CRITICAL REVIEW. In The Veil in their Minds and On our Heads: The Persistence of Colonial Images of Muslim

Transcription

1 CRITICAL REVIEW In The Veil in their Minds and On our Heads: The Persistence of Colonial Images of Muslim Women, Hooma Hoodfar describes her experience of Caucasian reactions to veiled muslim women in Western society, and more specifically, in Canada. She examines the danger of negative Western interpretations of the veil, and uses several historical and personal examples to support these arguments. More precisely, Hoodfar argues that these interpretations create their own vicious cycle and force muslim women to suffer discrimination both from racist, as well as feminist camps. This ultimately causes many muslim women to turn away from feminism, which can be detrimental in instances where Islam is wrongly used to justify the repression of women. Another important topic that Hoodfar broaches in her article relates to the comparisons that can be drawn between female repression in both Muslim and Western societies, forcing Western societies to critique their own injustices as well as that of others. Her approach of this particular subject, however, is too brief, and in an article that aims to expand occidental perceptions of Islam and veiling, a more detailed analysis would have been valuable. Moreover, despite her strong arguments, Hoodfar ignores some her own biases and stereotypes with regards to Western prejudice, and thus creates some contradiction, and hypocrisy in her article. Nevertheless these elements do little to enfeeble her primary points, and she ultimately provides an effective explanation of how the meaning of the veil is shaped by the women who wear it, and not by the garment itself. Much like in Fatima Mernissi's chapter about The Muslim concept of Active Female Sexuality (1987), Hoodfar argues that it is the discourses that surround the veil that need to be altered rather than veiling itself. She justifies this initially through the veil's historical background, in so much as the practice began in the Middle-East and Mediterannean as a way of indicating a woman's social status. Using Mernissi's (1987) same argument, Hoodfar explains that the practice is not at all mentioned in the Qu'ran, but was rather adopted by Muslims from those they conquered, and therefore holds very little religious backing in itself. Moreover, she claims that the negative connotations that are now commonly attached to veiling are likely originated from its use in

2 conjunction with the practice of seclusion. In this instance, however, she fails to mention the reasons for the adoption of veiling and seclusion by Islamic conquerors, and thus brushes over the mysoginist and patriarchal purposes it originally served (Bodham and Tohidi 1998, p. 9-10). However, as Mohja Khaf (2008), points out in reference to Adrienne Rich, the patriarchal prescriptions of veiling does not reflect the true feminine experiences and behaviours toward veiling. This is futher supported by Hoodfar in her descriptions of veiling being used as a threat, in that it would diminish a man's masculinity if a woman who was not a relative were to remove her veil in his presence. The junction of these facts clearly indicates an appropriation of the veil by Muslim women in order to leverage their social position and use this allegedly repressive tool to their advantage. Hoodfar also claims that it was the practice of seclusion that carried out the repressively patriarchal purposes commonly associated with veiling. In her text, Hoodfar describes how seclusion emerged in Middle-Eastern and North African societies due to endogamous marriages and the social restrictions that accompany such practices. Particularly as Muslim women were inhereters of wealth, restrictions were more rigid on their actions and behaviours, and even more so among wealthy families (Hoodfar, n.d.). None of these practices, as Hoodfar explains, were common within poorer communities, where it was important for all family members to work and women required garments that did not physically inhibit their capacity to do so. According to this historical practice the veil then becomes a cultural, or social practice, that was adopted by Muslims and was perpetuated for the most part for financial purposes (Haniffa, 2005, p. 65). That is to say, the conjoined practice of the veil and of seclusion allowed families to better control the distribution and progression of their wealth through marriage and inheritance. In this regard Hoodfar fails to point out the distinct similarities between Western and Islamic societies. She briefly mentions that economic freedom for women historically signified greater institutional control over their sexuality, and draws a hasty comparison between Islamic and Victorian Morality. However, a stronger comparison of these parallels would have allowed for a much better understanding of Islamic experiences and ideology from a Western perspective.

