The many and different Muslim women’s voices unheard in Feminist theory

IF 0.3 Q4 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Ana Paula Maielo Silva
{"title":"The many and different Muslim women’s voices unheard in Feminist theory","authors":"Ana Paula Maielo Silva","doi":"10.15366/relacionesinternacionales2022.49.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The instrumental use of Muslim women’s experiences as a symbol and justification for Western countries interventions is not a new business and was not employed for the first time in the post September 11th “war on terror” campaigns. Indeed, the production of stereotypes of Muslim women in political platforms can be tracked back to different colonial enterprises. Clearly, as Lughod (2002) has highlighted, the consistent resort to a cultural framing through the equation women/religion/suffering has always been a tool to hide political and economic interests and consequently to bury more complex political and historical developments. In the academic sphere, debates on Muslim women also widened. However, as Lila Abu-Lughod (2002) contended, the efforts were almost put solely on denouncing the great violent and oppressive contexts where those women were living under the barbaric violations perpetrated to them by Islamist movements. Otherwise, if a scholar tried to problematize the cultural framing of Muslim women’s questions, she (or he) would very likely be accused of cultural relativism (Lughod, 2002).\nTherefore, a sole and unproblematic focus on the suffering of Muslim women is not only futile, but also contributes to reify the old Orientalist perceptions on Islam and Muslim women, and to provide intellectual foundations for Western imperialist wars. The objective of this article, on the contrary, is to raise another set of questions, which I believe to be more urgent. These questions aim at both unpacking Muslim women as a discursive category, and understanding the major challenges their experiences impose on secular feminist conceptions of agency. I contend that addressing these questions is more urgent for different reasons. Firstly, I argue vigorously that apart from the obsessive and somehow blind criticism that religion is inherently patriarchal and consequently oppressive to women, scholarship especially from within feminist theory remained oblivious to a more systematic and self-reflexive engagement with religion and Muslim women. In addition, I argue that surprisingly, even in a period of post-Orientalist deconstruction, which supposedly would have already dismissed those essentialist and repressive accounts of Muslim women and Islam, subtle but very important remnants can still be found on the so called “corrective” postcolonial feminist scholarship on Muslim women.\nIndeed, there is a plurality of work on Muslim women in the social sciences. However, they are scattered and apparently separated by their own agendas and claims, with very few attempts at dialogue or debate. Hence, a systematic account of this diversity has been missing, one which could provide an up to date appraisal of the state of scholarship and activism on Muslim women, and build a firm foundation for advancing knowledge both of the subject itself and on interdisciplinary efforts like the one I advance here. Therefore, while doing a systematic and critical literature review, oriented specifically by an interdisciplinary approach, I expect this article to fill part of this gap and raise crucial questions in order to build knowledge of the intersection between Muslim women’s studies and feminist theory. It is here where more research is certainly needed in order to reduce the gulf that exists between both areas.\nThe introduction of this article outlines briefly the ways through which Muslim women have been approached as a discursive category, constructing stereotypes of Muslim women in political platforms, as well as on the academic stage. Politically, the production of stereotypes can be tracked back to different colonial enterprises and more recently to the interventions by Western countries that comprised the “war on terror” campaign. On the academic stage, these stereotypes were reproduced in the sole efforts to denounce the great violent and oppressive contexts where those women are living, as previously mentioned.