Anarchists against the veil?

Last week, a statement from the Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group (MACG) was blasted out into the internet ether entitled "No to racism and the veil." It was noted this article was published in the first edition of "The Anvil," MACG's newsletter.

I know little about the MACG aside from the brief announcement of their formation and their stated aims and principles.  I found their article very troubling, and in the interest of constructive dialogue, offer my response to it here.

In "No to racism and the veil," the MACG argues that the "veil" is a symbol of the oppression of women in Islam and therefore should not be worn.  Paradoxically, however, they state that women should wear whatever they like - but the MACG really doesn't think women should wear the veil.

To begin with, there are a few blatant problems with the piece.  First off, it condemns "anti-Islamic racism."  "Anti-Islamic racism" is an impossibility because Islam is not a race but a religion with adherents from a wide range of races and ethnicities.  Secondly, the premise that a handful of (I'm assuming) white, male anarchists feel entitled to give direction to at least 500 million women is extremely troubling.  Compound this by the fact that the authors apparently presume the experiences of all women under Islam to be the same, and this piece jumps off into the deep end of Orientalism and what Chandra Talpade Mohanty labels "methodological universalism."

In "Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourse" - an essay every Westerner who is going to attempt to save global Southerners from themselves needs to read - Mohanty writes:

The argument goes like this: the greater the number of women who wear the veil, the more universal is the sexual segregation and control of women....For instance, Muslim women in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, India and Egypt all wear some sort of a veil.  Hence, this indicates that the sexual control of women is a universal fact in those countries in which the women are veiled....

[T]he problem is not in asserting that the practice of wearing a veil is widespread....it is the analytic leap from the practice of veiling to an assertion of its general significance in controlling women that must be questioned.  While there may be a physical similarity in the veils worn by women in Saudi Arabia and Iran, the specific meaning attached to this practice varies according to the cultural and ideological context....

[T]he application of the notion of women as a homogeneous category to women in the third world colonizes and appropriates the pluralities of the simultaneous location of different groups of women in social class and ethnic frameworks; in doing so it ultimately robs them of their historical and political agency.... [emphasis in original]

The crux of the problem lies in that initial assumption of women as a homogeneous group or category ('the oppressed'), a familiar assumption in Western radical and liberal feminisms.

By arguing that all Muslim women should wholesale disavow the veil, the MACG is doing just as Mohanty describes above, creating a homogeneous category of "Muslim women" where none exists and robbing women of their agency.

Thirdly, the authors write that the veil "is a physical limitation on a woman's freedom and ability to act in society."  While a niqab or burqa may limit physical mobility in a sense, how a headscarf does so, I'm not quite clear.  As well, the authors reference an article in The Guardian written by a British woman who wore the niqab for one day as proof that the veil is physically oppressive.  Instead, they may have wished to talk to a Muslim woman (or several) who wears niqab every day before making such statements and conclusively evaluating the limitations (or not) of the veil.

Fourthly, and this is where things get really ugly, the authors write:

Here, we find women in the situation where they are burdened with the responsibility to limit their personal freedom because of the poor behaviour of men. In societies where the veil is customary, the assumption is that women are sex objects and a man in the presence of an unveiled woman to whom he is not related cannot reasonably be expected to control himself and keep within the bounds of morality.

The image of Muslim men as rapacious sex fiends who are inherently physically incapable of restraining themselves from sexual attacking a woman who is not veiled qualifies as nothing short of "anti-Islamic racism," the very thing this statement was supposed to be against.  The stereotype of the male Other as sexually predatory and insatiable has long been a weapon in the white supremacist arsenal and it is gravely disturbing to see such rhetoric employed here by anarchists.

Fifthly, the authors lament that "many Muslim women in Western countries have adopted the veil as a symbol of defiance and cultural identity. Despite its physical oppressiveness, they experience it as a liberatory symbol."  The authors promise that "[b]y defeating racism, we will remove the illusory 'liberation' of the veil and make its real physical oppressiveness more obvious."

