Week 4 -- Mohanty and Abu-Lighod

Chandra Mohanty argues that feminists discourse (at least in the 1980s) creates a generalized "third-world woman" that is basically a victim of circumstances. This an inaccurate representation of reality, she says, and is an extension of colonialism, or Said's orientalism. Similarly, Abu-Lighod argues in "Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?" that western powers create a narrative of saving women from oppression in order to justify what are effectively neo-imperialistic endeavors, and that this can hurt homegrown, often faith-based initiatives to improve the lives of Afghan women.

Abu-Lighod's post-9/11 writings are particularly relevant in light of the dangers of Islamophobia and the framing of policy in the west toward Muslims as a conflict of civilizations, as organizations such as “Stop Islamization of America” and “Stop Islamisation of Europe” tend to. The us-and-them mentality that many westerners have toward Muslims, particularly Muslims in the Middle East, not only is morally wrong but prevents a collaborative ideal that would allow people on both sides of the Atlantic to create a more stable, less violent, more just international system.

Abu-Lighod's other works focus primarily on the cultural constructions that evolved in response to and incorporating western ideals. She argues that feminism in majority Muslim nations in the Middle East is not an imposed by westernization nor homegrown, but instead emerged through the interaction of the west and the various individual societies (including their brands of Islam) of the region. Because it is this interaction that characterizes the establishment of cultural ideas about the role of women and the content of marriage, her theory rejects the relegation to victim status of which Mohanty warns.

Week 4 Sunday's reading

From an activist point of view, I found Mohanty's argument quite intriguing in terms of looking at the "Other" and analyzing the "Other" with the context of that culture. It is within "western feminists" writing and anthropological work that fights for women's rights in the East, that binaries of west and east, and indigenous and modern arrise as a result. Western feminist writing hold a lot of assumption that are not 100% correct or are not correct at all. Moreover, some of their presuppositions could be quite offensive to women such as that "we are all sisters in struggle." Mohanty's argues against this presupposition in that it creates a binary between Western women and Third World women. Such a dichotomy poses Western women as the norm since after all they have the privilege of writing about 3rd world women. Another issue present is the assumption that all Middle Eastern women are the same in their struggle. However, Mohanty argues that these are not struggles once one looks at the cultural context (as an example: Why women wear hijab in the Egypt?). There it is important to link deeply rooted context with observation.

Abu Lughod seems to be on the same page as Mohanty in the idea linking context (especially political and social history) with observation. She also draws upon the binaries that Mohanty describes with detail; "recreating an imaginary geography of West vs East, us vs Muslims, cultures in which First Ladies give speeches versus others where women shuffle around silently in burqas" (p. 784). Her argument or generous supply of examples of the wearing of the veil was quite interesting in terms of the context that the veil is worn. The West's perception of the veil as being oppressive is exactly what Mohanty and Abu Lughod write about in terms of looking at another culture from a western point of view, which creates an ahistorical and apolitical way of looking at Middle Eastern cultures.

Week Four Post

Chandra Mohanty seems to have a problem with blanket statements about women, such as the claim that prostitution is the primary source of work for African women (Mohanty, 67). It is always assumed that the lack of women’s power is in relation to men, which prevents inquiry into what the real problems are, whether they be sex-bound or not (Mohanty, 68). Western biases preclude thinking of veils in any way but as stifling; the context of 1979 Iran is completely missed (Mohanty, 75).

Lughod's article was quite interesting in pointing out not only the ignorance surrounding women’s issues in Afghanistan, but that paeans to the liberation of middle-eastern women were disingenuous and used as justification for war after the fact. “As Laura Bush said, ‘Because of our recent military gains in much of Afghanistan, women are no longer imprisoned in their homes.’” (Lughod, 784). Addressing one of these points of ignorance, the burqa, I found the anecdote about not wearing pants to WASP weddings thought provoking (Lughod, 785). It seems convincing to compare cultural mores in the Middle-East to western ones; any American would be embarrassed to go outside wearing just underwear, even though that’s a choice. I am ignorant of the consequences in a Taliban context, but I only wonder; would the sole consequence of not wearing a burqa be emotional, analogous to just being embarrassed? More convincing is this: “...many saw it as a liberating invention because it enabled women to move out of segregated living spaces while still observing the basic moral requirements of separating and protecting women from unrelated men.” (Lughod, 785).