\nThe first section is concerned with the exclusion of religion and more specifically of Muslim women’s experiences from history and feminist knowledge production, including IR feminist studies. I acknowledge that the ontological and epistemological openness in feminist and gender studies in international relations and other areas ensured the recognition of the existence of differences and of multiple “layers” of identities which affect sexed bodies in distinct ways. These were crucial to challenge Eurocentric narratives as the only legitimate source of knowledge production. However, I put forward in this section that despite a greater plurality in feminist studies, there is still a silence from feminist theorists regarding religious women’s experiences, and hence, the importance of religion to women (Salem, 2013). Using the work of Phyllis Mack (2003) I argue that one of the reasons for this gap resides in the metanarrative of secularization, which is the basis of secular feminist scholarship. Within this analytical framework, I analyse how the conceptions of agency and emancipation underlying the different strands of secular feminism are limiting to the different voices and experiences of Muslim women. \nThe second section addresses the challenges Islamic feminism imposes to feminist notions of agency. As religion is seen as inherently patriarchal and oppressive to women, Islamic feminism or any other effort to pursue gender equality from within an Islamic framework would be taken as contradictory or incompatible. By locating the struggle within a religious framework, and at the same time claiming for the existence of what seems to be the untouchable foundations of Islam, Islamic feminists are cast away from secular feminisms. I argue that those experiences of activists and scholars make serious challenges to the notions of agency based on rationality and secularity as the only pillars whereby women can struggle for and reach gender equality. As a result, Islamic feminism(s)’s experiences also help to unsettle and complicate some binaries which feminist theory has been contributing to reify, such as secular/spiritual; reason/obscurantism; science/religion; freedom/oppression; modern/backward.\nIn the third section, the article discusses some of the piety women’s movements anchored on Saba Mahmood’s work on pietistic agency, firstly in order to highlight the inability of most feminist scholarship in capturing the diversity of Muslim women’s voices; second to denounce the perilous nature of encapsulating women’s agency solely within “the entelechy of liberatory politics”. These movements advance very different agendas and orientations from the Islamic feminist ones. Those agendas are precisely what denounce the subtle but very important remnants of Orientalist assumptions, particularly its adherence to secular-liberal values, and the teleological conceptions of modernity (Lakhani, 2008).\nI conclude the article arguing that rather than neglecting the important achievements feminism promoted in the lives of women in different parts of the world, the main intention of this work was to provincialize (to borrow the expression from Chakrabarty) the secular and liberal accounts of agency, feminism, empowerment, freedom and so on, locating them in the historical, political and cultural context that produced the desires that animate them.\n ","PeriodicalId":52009,"journal":{"name":"Relaciones Internacionales-Madrid","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Relaciones Internacionales-Madrid","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15366/relacionesinternacionales2022.49.003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The instrumental use of Muslim women’s experiences as a symbol and justification for Western countries interventions is not a new business and was not employed for the first time in the post September 11th “war on terror” campaigns. Indeed, the production of stereotypes of Muslim women in political platforms can be tracked back to different colonial enterprises. Clearly, as Lughod (2002) has highlighted, the consistent resort to a cultural framing through the equation women/religion/suffering has always been a tool to hide political and economic interests and consequently to bury more complex political and historical developments. In the academic sphere, debates on Muslim women also widened. However, as Lila Abu-Lughod (2002) contended, the efforts were almost put solely on denouncing