Assumptions Regarding Gender Oppression in the Middle East - Essay Example

? Reaction Paper: Politically and Culturally Biased Assumptions Regarding Gender Oppression in the Middle East The week’s readings present a complex investigation in gender study. From an overarching perspective, this reaction paper argues that traditional means of examining gender in the Middle East are biased politically and culturally. Subsequently, it is necessary to consider new epistemological frameworks for investigating gender in these regions. “How Not to Study Gender in the Middle East” contains a number of significant meta-critical insights into the process of gender study in the Middle East. The reading ultimately caused me to believe that gender study in the Middle East cannot be examined under a banner of ‘Middle East,’ but should be considered in terms of regional banners. Additionally, I now believe that one must now consider the histories intertwined with these regional divisions. Perhaps the most significant aspect of this vision of gender is that it functions to deconstruct the analytical discussion from one of simple genitalia, to one of complex and shifting and socio-dynamic political patterns. This critical representation of gender is one that has undoubtedly been implemented within the Western world. Still, I believe that within Western society, the emphasis on micro-political elements appears considerably less significant than in the divisive ‘Middle Eastern’ region. Indeed, the division between Western modes of gender analysis and Middle Eastern understandings is a critical interstice along which one cannot make ordinary one-to-one comparisons, but rather must implement a complex array of philosophical changes. The above argument is supported by Lazreg (1988) who further considers notions of gender within the East and West. While “How Not to Study Gender in the Middle East” indicates that Eastern and Western gender analysis requires separate epistemological frameworks, Lazreg argues that many of the same fallacies are implemented in both Eastern and Western analytical frameworks. Again, my reaction to these arguments is that as scholars we must continually examined our own political and cultural bias. When one considers Lazreg (1988) in conjunction with “How Not to Study Gender in the Middle East” it is clear that the works significantly augment each other. Specifically, ‘How Not to Study Gender’ meta-critically deconstructs the analytic framework, while Lazreg’s work establishes specific areas where this deconstruction occurs. Namely, Lazreg indicates that, “one's womanhood coincides with the realization that it has already been appropriated in one form or another by outsiders, women as well as men, experts in things Middle Eastern” (Lazreg 1988, p. 81). Abu-Lugod (2002) takes this a step further and argues that the analytical focus should not be centered on a gendered dialectic, but should instead focus on notions of human justice. I believe that the main significance of these findings is that they speak to a higher pragmatic knowledge about the way that critical practices have too emphatically used religion as a critical lens through which to judge Middle Eastern approaches to gender. In terms of the implementation of these new epistemological frameworks, there are a number of conclusions. I believe the most significant deconstruction is Abu-Lughod’s examination of the burqa in Afghan society. Even after the American ‘liberation’ of the region, Afghan women continued to wear the burqa to the consternation of American observers who had contextualized this in terms of patriarchal and oppressive dialectic. Instead, Abu-Lughod demonstrates that the burqa merely came to represent a modest form of fashion. This insight leads one to the recognition that, in large part, the Western critical lens may itself be politically motivated. For example, consider Abu-Lughod’s argument that one should not interpret the burqua as a limit of human agency. While this is a significant insight, it is even more relevant when considered in terms of the larger gender debate addressed by the week’s readings. In this way, the research demonstrates that in large part broad critical frameworks contain both politically charged and latent biases. Subsequently, as “How Not to Study Gender in the Middle East” indicates, it is necessary to consider the complexity of historical and cultural factors when establishing criteria for justice. While this harkens to a notion of cultural relativism, I believe that it does not necessarily preclude scholars from critically evaluating notions of justice. Instead, I think it necessitates that one take contextual circumstance into account prior to establishing critical assessments on the lack of justice in regards to gender relations. While contextualized efforts, as evidenced in Abu-Lughod’s deconstruction of the burqua, have demonstrated effective endpoints, I believe there is further importance in examining larger modes of critical representation. While “How Not to Study Gender in the Middle East” presents the most comprehensive such perspective on the issue, Larzeg additionally recognizes the importance in attempting to understand the factors that have contributed to misguided gender interpretations. For instance, her recognition that many of these erroneous assumptions are rooted in a Western differentialist attitude that emerged following World War II is a highly significant notion. In this way, one considers that post-World War II Western discourse, not merely directed at the Middle East, but also potentially at the rest of global society, relies on differentialism. While much of this research began as a means of understanding the shortcomings in Western interpretations of the Middle Eastern approach to gender relations, it is clear that these investigations have demonstrated the ways that understanding the West’s own biases contributes to a furthered understanding of self. Still, in some instances it’s possible to levy an apologist critique at Larzeg. She encourages the reader to implement an intersubjective approach to the female experience, indicating that the reader should consider the complex contextual dimensions. Ultimately, however, just because such intersubjectivity may rationalize the oppressive doctrine, does not necessary make it morally justified. In conclusion, this critical reaction has considered three supplementing interpretations of gender. Specifically, the argument is based on the following three articles: Abu-Lughod’s (2002) ‘Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?’, ‘’How Not to Study Gender in the Middle East,” and Lazreg’s (1988) ‘Feminism and Difference: the Perils of Writing as a Woman on Women in Algeria.’ While these articles establish a number of significant insights related to gender in the Middle Eastern geographic space, more significant is the way that they disrupt traditional patterns of Western critical discourse. In this way, the research is perhaps more significant in the way it deconstructs Western hegemonic assumptions regarding an ‘oppressive’ Middle Eastern culture, and subsequently works to establish new epistemological boundaries for fresh critical discourse. Ultimately, while these new critical lenses allow the scholar a new starting point, they have the immediate scholarly significance of revealing to Western readers many of their own latent biases. References Abu-Lughod, L. (2002). Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and its Others. American Anthropologist. Vol. 104, No. 3. Pp. 783-790. “How Not to Study Gender in the Middle East” http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/4775/how-not-to-study-gender-in-the-middle-east Lazreg, M. (1988). ‘Feminism and Difference: the Perils of Writing as a Woman on Women in Algeria.’ Feminist Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1. Pp. 81-107 Read More