3 One important comparison Hoodfar could have expanded on in order to further this understanding is that of dress codes and the impact of fashion and garments in Western society. She mentions similarities that had been previously drawn between the veil and the corset, both seemingly uncomfortable and repressive beauty devices for women. However, in order to create a more contemporary juxtaposition she could have mentioned reactions to the mini skirt, bikinis, and even school uniforms. Both former items of clothing were greeted with shock and disgust immediately following their invention, and though they were ultimately absorbed into society, the initial reaction still reflect a level of modesty and conservatism in Western thinking (Brown, 2012). Moreover, despite the apparent free acceptance of dress code in Western society, many schools still enforce strict dress code rules for their students (Eberle, 2011, p.47). It could easily be argued that these dress codes are equally patriachal and oppressive to women, as the sexual argument is very commonly used to justify the existance of these rules (ibid.). Moreover, these three cases are only a small sample of instances where garments and clothing have been used to make a cultural or political point in the West, just as the veil makes today (Vrencoska, 2009, p. 868). Though these parallels are not entirely synonymous or symmetrical, it does help to illustrate the social construction of the significance of certain items of clothing, as well as the patriachal paradigms that dictate their usage. Although she never directly refers to the concept by name, Hoodfar claims that cultural cringe, enforced by the colonial mentality, heavily influenced many of the negative perceptions of the veil. The term cultural cringe was originally coined to apply to Australia and refers to an attitude characterized by a deference to the cultural achievements of others (Ramson, 1988). It relates, in large part, to the effect of colonial treatment and portrayal of other nations and societies as inferior, ultimately causing those same societies and nations to project those sentiments on themselves. In Hoodfar's text, she claims that negative Western interpretations of the veil emerged after the conquer of the Ottoman Empire in World War I. According to her, the colonial influence interprated the veil as 'uncivilized', consequently prompting many educated elites within these Islamic nations

4 to demand de-veiling in an effort to emulate the Western concept of modernity. She claims that it was ultimately due to this perception of inferiority that educated feminists groups began a deveiling movement in Egypt. She also states that this same cultural cringe provoked the Iranian Shah to outlaw the veil, in an attempt to appear to modernize Iran, despite his lack of effort in making other significant economic and social changes. Both these situations indicate circumstances where the veil was used to represent repression, however they also show the dynamic relationship that this representation has with the object of the veil itself. In one circumstance the removal of the veil was performed voluntarily by its wearers, to symbolize the end of repression, in the other its forced removal only provoked further repression and state control. In other words, both in the case of Egypt and Iran, the veil is confused for a repressive tool, when in fact the only power it carries is that which is given by the discourses that surround it. This can be further evidenced in the case of Algeria, where the veil was directly outlawed by the colonial administration in the 1950s. In Algeria Unveiled, Frantz Fanon describes the importance of women to the national and cultural identity of a nation, and how this makes them an easy target for identity appropriation ( Introduction, 2010). Thus by outlawing the veil, and promoting the concept of the veil as repressive, colonial and Imperialist nations were able to more effectively repress and exploit their recently conquered nations. In this manner, the very concepts that Western culture, and particularly the feminist movement, attempts to fight by denouncing the veil as repressive, only provoke further repression. By creating a symbol that represents repression within a foreign society, Western Imperialism merely provided the government of that society with another tool for repression. As Hoodfar explains, patriarchal values are in no way exclusive to Muslim society, or to Middle Eastern nations, but the cultural dominance and lack of self-critique in Western culture creates the illusion of freedom and superiority. It is with this point that Hoodfar justifies her argument that negative representations of the veil are destructive to feminism, and the progression of gender equality in all culture. In Hoodfar's own words negative images of Muslim women are continuously presented as a reminder

5 to [Western] women of their good fortune [.] to curb their [ ] demands for equality [...]. She does, however, acknowledge that the veil has clearly been a mechanism in the service of patriarchy, but she further clarifies that it has been equally used as a tool to fight this very same repression and patriarchy, such as the case of the feminist movement in Egypt. Hoodfar's biggest bias in her article is her assumption that only people of white/european descent hold prejudices and discriminate against muslims and veiled women. She thus completely ignores the fact that discrimination against veiled women is felt across several different ethnicities, while equally ignoring the existance of caucasians who have a better understanding of muslims cultures than might be stereotypically believed. She completely dismisses the experience of converted caucasian women, or of those who have visisted Islam and been among the culture as unique to their own situation as caucasian muslims. Although this ethnic class composes a vast majority of the population in Canada, her gross generalization of the attitudes of this ethnic group reflect the very biases and prejudices she denounces in her article. Moreover she ignores the struggles that Muslim women face in South American, as well as Asian countries, where there is an increasing number of Muslim converts and refugees who face the same bigotry as their North American counterparts. In her justifications of Western and Middle-Eatern morality as developing somewhat in tandem during the nineteenth century, Hoodfar also seems to disregard the progression of each morality movement. In her article, Hoodfar argues that strict Victorian morality and the ideology of femininity were developing in Western society at the same time that similar ideals became prominent in Islamic nations. Nevertheless she fails to mention that the future development of the laws in each of these societies progressed in a somewhat opposing manner. Hoodfar addresses this issue when she compares the controversy between monogomous and polygamous marriages; where mistresses and illegitimate children are forced to live in the outskirts. She also explains, as was previously mentioned, that many of the mysoginist laws that restrict women's rights regarding marriage and other issues, were due in large part to matters relating to cultural cringe. Although these attempts help to form a more compelling argument with regards to the similarities between