the great violent and oppressive contexts where those women were living under the barbaric violations perpetrated to them by Islamist movements. Otherwise, if a scholar tried to problematize the cultural framing of Muslim women’s questions, she (or he) would very likely be accused of cultural relativism (Lughod, 2002). Therefore, a sole and unproblematic focus on the suffering of Muslim women is not only futile, but also contributes to reify the old Orientalist perceptions on Islam and Muslim women, and to provide intellectual foundations for Western imperialist wars. The objective of this article, on the contrary, is to raise another set of questions, which I believe to be more urgent. These questions aim at both unpacking Muslim women as a discursive category, and understanding the major challenges their experiences impose on secular feminist conceptions of agency. I contend that addressing these questions is more urgent for different reasons. Firstly, I argue vigorously that apart from the obsessive and somehow blind criticism that religion is inherently patriarchal and consequently oppressive to women, scholarship especially from within feminist theory remained oblivious to a more systematic and self-reflexive engagement with religion and Muslim women. In addition, I argue that surprisingly, even in a period of post-Orientalist deconstruction, which supposedly would have already dismissed those essentialist and repressive accounts of Muslim women and Islam, subtle but very important remnants can still be found on the so called “corrective” postcolonial feminist scholarship on Muslim women. Indeed, there is a plurality of work on Muslim women in the social sciences. However, they are scattered and apparently separated by their own agendas and claims, with very few attempts at dialogue or debate. Hence, a systematic account of this diversity has been missing, one which could provide an up to date appraisal of the state of scholarship and activism on Muslim women, and build a firm foundation for advancing knowledge both of the subject itself and on interdisciplinary efforts like the one I advance here. Therefore, while doing a systematic and critical literature review, oriented specifically by an interdisciplinary approach, I expect this article to fill part of this gap and raise crucial questions in order to build knowledge of the intersection between Muslim women’s studies and feminist theory. It is here where more research is certainly needed in order to reduce the gulf that exists between both areas. The introduction of this article outlines briefly the ways through which Muslim women have been approached as a discursive category, constructing stereotypes of Muslim women in political platforms, as well as on the academic stage. Politically, the production of stereotypes can be tracked back to different colonial enterprises and more recently to the interventions by Western countries that comprised the “war on terror” campaign. On the academic stage, these stereotypes were reproduced in the sole efforts to denounce the great violent and oppressive contexts where those women are living, as previously mentioned. The first section is concerned with the exclusion of religion and more specifically of Muslim women’s experiences from history and feminist knowledge production, including IR feminist studies. I acknowledge that the ontological and epistemological openness in feminist and gender studies in international relations and other areas ensured the recognition of the existence of differences and of multiple “layers” of identities which affect sexed bodies in distinct ways. These were crucial to challenge Eurocentric narratives as the only legitimate source of knowledge production. However, I put forward in this section that despite a greater plurality in feminist studies, there is still a silence from feminist theorists regarding religious women’s experiences, and hence, the importance of religion to women (Salem, 2013). Using the work of Phyllis Mack (2003) I argue that one of the reasons for this gap resides in the metanarrative of secularization, which is the basis of secular feminist scholarship. Within this analytical framework, I analyse how the conceptions of agency and emancipation underlying the different strands of secular feminism are limiting to the different voices and experiences of Muslim women.  