Week 8 Motasem

In Najmabadi's chapter, she discusses the issue of gendering and heterosexualization of the state. While the gender of the state was of gender ambiguity due to the inability to know to whom did the pronoun refer to, Najmabadi talks about how it was first of a male beloved (homosocial and homoerotic), then of a female beloved and finally of a mother. The concept of a protecting a mother and loving a mother is from Islamic teaching, hence it is quite interesting how Iran became the mother of all. It is also quite interesting how it became a female figure rather male. However, the construction of Iran (the homeLAND) as female draws attention to the position of gender over the course of history. The discourse of man protecting woman is obviously of a patriarchal nature as well as of positioning women in a heteronormative weak and submissive place within society. However, what was striking and I believe essential is how women were reaffirming this rhetoric of Iran as a mother needing protection. The discourse is created by both men and women and is affirmed and accepted by both. Of course, this stems from an idea of nationalism, of Iran as a sacred nation whose honor and land needs protection from foreign forces. The attack on Iran by foreign forces and conquering of lands dishonors the mother (Iran) - a female - and robs her from her sacredness. What's ironic though is women's call for education while comparing themselves to European women who receive education. While they are opposing the West, they are confirming and affirming themselves as being the Other or the Orient (to some degree). I felt that this connection is quite essential, especially in looking at the global connections and perceptions of Others were, in relation to the mother homeland of Iran. What I would like to have read here is how did these discourses come about? Were they only in literature? Was it the state that intervened in creating them?

In Kandiyorti's introduction, I found her making similar arguments to works we have read before and building upon them in terms of the state's intervention in daily life and familial life. I think the argument that connects all these works are the binaries that scholars have been analyzing the Orient with (Orient/West, East/west, and most importantly Islam/Post imperialism). It is obviously very problematic to put Islam as anti imperialist and vice versa. While that might be true in some cases, these ideologies behind each intersect in some way. However, Kandiyorti is more concerned with the discourse among feminists about the perception that Islam is suppressing women, which can be problematic. I think the best section that illustrates her argument is on page 12 where she present different ways of how the State limited the emancipation of women. She says "the same governments which granted women new rights proceeded to simultaneously abolish independent women's organizations where they existed, whilst setting up state-sponsored women's organizations which were generally docile auxiliaries of the ruling state-party" (p 13).