Not only do the authors find wearing the veil as an expression of solidarity and defiance in the face of rampant Islamophobia troubling, but they (white, male anarchists) have generously taken it upon themselves to do their utmost to demonstrate to these deluded Muslim women just how oppressed and misguided they are in their veil-wearing.

By painting a homogeneous picture of women in Islam and essentializing Muslim men, women and Islam in general, this piece veers beyond mere inaccuracies into Islamophobia and Orientalism.  It also, as Mohanty writes, "perpetrate[s] and sustain[s] the hegemony of the idea of the superiority of the West."  All of these are things anarchists should be fighting - not propagating.

Though undoubtedly the comrades in Melbourne meant well in taking a stand against Islamophobia and the oppression of women, their analysis itself appears to be based on knowledge produced by the West about Islam and women instead of knowledge produced by Muslims and women about Muslims and women.  And in doing so, instead of sticking a wrench in the works of such problematic beliefs, it just ends up feeding and recycling them, even if it does come with a radical bent.

Comments

[Cynical]

Thank you for deconstructing the orientalist message from MACG article. What an excellent critique! I also find the comment "is a physical limitation on a woman's freedom and ability to act in society" ridiculous. In what ways? Don't western traditions also limit women's freedom and ability to act in society? What about "western" women's beauty standards, plastic surgery, eating disorders, 5-inch heels..etc. Women's so-called "physical limitations" are universal. Declaring that Muslim women are not free because they wear burqas is presumptiously ignorant and creates an image of the western superiority. Who is MACG really to speak for women they probably rarely encounter or have conversations with? This reminds me of Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's article "Can the Subaltern Speak?" where she critiques the image of "white men saving brown women from brown men." So, stop it!

I find it so very offensive, annoying and obnoxious when people keep trying to reproduce the dichotomy of the West and the Other, the Orient/Occident. And as you have mentioned earlier, Muslim women are a diverse group. Once again, Orientalist discourse tries to group people as the exact same - with the same experiences, oppressions and (dis)privileges. So please MACG, stop speaking FOR people. You DO NOT give agency to Muslim women by Orientalizing them with your western perspectives.

[Benjamin Rosenzweig]

Indeed, the MAAG statement seems deeply problematic. Of course, so do critiques which end up negating any capacity for analysis of oppressive (eg. gender) relations in 'other' places: an Iraqi woman with whom I have had some contact was recently officially threatened with death by an Islamist group for publicly opposing the violent enforcement of the veil and for related assertions of 'agency', and she has certainly indicated that she feels like her agency is under threat from certain constructions of the meaning of the veil, gender, religion, etcetera and the political and ultimately forcible attempt to impose such constructions on people.

Nonetheless, the ways in which the concept of 'choice' is reserved for women choosing to conform to certain (Western if you like) constructions of gender while being denied to others is indicative of fundamental failures of critique.

[felix faustus nothus]

My personal political party has put forth the bill: Veils for those who want them, no veils for those who don't!

[Andrew]

Fantastic critique! Thanks for putting this out there. Its unfortunate to see anarchists falling into these same old tropes and stereotypes (though not surprising), but its refreshing to see someone like yourself quick to point out its faults, in depth and at length. Especially for Muslim women within the US, for those who choose, wearing hijab in public can be a political act of defiance and cultural survival.

[@ndy]

hey kid,

i wrote some of me own thoughts here:

http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=642

cheers,

andy.

