Week 6

One central theme throughout all three readings was the limits of “freedom” and the resistance of women to conform to hegemonic options. Cainker shows how wearing the hijab is actually an authentic expression of freedom and patriotism. She explains, “Some women stopped wearing hijab temporarily after 9/11; many were pressed by their husbands to do so, at least until the situation settled down” (p. 253) Not only does this show how women actually resisted their husbands pressures to stop wearing the hijab by continuing to do so, but how their religious loyalty and virtues were not suppressed by outside pressures. In thinking about Mahmood’s piece, this is the exact form of resistance that Mahmood is speaking of. Mahmood explains that “action does not issue forth from natural feelings but creates them” so while we, by now, understand the sense of modesty the woman is obtaining through the hijab, the connection to Caniker’s piece, tells us that the woman is also creating an outward display of her “American freedom” by rightfully displaying her freedom of dress/clothing.

On the other hand, Cainker also shows how a certain practice may unveil the parameters or limits of “freedom”. She dissects the meaning of the American flag as traditionally representing freedom and yet at the same time, many Muslims felt pressured into using the flag to assert their patriotism and national belonging. The American flag is no longer a sign of freedom but the most useful tool to indicate national belonging. This highlights the various degrees or levels of citizenship that occur in the United States and when one conforms to the certain hegemonic options, he/she ultimately increases his/her “belonging” or “citizenship” to the United States. Especially when the nation is in a crisis, nativism and the display of American patriotism is not an option for immigrants, it’s a necessity.

Shakhsari shows how the act of blogging is considered a practice of the "freedom of speech" but in truth, this act can further confides the blogger and may cause more restrictions and confinement than the blogger initally had. Shakhsari explains that foreign information is strategically manipulated and censored by Western “authorities” then circulated through the web via blog posting. While blogging is seen as a freedom of speech, only certain voices are actually voiced on the web and the identity of the voiced are manipulated, causing them to appear disloyal to their home country , in the case of Hooshang. In thinking about national “belonging”, the “freedom of speech” that blogger’s like Hooshang engage in, ultimately leds to their lack of freedom because not only are chastised as outsiders in the West, but also as having betrayed their home country. They ultimately have no belonging. Therefore, there is a price to blogging. The blogger, ultimately, sells his/her soul to Western ideals.

Also, it was interesting how Cainker shows that historically throughout the United States religions have been juxtaposed with liberalism. She explains “Catholics were portrayed as irrational, emotional and uncontrollable, at the same time as they were said to be controlled by a love of authoritianism and the pope”(p. 238). I thought this was an extremely affective explanation because the West is often considered a Catholic nation and while Mahmood explains that the separation of the church and state resulted in liberalism, it’s hard to think of hate crimes as something other than tensions between different views, especially religions views. Ignorant people often mark hate crimes as one religion fighting with another, often as labeling Christian extremists as the perpetuators. But Mahmood explains that even Catholics were targeted as “irrational” and “uncontrollable” and that this is a repeated history that is not only about religion. Its about the state of mind, liberalism, and its objection to religious loyalty and outward displays of religious practice.