Rachel's Week 4 Blog Post

The readings for this week reveal the new face of Orientalism. One of the tasks of Orientalism as we described it before was to define "The Orient." This new form of Orientalism defines women based on their victim status. It paints the women of the Middle East as uniformly in need of saving. It does not take into account that experiences vary between countries, cultures, classes and individual women. Instead, the modern Orientalism carried out by some Western feminist writers relies on broad generalizations that represent the third world woman as inferior, oppressed and without voice.

Lila Abu-Lughod describes this generalization. "There was the blurring of the very seperate causes in Afghanistan of women's continuing malnutrition, poverty, and ill health, and their more recent exclusion under the Taliban from employment, schooling, and the joys of wearing nail polish" (Abu-Lughod 784). Here, the practice of some Western feminists to view the experience of third world women as a single experience, sharing the same causes and attributes is described. Chandra Mohanty's writing reveals her view of Western feminist generalizations by her treatment of the word "the." In many sentences, the word "the" is put in quotes or italicized. An example of this is found on page 76 of Mohanty's work: "For example, how is it possible to refer to 'the' sexual division of labour when the context of this division changes radically from one environment to the next, and from one historical juncture to another?" (Mohanty 76). Her treatment of "the" here shows her beliefs on the ridiculousness of thinking there can be "the" anything. The word "the" suggests that there is one singular thing- one singular division of labor, one singular third world woman experience. By challenging use of the word "the" Mohanty brings attention to the presence and failure of generalizations.

Discussion of the veil serves as a telling example of the broad generalizations relied upon by some Western feminist writers. Western feminists seem to view the veil as an object possessing one singular and oppressive function. However, Lila Abu-Lughod says, "Not only are there many forms of covering, which themselves have different meanings in the communities in which they are used, but also veiling itself must not be confused with, or made to stand for, lack of agency" (Abu-Lughod 786). In her discussion of feminism and Islam in Egypt, Abu-Lughod goes on to say, "Adopting the hijab now has an extraordinary number of meanings and complications that need to be distinguished" (Abu-Lughod 250). Chandra Mohanty also describes the Western Feminist tendency to view the veil in only one specific way. The veil is a multifaceted item that has an extensive number of meanings and connotations, yet many Western Feminists treat it as a universal symbol for oppression. Mohanty and Lila Abu-Lughod both conclude by saying that no change can be reached until cultural and historical specificity is recognized.

Week 4

In 'Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses,' Mohanty brings to light an aspect of Orientalism that we haven't yet explored, and that is the relationship between western women and their perceived Other (the Oriental or Eastern woman). Usually, when we think about the misrepresentation of women in the Middle East, we pin the blame on men. But it is true that feminists have been just as much culprits in the representation of 'the third world woman' as "ignorant, poor, uneducated, tradition-bound, religious, domesticated, family-oriented, victimized, etc." (65). It is important to note that "women" are not inherently similar in their struggles, and that ignoring "historical specificity" to a group of women is not conducive to understanding that group (68). This is especially applicable to the Middle East, a region singularly categorized by Western scholarship and political discourse (as noted by Abu-Lughod's discussion of Laura Bush). How can scholars even attempt to lump a diverse and complicated region such as the Middle East into one category? Yes, there are common threads among the nations and peoples of the region, but, as Mohanty notes, it is ludicrous and simply unhelpful to assume "a singular patriarchal kinship system common to all Arab and Muslim societies, i.e. over twenty different countries" (70). 