[scott]

thanks all for your thoughtful comments, it's rare that happens over here. i appreciate people's support, elaboration, criticism, etc.

i emailed this to the MACG, but haven't heard from them.

i do think oppressive situations can be analyzed, regardless of location. such situations however should not be essentialized, as the MACG piece did, and the various locations of the situation needs to be taken into context, as does the perspective/gaze of the "analyzer."

andy, i think you did a better job explaining the MACG's points than they did and raise some good questions about what they meant in certain instances. i do still feel their part regarding the behavior of Muslim men to be not "in reference to Islamic religious doctrine" but, likely inadvertently, to an inherent characteristic of Muslim society, "because of the poor behaviour of men" in those societies.

in general, i think it is more productive for anarchists to be critiquing religion head on, on a broader level, with well-founded political arguments, as opposed to wandering into orientalist conjectures about a topic they apparently have little knowledge of.

[@ndy]

Hey Scott,

Yeah. I think that the MAC-G could profit from paying more attention to the r/ship b/w religion, culture, politics and society. And ah, history. What I mean is: like Xtianity and other major religions, Islam, in its various conquests -- and in order to maintain those conquests -- has been forced to adapt to local circumstances, circumstances quite unlike those of the region that gave birth to it in 7th C Arabia. Islamic teachings regarding the need for 'modesty' and the use of the veil are a case in point. (The other q I think is the r/ship b/w mosque and state.)

Another relevant qualification is the impact of Western dress codes on women's health and freedom, which the MAC-G in its polemic refs but fails to fully acknowledge I think. Which begs the q: why focus on the pernicious effects of the veil? (They also make ref to working alongside of Muslim women in the context of da labour movement -- some acknowledgement of Muslim women's opinions on this matter would be a start.)

On religion, I reckon Knabb is worth a read:

http://www.bopsecrets.org/PS/religion.htm

Cheers,

@ndy.

[Jonathan Korman]

Thanks for this, AWK.

But there's one point where I think you're badly off base. It's quite clear from the quote you use in the fourth point that MACG is not supporting an essentialized view of rapacious Muslim men, but rather protesting the veil in part because they believe that the veil supports that essentialized view.

Mind you, though I would defend this point against the charge that it supports an destructive essentialist view of Muslim men, it is still worthy of severe criticism, on two points.

First, though my own limited understanding of the role of the veil is that MACG's point is at least half correct, I also recognize that this is most likely the kind of half-truth that is dangerously misleading.

Second, even were MACG exactly correct in this reading of the veil as contributing to misogynist Muslim culture, they are in no position to prescribe the remedy for the problem. That must be in the hands of people in that cultural context, both because of their greater sophistication about the consequences and because of their personal stakes in those consequences.

[Your Communist Homey]

What's up Scott,
You're really off on this one man. What's next, Chinese foot-binding as a symbol of "resistance to the west," and "women's agency?" Who's to say it was oppressive to women anyway? I certainly wouldn't want to impose my white male perspective on their personal practices. Do you see where this logic takes you scott? It takes you to a place where it is really impossible to take a stand on anything. There is no objective reality, there is only everyone's individual experiences and personal realities, which no one else can understand, especially if you're not from the same "identity group." I prefer to look at things from the perspective of objective reality. Is it objectively true that foot-binding and "veiling" are part of a system of patriarchy, and that there are real penalties under that system for not binding and not covering up? Yes. You talk about MACG not paying attention to what the women themselves are saying... why don't you ask the women of Iran and Afghanistan what it's like to live under theocratic regimes that enforce veiling (including Burqas under the Taliban) and worse and severely punish women that don't comply:

http://revcom.us/a/080/awtw1-en.html

It's a real problem that people all over the world do not have a secular revolutionary pole of resistance to U.S. imperialism. It's McWorld vs. Jihad (with McWorld being the far greater threat to humanity of course). That's the dichotomy that we have to break out of. It's understandable that people all over the world turn to Islam, and unfortunately, various islamic fundamentalist political forces. But that's not a path to liberation. And it's understandable that muslim women in first world countries, where they don't actually face severe punishment for not wearing the veil, would wear it for cultural pride in response to the demonization of their people (and making the veil illegal is case-in-point). But responding to U.S. imperialism and anti-islamic xenofobia by reverting to patriarchal cultural practices is not the answer and actually feeds into that harmful dichotomy. More than ever what's needed is a third option... no to reactionary islamic fundamentalism, no to U.S. imperialism, yes to the emancipation of humanity from all forms of oppression. If we start to create that third pole of attaction by building a movement here (and in Australia and other imperialist countries) against war and our own theocratic Bush Regime, then that will open up breathing room for people all over the world to see that there are other options beside McWorld/McCrusade vs. Jihad. Peace.

