the idea of teaching, but I hate conversations that hover in the realm of the abstract about issues that are actually real-ly important! My favorite presenter was Saba Mahmood , Anthropology professor at UC Berkeley (such a wonderful school where maybe Erin wants to go for PhD) and author of The Politics of Piety, an exploration of Islamist cultural politics interpreted through the women's piety movement in Egypt. The book is unique because most specialized books, particularly about this subject by academics go largely unnoticed, but this one is a bestseller!
She made the very insightful and prophetic connection between feminists' denunciation of women's subugation under Islam and the potmodern colonial project of America in the Middle East. What distinghuishes our imperialism in that region in recent years is a religious dimension, not just political. What was so unique was how she brought in the commodifying and co-opting of Muslim women's stories by neo-conservative organizations. She critiqued popular autobiographies such as Reading Lolita in Tehran with clear denunciations of Islamic socieities and heralding of Christian, American, democratic "freedom". This book overlooks the fact that the literacy rate in Iran went UP over 40% under Islamic rule. More women were elected to their Parliament than to our U.S. Congress! And is it a coincidence that this book hit the charts at the same time as Iran was deemed to be a cornerstone in the "axis of evil"? The luury car Audi even promoted this book, so now American consumer culture not only sells products and lifestyles but also political consciousness.
Another example of this that I noticed just this week was that Starbucks is endorsing what looks like a really intriguing book about child soldiers. I kinda want to read it. But it disturbs me SO much that a hugely powerful corporation is sponsoring it. And REd project for AIDS hires dozens of celebrities. And Leo Decaprio has to be the one to open our eyes to "blood diamonds" in Sierra Leone. And all of them need a MYSpace page. I just wonder if we can disseminate important messages and teach people how to think critically about the world's problems without getting co-opted in this manner? Because when this happens, who has the control? Who gets to lead the message and choose the words? Seems like a slippery slope.
Anyway, this was not the point of Mahmood's lecture. The main point was not even that all stereotypes against Muslim violence or misogyny are incorrect. Just that our picture is incomplete. And when it comes to the "other" (which, let's face it, Muslims have become as threatening as black people once used to be to whites all over America), we are quick to to chalk up problems to the culture (i.e.: "Islam is a violent religion"), but then chalk up the same problems in America to individual choice or deviance. For example, Mahmood used the powerful statistic about "honor killings" where a boyfriend or husband kills his wife for adultery and the number in Pakistan, where it is supposedly the worst is 1000 per year. Yet here in the U.S. 1500 American women are killed by their partner, and we do not label it the same. What is going on there? The representations of stories and cultures are always mediated to us by our own (pop) culture. We do well in our pluralistic society to adopt a posture of not knowing, rather than thinking we know and an attitude of always wanting to learn more and never being satisfied with our reductionistic assumptions.
So yeah. I learned a lot in a couple short hours. And had a nice time. This is the first thing to genuinely take my mind off Liam for a couple of days in a while. I need to know at times that my mind is still capable of thinking about big important things that have NOTHING to do with that break-up. So thanks to my friends for that good idea.
1 comment:
Just a few thoughts:
How can we possibly compare the "honor killings" in Islamic society to domestic violence in the West? In the West, domestic violence is categorically denounced by the society, and is punished by law. If a man actually kills his wife, he is even subject to the death penalty.
In Islamic countries, honor killings are at best socially and legally "frowned" upon, but legal action is soft in comparison to the Western counterpart because these actions can dodge the full letter of the law by virtue of being "religious." In fact, they really pretty much just answer to the "religious" law anyway. And are we really willing to go so far as to say that Sharia law, as it is derived, is on par with Western law, as it is derived? I sincerely hope not. I hope multiculturalism has not become that absurd. But it’s starting to. Recently in Germany, a secular judge gave a Muslim man accused of beating his wife nearly to death a soft sentence (much softer than a German would have received for a similar crime), stating that the man’s religion and religious law permitted it, and the woman he married should know and accept this, even as she sought the help and protection of the Western law and court. Again, should we be glad that the secular country isn’t imposing itself on religious freedom here?
I’m curious: does this particular academic clearly define choice? A woman "chooses" to take the veil in Egypt; but when the consequences of her not doing so may involve leering and disrespect from males on the street, is that really a real "choice" or merely the best option given the social environment? And what of Iran where women are told it is a choice, of course, but they can be fined or reprimanded on the street for making the wrong "choice"?
It is natural, of course, for multiculturalism and anti-colonialism to link arms this way, but I think it clouds some needed perspective. Indian women "chose" to burn themselves on the funeral pyres of their husbands before the British colonialists saw this and were horrified and made efforts to put a stop to it. Will we say with confidence they were wrong; these imperialists should have left well enough alone? Or can we say that liberalism, even if imposed, creates parameters in which choice begins to have broader meaning for the individual? (Not to say it is perfect, but it is more generous than any cultural framework thus far formed by religion and superstition.)
Also, the major clashes in the Muslim world today are not related to imperialism but to immigration (worldwide we’re not imposing ourselves on them; they’re willingly coming to us). I would be incredibly suspicious of anyone who emphasizes imperialism as the bigger issue at this point in history.
Post a Comment