The second section addresses the challenges Islamic feminism imposes to feminist notions of agency. As religion is seen as inherently patriarchal and oppressive to women, Islamic feminism or any other effort to pursue gender equality from within an Islamic framework would be taken as contradictory or incompatible. By locating the struggle within a religious framework, and at the same time claiming for the existence of what seems to be the untouchable foundations of Islam, Islamic feminists are cast away from secular feminisms. I argue that those experiences of activists and scholars make serious challenges to the notions of agency based on rationality and secularity as the only pillars whereby women can struggle for and reach gender equality. As a result, Islamic feminism(s)’s experiences also help to unsettle and complicate some binaries which feminist theory has been contributing to reify, such as secular/spiritual; reason/obscurantism; science/religion; freedom/oppression; modern/backward. In the third section, the article discusses some of the piety women’s movements anchored on Saba Mahmood’s work on pietistic agency, firstly in order to highlight the inability of most feminist scholarship in capturing the diversity of Muslim women’s voices; second to denounce the perilous nature of encapsulating women’s agency solely within “the entelechy of liberatory politics”. These movements advance very different agendas and orientations from the Islamic feminist ones. Those agendas are precisely what denounce the subtle but very important remnants of Orientalist assumptions, particularly its adherence to secular-liberal values, and the teleological conceptions of modernity (Lakhani, 2008). I conclude the article arguing that rather than neglecting the important achievements feminism promoted in the lives of women in different parts of the world, the main intention of this work was to provincialize (to borrow the expression from Chakrabarty) the secular and liberal accounts of agency, feminism, empowerment, freedom and so on, locating them in the historical, political and cultural context that produced the desires that animate them.  
女权主义理论中闻所未闻的穆斯林妇女的声音
利用穆斯林妇女的经历作为西方国家干预的象征和理由并不是什么新鲜事,在911事件后的“反恐战争”运动中也不是第一次采用这种做法。事实上,在政治纲领中对穆斯林妇女的刻板印象的产生可以追溯到不同的殖民企业。显然,正如Lughod(2002)所强调的那样,通过女性/宗教/苦难的等号来一贯诉诸文化框架一直是隐藏政治和经济利益的工具,从而掩盖了更复杂的政治和历史发展。在学术领域,关于穆斯林女性的争论也扩大了。然而,正如Lila Abu-Lughod(2002)所主张的那样,这些努力几乎仅仅是为了谴责那些生活在伊斯兰运动对她们犯下的野蛮侵犯下的妇女所处的巨大暴力和压迫环境。否则,如果一个学者试图将穆斯林妇女问题的文化框架问题化,她(或他)很可能会被指责为文化相对主义(Lughod, 2002)。因此,单一地、毫无疑问地关注穆斯林妇女的苦难不仅是徒劳的,而且还有助于将旧的东方主义对伊斯兰教和穆斯林妇女的看法具体化,并为西方帝国主义战争提供思想基础。相反,本文的目的是提出另一组问题,我认为这些问题更为紧迫。这些问题的目的是将穆斯林妇女作为一个话语范畴进行拆解,并理解她们的经历对世俗女权主义代理概念的主要挑战。我认为,出于不同的原因,解决这些问题更为紧迫。首先,我强烈地指出,除了对宗教本质上是父权制的,因此对女性是压迫性的这种强迫性和盲目的批评之外,尤其是女权主义理论内部的学术研究,仍然忽略了对宗教和穆斯林女性更系统和自我反思的参与。此外,我认为,令人惊讶的是,即使在后东方主义的解构时期,本应已经摒弃了那些对穆斯林妇女和伊斯兰教的本质主义和压制性描述,但在所谓的“纠正性”后殖民女性主义对穆斯林妇女的研究中,仍然可以找到微妙但非常重要的残余。事实上,在社会科学领域有很多关于穆斯林妇女的研究。然而,它们是分散的,显然是被各自的议程和要求分开的,很少尝试进行对话或辩论。因此,缺乏对这种多样性的系统描述,这种描述可以提供对穆斯林妇女的学术和行动主义状况的最新评估,并为推进这一主题本身的知识以及像我在这里提出的跨学科努力奠定坚实的基础。因此,在进行系统和批判性的文献回顾时,我希望本文能够填补这一空白,并提出关键问题,以便建立穆斯林妇女研究与女权主义理论之间交叉的知识。为了缩小这两个领域之间存在的鸿沟,当然需要进行更多的研究。本文的引言简要概述了穆斯林妇女作为一个话语类别被对待的方式,以及在政治平台和学术舞台上对穆斯林妇女的刻板印象。在政治上,刻板印象的产生可以追溯到不同的殖民企业,最近可以追溯到西方国家的干预,包括“反恐战争”运动。在学术舞台上,如前所述,这些陈规定型观念在谴责这些妇女所生活的巨大暴力和压迫环境的唯一努力中被复制。第一部分关注的是宗教的排斥,更具体地说,是穆斯林妇女在历史和女权主义知识生产中的经历,包括国际关系女权主义研究。我承认,国际关系和其他领域的女权主义和性别研究在本体论和认识论上的开放性确保了对差异的存在和以不同方式影响性别身体的多重身份“层”的承认。这些对于挑战欧洲中心叙事作为知识生产唯一合法来源的地位至关重要。然而,我在本节中提出,尽管女性主义研究更加多元化,但女性主义理论家对宗教女性的经历仍然保持沉默,因此,宗教对女性的重要性(Salem, 2013)。利用菲利斯·麦克(Phyllis Mack, 2003)的作品,我认为造成这种差距的原因之一在于世俗化的元叙事,这是世俗女权主义学术的基础。 在这个分析框架内,我分析了世俗女权主义不同流派背后的代理和解放的概念是如何局限于穆斯林妇女的不同声音和经历的。第二部分论述了伊斯兰女权主义对女权主义能动性观念的挑战。由于宗教被视为固有的父权制和对妇女的压迫,伊斯兰女权主义或任何其他在伊斯兰框架内追求性别平等的努力将被视为矛盾或不相容的。通过在宗教框架内定位斗争,同时声称存在似乎不可触及的伊斯兰教基础,伊斯兰女权主义者摆脱了世俗女权主义。我认为,活动家和学者的这些经历对以理性和世俗为基础的能动性概念提出了严峻的挑战,因为理性和世俗是女性为争取和实现性别平等而奋斗的唯一支柱。因此,伊斯兰女性主义的经验也有助于动摇和复杂化女性主义理论一直在物化的一些二元对立,如世俗/精神;原因/蒙昧主义;科学和宗教;自由/压迫;现代/落后。在第三部分,文章讨论了一些虔诚的妇女运动,这些运动以萨巴·马哈茂德关于虔诚代理的工作为基础,首先是为了突出大多数女权主义学术在捕捉穆斯林妇女声音的多样性方面的无能;第二,谴责将女性的权力仅仅局限于“解放政治的整个精英阶层”的危险本质。这些运动的议程和方向与伊斯兰女权主义运动截然不同。这些议程正是谴责东方主义假设的微妙但非常重要的残余,特别是它对世俗自由主义价值观的坚持,以及现代性的目的论概念(Lakhani, 2008)。我在总结这篇文章时认为,与其忽视女权主义在世界各地的女性生活中所取得的重要成就,不如将(借用Chakrabarty的说法)世俗和自由主义对代理、女权主义、赋权、自由等的描述省化,将它们置于产生了赋予它们生命的欲望的历史、政治和文化背景中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Relaciones Internacionales-Madrid
Relaciones Internacionales-Madrid INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信