[thawriyyah]

Thanks for the post. I am curious, as to "your communist homey," how exactly it is that wearing hijab is, for example, more or less limiting than, say, Western beauty standards. For failing to conform to such standards, women in the West are regularly mocked or harassed; when women do conform to such standards, they are also often derided as overly sexually available, or blamed for sexual assault. I must think that it would primarily be the role of Western anarchists and revolutionaries to challenge their own dominant culture, and quite specifically because of the role of imperialism in the world.

Who exactly is asking Australian anarchists to choose "reactionary Islamic fundamentalism?" What exactly, even, does that term refer to in this context? An Islamist political discourse? Any Islamist political discourse? A specific religious interpretation?

The reason I raise this is, I see very few anarchists, communists or otherwise, regardless of their own views of religion, writing papers and articles and broadsheets about the wearing of crucifixes or yarmulkes, or about the prevalence of pagan or wiccan symbols among some parts of leftish/hippie culture. Instead, it is the very same community that is targeted for attack by imperialism that is made a point of discussion, without consultation with those directly affected in any way.

Perhaps Muslim women can decide what's best for them, and if someone wishes to wear a headscarf, who is some Australian anarchist guy to tell her that she must be as visible to him as he prefers?

(And I recognize that's likely not MACG's intention; however, it comes awfully close to its reality.)

[Benjamin Rosenzweig]

The points about the hardly politically neutral silence about the nature of gender relations in the West in discussions of Islam are important, but if we aren't going to accept (liberal-capitalist) definitions of choice as alibis for, and as ways to not criticise eg. 'Western' constructions of beauty or gender relations more broadly, then I'm not sure that "Muslim women can decide what's best for them" has that much useful content either. ("In an empowering move, a white Australian woman chose to work oppressive crappy jobs over fifty hours a week...") After all, the point of pointing out the oppressive, patriarchal, capitalist nature of social relations in 'the West' would be to illustrate the selective hypocrisy of much anti-Islamic discourse, surely, not to claim that patriarchy, reactionary social relations and force and violence do not exist as rather urgent issues for eg. women in Iraq. I have no problem with people acting in solidarity with struggles against such social relations, wherever they may be. The Iraqi woman to whom I referred earlier, threatened with death for opposing the violent imposition of the veil, is actually living in Britain. I genuinely assume that your statement that "the role of Western anarchists and revolutionaries [should primarily be] to challenge their own dominant culture" wouldn't mean that you oppose an active solidarity with someone in such a situation, but then I'm not sure how to read your statements.

[Luther Blissett]

Excellent critique, AWK.

The 'slogan' is a pale reworking of the Third Camp xor logic statement "Neither Washington nor Moscow, but International Socialism" - a statement which in reality achieved very little other than to define what a position is 'not'.

The group itself, from what I've read, appears to take a vanguardist position, which surely negates their claim to be anarchist?

