Islam and Feminist Criticism

As woodturtle observed recently, there’s been a lot of discussion on the internets recently of Islam and feminism, fueled by the Arab spring and new discussions of Islamic practice.  I’m not equipped to discuss the role feminism should or shouldn’t play in Islam, since I’m not a Muslim[1], but some of the criticisms of feminist Islam I think display a misapprehension of what feminist criticism is and what it does, and as an academic, that is something I’m comfortable discussing.

Feminism is a lot of things.  It can be a type of political action, a medium for discussing social interactions, or an academic methodology used to re-evaluate existing scholarship.  Again, I’m not equipped to argue for the role feminism should or shouldn’t play in Islam as a political device or as an aspect of social expression – although I do have some good evidence that such roles are possible, cuz I know other people on the internets that engage in them.  What I can talk about is what feminist criticism is as a tool for academia, and why it’s important for everyone to engage in, not just Westerners, not just women, and not just people who do lit-crit.

The problem with scholarship, in particular the humanities, is that we process information within the parameters we have available to us at the time.  Even something as simple as reading a word can be affected by our current time, region, environment and background.  All post-structuralist criticism (of which feminist criticism is a branch) argues that we at least need to be aware of how our current outlook might be affecting our assumptions, and we need to revisit other people’s work to consider if they were led astray by their assumptions[2].

The best illustration I’ve ever heard of this came from a former Oxford lecturer in Ecclesiastical History, Dr Charlotte Methuen.  I had the pleasure of having Charlotte as a tutor when I was doing my Masters, and she illustrated a lecture on feminist theory by noting that in the mid-nineteenth century, a German scholar had uncovered a Greek inscription that dated from the early Christian period that contained the word ‘diakena’ as the title for a female patron.  In his edition of the inscription, he had translated the word as ‘wife of the deacon’, which, from his point of view, made perfect sense – in German, it’s perfectly acceptable to use the feminine of a professional noun as a title for a wife (eg. ‘Aertzin So-and-So’ meaning ‘Mrs Doctor So-and-So’), and that occurred to him as a more likely translation than that this was a female deacon (what we would today call a deaconess).  The problem was that, after his work, scholars argued that women played a limited role in the early church, and used, as evidence, the fact that we have no inscriptions listing women in church offices.[3]

The reality is that we do have inscriptions that might list women as holding a church office, or might not.  It sort of depends on how you read them, and how you read them is shaped not just by the word on the page (or wall, or floor, as in the case of inscriptions), but also how you want to interpret that word based on your outlook and perspective.

This is what feminist (and all post-structuralist) criticism does – it’s not a set of assumptions that scholars are trying to force onto the situation, it is meant to be a new (and hopefully) better way of evaluating sources.

So there’s a reason why post-structuralist criticism often gets hung up on questions of gender and race and sexual identity (what I, on my cynical days, refer to as ‘insert-abstract-noun-here studies’).  It’s because one of the assumptions that crops up time and time again in writing, and in reading other people’s writing, is that we have a tendency to take ‘a person’ to mean ‘an able, heterosexual man of the majority-racial-group.’  Which is pretty dumb, when you stop to think about it.  Having all of those characteristics in one person is actually going to be pretty rare.  There are loads of historical reasons why this false definition of ‘person’ developed (and for why, even in regions of the world where whites are not in the majority, ‘a person’ ends up being white).

But knowing that all of those historical circumstances exist isn’t enough.  We need to be constantly aware of this false definition because it bubbles to the surface of our perspective on the world all of the time, often in weird ways – it makes us divide kids into ‘normal’ and ‘girls’, it makes us think it’s okay to shame fat people for having the audacity of taking up more space than other people, and until very recently, it made us think that ‘rape’ was something that only happened to women.  And in scholarship, it makes us assume that everyone in history was an able, heterosexual, white man, unless well-testified otherwise.

Again, the purpose of all forms of post-structuralist criticism is to engage in conversations to help us understand that ‘person’ is not a standard model, but rather a general term, same as ‘car’ and ‘tree’ and ‘dog’.  I admit, this isn’t how it’s always used – loads of scholars have tried to use post-structuralist theory to argue that everyone but them is dumb – but when it’s done well, it’s all kinds of useful.  When we question the underlying outlook that lurks behind our natural assumptions, we open up new ways of reading and analyzing sources, which often give us whole new ranges of study and new answers to questions that we didn’t think we had before.