6 occidental and oriental societies, she could have greatly benefitted by addressing the issue more directly. Another factor Hoodfar seems to ignore in her own argument is how, historically, the veil is used to discriminate against women of a poorer social class. Although her reasons for ignoring this fact can largely be explained in how this is not entirely relevant to the discrimination of Muslim women in Western society, it does further justify feminist reasons for denouncing the veil. This partiality in itself is not enough to wither her main arguments, but with regards to such a polemic topic, it is crucial to remain conscious of all the counterpoints that could be appropriated by the opposition. The true meaning of the veil cannot be summarized by a simple phrase or paragraph, just as it would be impossible to do so with a t-shirt or a jacket. Indeed it seems that any garment is only ascribed power in accordance with the discourses that surround it, and that power, just as those discourses, can be altered and shifted just as much by its critics as by its wearers. Hoodfar's article provides a strong argument as to why Canadian feminists and caucasians in general should selfreflect before judging Muslim culture and customs. However, her critique and analysis would have been more compelling had she expanded it to a broader audience, or perhaps provided a more indepth comparison between occidnetal and oriental experiences of patriarchy. Nevertheless, Hoodfar's accounts of her personal experiences as a Muslim woman in Canada, as well as her historical explanations of the context behind the veil clearly illustrate how detrimental stereotypes of the veil can be for all women, whether they are Muslim or not. She effectively indicates the prejudices existant within Canadian and Western society, and spells out that, if social progress is to be made, it is necessary to first look past these stereotypes.

7 REFERENCE LIST Bodman, H., & Esfahlani Tohidi, N. (1998). Introduction - Islamic Culture. In Women in Muslim societies: Diversity within unity (p. 9 to 10). Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner. Brown, S. (2012). Swinging 60s to Glam Rock. In Fashion: The definitive history of costume and style (p. 350 to 364). New York, New York: DK Publishing. Eberle, E. (2011). Personal Religious Freedom in the United Kingdom. In Church and state in Western society established church, cooperation, and separation (p. 33 to 58). Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Haniffa, F. (2005). Undercover: Reflections on the Practice of "Hijab" amongst Urban Muslim Women in Sri Lanka. Gender, Society and Change - Center for Women's Research, Colombo, Retrieved March 20, 2015, from mong_urban_muslim_women_in_sri_lanka Hoodfar, H. (n.d.). The Veil in their Minds and On our Heads: The Persistence of Colonial Images of Muslim Women. Resources for Feminist Research/Documentation Sur La Recherche Féministe,22(3/4), Retrieved March 20, 2015, from Introduction. (2010). In M. Davidson, K. T. Gines, & D. L. Marcano (Eds.), Convergences: Black feminism and Continental philosophy (p. 157 to 174). Albany, New York: SUNY Press. Khaf, M. (2008). From Her Royal Body the Robe was Removed. In J. Heath (Ed.), The veil: Women writers on its history, lore, and politics (p. 27 to 43). Berkeley, California: University of California Press. Mernissi, F. (1987). The Muslim concept of Active Female Sexuality. In Beyond the veil: Malefemale dynamics in modern Muslim society (Rev. ed., 1st Midland Book ed., p. 27 to 45). Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. Ramson, W. (1988). Cultural Cringe. In The Australian national dictionary: A dictionary of Australianisms on historical principles (p. 185). Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press. Vrencoska, G. (2009). Political Statements in Conceptual Fashion: The Voice of National Sentiments as a Self-reference in the ready-to-wear Collections of Alexander McQueen and Hussein Chalayan. Annual Review, 2, 867 to to 883. Retrieved March 20, 2015, from