[mobius]

as a religious jewish person quite familiar with the paralells between judaism and islam regarding the legal obligations and roles of women as defined by our faiths, i find it hard to argue with this critique:

Here, we find women in the situation where they are burdened with the responsibility to limit their personal freedom because of the poor behaviour of men. In societies where the veil is customary, the assumption is that women are sex objects and a man in the presence of an unveiled woman to whom he is not related cannot reasonably be expected to control himself and keep within the bounds of morality.

see the titling of this photo i took in mea shearim, the ultra-orthodox neighborhood in downtown jerusalem:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jewschool/92830436/

only an apologist retroactively inventing new explanations for these practices would deny that the basis for religious laws requiring women keep themselves covered up is indeed one intent on keeping men from their own temptations. the sources are pretty clear, beginning with their misogynistic extrapolations on eve's first bite of the apple.

for certain, i know many jewish women who, like their muslim counterparts, consciously choose to take on the practices of tzenuah (modesty) and shomer negiah (not touching members of the opposite sex); whereas they see it as an act of personal empowerment.

i would say i have no objection to such a practice when it is of the individual's own free volition and for a purpose that she finds valid and meaningful. yet my experience has shown that these women are most often "ba'al teshuvot" -- or "born again" jews, who themselves are just beginning to embrace orthodox observance. while they may view these observances as fulfilling, for many women born into orthodoxy, these observances are considered oppressive.

orthodox women for years have been fighting for their freedom to not mandatorily cover their hair; to wear pants; to sing in public; to lead prayer services; to learn and teach torah; as well as for other liberalizations of traditional law. and finally, thank g-d, they're starting to make serious headway.

but as i see it, the ba'al teshuvot come along with their awestruck appreciation of "the tradition" and set the movement back, perpetuating a culture of docile women eager for their chance to express their spirituality by submitting themselves to what they view as an ascetic practice.

all of this is a digression though. my contention is that the reality of our customs when lived is ugly enough that we can't avoid confronting it.

there are religious jewish men who prowl the streets of jerusalem throwing bleach at women who wear immodest clothing, and there has recently been a string of arsons against stores considered to be selling immodest clothing, as well as against internet cafes were religious jews are alleged to be surfing for porn. likewise, honor killings, in which women are murdered by their family members for creating even a scant impression of promiscuity, are common throughout the islamic world. here in israel, last week, a muslim woman disappeared who had planned to testify against a family member that murdered eight of her female relatives for "crimes against the family's honor.""

consider that under both jewish and islamic law, women are first the property of their parents, and then the property of their spouses, and that they can be bought and sold and even beaten when considered defiant. these women were not given a choice. they are given an ultimatum.

consider the plight of agunot: when a woman wants to get a divorce, she has to be released from the marriage by her husband. he can extort money from his wife's family. he can hold out forever, insuring that under religious law, any future children of hers are considered illegitimate. the women are presently revolting against this situation and the religious courts are doing everything possible to keep the patriarchal status quo in order.

it is not appropriate, as you note, for a handful of privileged white men to dictate to a half-billion muslim women how they should conduct themselves. however, to evade tackling this issue head-on because of the dangers of engaging in essentialism or speaking out-of-turn is unsatisfactory as well.

it's not my place to tell a woman whether or not to cover her hair. it is my place to insure that she has the freedom to make that decision for her own self, and the before she does, she's aware of all of the ramifications.

it is likewise my responsibility to fight against patriarchy, misogyny, and violence against women. and thus while i agree with mac-g on this issue, i wish to point out what i think is the real flaw with their position, which is a conclusion that inverts the very principle they seek to emphasize: men should be expected to control themselves. whether a woman chooses to wear a head-covering or not is her own choice. a man who encounters a woman either with or without a head-covering, should treat her has a free and equal human being before the law and before the eyes of his maker. her religious choice is her religious choice, and it is not the place of any man to dictate to his fellow how she should conduct her service.

the abolition of faith or practices of faith is not the just resolution. rather we must fight for tolerance and religious pluralism.

[Iman]

Wow Scott, I came across your blog when I was searching for info on Chandra Mohanty, and was soooo impressed with your comments that I had to stop and read everything. I am seriously impressed and wish more people in the world could open their eyes and think critically about this issue. I'm personally a veiled Muslim college student who lives in Egypt and your writing just put a huge smile on my face. So, good job! And I really do hope that more people could hear the viewpoint you are expressing in your writing... :) Keep the critiques coming!