The deeper we explore Orientalism in our readings, the more apparent the role of discourse in public policy and opinion becomes. Mohanty differentiates between "a discursive self-representation" and "material reality." What is gathered from discourse and what is real and present have become very disjointed. This relates to the Wa'dud "What's in a Name?" reading. Words are more powerful than people sometimes wish to believe, and they have truly shaped relations between the "western world" and its "other." It is important to erase the concept of "otherness" in our increasingly interconnected world. My favorite quote from this week's readings sums this concept up beautifully. From "Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?":

"The reason respect for differences should not be confused with cultural relativism is that is does not preclude asking how we, living in this privileged and powerful part of the world, might examine our own responsibilities for the situations in which others in distant places have found themselves. We do not stand outside the world, looking out over this sea of poor benighted people, living under the shadow--or veil--of oppressive cultures; we are part of that world."(789)

Week 4 - Mohanty

Personally I found the reading on Colonial Discourses by Chandra Mohanty a complicated piece that required close reading but I did my best to pull apart the material to make the most sense and I hope my interpretation is close to what Mohanty had in mind. Mohanty likened the writings of western women feminists on third world women to colonization of the western women on the third world women because their writings create a singular image of third world women that is arbitrary (p. 63). Mohanty is critical of the scholarship of western feminist because they make out third world women to be powerless and ‘victims’ of the socio-economic system (p. 66). Mohanty argues that over generalization is only one of the many flaws in the scholarship.

What I found very interesting is that the ideals of the western women and the literal colonization of Africa by the Europeans affected the marriage system and family structure in the Bemba tribe. Is this what Mohanty is referring to as the colonization by western women…the imposition of culture through literature? Mohanty also mentions that western feminist scholarship does not take into account history and context while writing about certain things like the purdah practice by women in Iran. Does Mohanty suggest that what the western feminists consider oppression in the third world is not perceived the same way by women in the third world, instead it is an acceptable way of life that as arisen from personal choice or circumstances?

I really related to this reading because I have found myself having to defend my heritage as an Indian and a Muslim to people who have very misguided view – once again due to generalization. Like Mohanty states there is often this assumption that people in the third world have not evolved to the extent of those that in the west (p. 80) and this idea can be colonized by misguided scholarship.

Week 4 Readings

Chandra Mohanty's theory that an image of a "third-world woman" is perpetuated in our society reflects the idea of stereotypes in Orientalism that we discussed earlier. According to Mohanty, this image is based on the assumption that all women, despite being from different cultures, religions, and backgrounds, have the same desires and interests, and therefore suffer the same persecutions everywhere. While the feminist intentions behind this are decent, this actually perpetuates the idea of women as victimized by the political system, making them seem weaker than they actually are. For example, some indicate that "the mere existence of a sexual division of labour is taken to be proof of the oppression of women in various societies" but the actual division has little to do with women's subordination. Yes, according to Mohanty it does devalue the work of women, but it also assumes that every political, economic, religious and domestic division is meant and intends to keep women in their inferior place, which is a false assumption.

Abu-Lughod points out a similar phenomenon in her article "Do Muslim Women Need Saving?" She makes the point that an obsession with Muslim women has developed, just as an obsession with the East in general during the times of Orientalism. This obsession, however, is misdirected, for example, in regards to the burqa. According to Abu-Lughod, Westerners believe that "the ultimate sign of the oppression of Afghan women under the Taliban-and-the-terrorists is that they were forced to wear [it]." But in fact, it was not created by the Taliban and instead it "has developed as a convention for symbolizing women's modesty or respectability" upon its creation long ago. We perpetuate these misunderstandings, painting women in the Middle East as weak, oppressed, and imprisoned, and take it upon ourselves to save them, though it seems we are directing our efforts in the wrong places. This similar subordination occurs in Orientalism as well, though it was more deliberately meant to paint "Orientals" as inferior, uncivilized and incapable of running themselves. This indicates that while we have progressed as a society since the times of imperialism in regards to the amount of original research that has been conducted about the Middle East and its culture, we still have our own forms of modern-day "Orientalism" that need abolishing.