It also complicates things, no question about it – the fact is that post-structuralism pretty much renders the concept of universal agreement impossible.   We won’t ever all see things the same way.  But that’s only a problem if we decide to make it a problem – see Nahida’s post over on the fatal feminist on why interpretation is not a bad thing – there’s really no reason to expect universal agreement, and that doesn’t mean that we can’t still judge the accuracy or usefulness of arguments and theories.  In my experience, the lack of absolute certainty that goes hand-in-hand with post-structuralism is what causes a lot of the discomfort with these theories – we all miss being in elementary school and knowing the right answers to questions.  But also, in my experience, the benefits that can be reaped from accepting this uncertainty makes it well worth it.

And I’ve just written a post defending feminist theory.  My pure history 19-year-old self *hates* me right now.  Aw, well, such is life.

[1] Although it was the question I got asked most often when I told people I was majoring in Islamic studies – ‘have you converted?’  It got to the point where my standard answer was, ‘No, it wasn’t a pre-rec, I checked.’

[2] You know what they say, that when you make assumptions, you make an ass out of you and mptions.  And mptions hate being made asses of.

[3] Edited to add: DingoSaar has helpfully clarified my very mediocre German: “One thing: “Ärtztin” is a bad example (you don’t say “Frau Ärtztin”). The practice was indeed to say “Frau Pfarrerin” (Madam Priest) etc. for the wife of a priest; however, please note, this has fallen into disuse long ago. (AFAIK it is still used for titles in Austria: There, you are becoming “Frau Doktor Name” without promotion just by marrying a doctor).”

Advertisements

About askanislamicist

I'm an academic who specializes in early Islamic history and the history of religious interactions, who, in her free time, enjoys shouting into the internet.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Islam and Feminist Criticism

  1. dingosaar says:

    Amazing explanation – thank you SO MUCH for it! (Just being forced to write something about gender, masculism, feminism and post-gender in Germany – your post is more than helpful!!!)

    One thing: “Ärtztin” is a bad example (you don’t say “Frau Ärtztin”). The practice was indeed to say “Frau Pfarrerin” (Madam Priest) etc. for the wife of a priest; however, please note, this has fallen into disuse long ago. (AFAIK it is still used for titles in Austria: There, you are becoming “Frau Doktor Name” without promotion just by marrying a doctor).

    I have my problems with ‘insert-abstract-noun-here studies’, as you call them; if you look somewhere for an explanation, you tend to find it there. So, if you have a group of “abstract-noun” who are discriminated (politively or negatively), you tend to find the reason for that in “abstract-noun”. No “insert-abstract-noun-here scientist” will from my experience test a hypothesis by trying to find discriminated people outside of the “abstract-noun” group, as well as look for NOT discriminated people INSIDE “abstract-noun” group. (Kind of self-preservation: If the I-A-N-H scientist discovers that an A-N group is NOT the reason for discrimination, the scientist makes I-A-N-H studies obsolete.)

    About prejudices: We prejudice based on our subjective experience. When I attended officer’s school during my career in the Federal Defence, most black exchange officers were frankophone. I discovered I indiscriminately switched to French when talking to ANY black person even now. Most “persons” we see in a given profession are ‘able, heterosexual males of the majority-racial-group’, but consider flight attendants, nurses, fashion designers or high-class barbers. I doubt that “ordinary persons” tend to be white in “non-white-majority-areas”; depending on cultural influx through TV, a “pilot” or “physician” might be. (Not only “able, heterosexual, white”, but also of statistically average height, build, hair colour etc., I might add.)

    All those I-A-N-H studies are a pain… it is a thin red line when to use them because they really are a benefit, and when NOT to use them because they will prejudice YOU to the gathered data. – A treasure trove for the cerebral neurologist, too.

    • Thanks for the clarification – I knew the German usage was antique, but I didn’t realize it applied more to certain titles than others (despite years of academic training, my German is mediocre, at best – I can read most journal articles, and I can order drinks at a bar in Germany, and that’s about it!).

      I completely agree that I-A-N-H studies are a pain, and are more often used to prove someone’s pet theory than to produce better scholarship. Like I said in the post, my 19-year-old self would hate me for writing this post – in my younger days, I was strongly of the opinion that I-A-N-H studies were something that got tacked on to ‘real’ history, and that it was completely possible to do without them (in my defense, my early exposure were all examples of people using theory as a substitute for evidence, not as a method for considering it). Unfortunately to the best of my knowledge, no one has come up with a perfect system for negotiating prejudices, but I think as scholars, we just have to accept that that’s part of job, too – we’re going to get things wrong, we’re going to have to correct ourselves later, that’s just how it goes!

      Also, I have to say, having grown up in the States, I find the idea of associating all black people with French really entertaining – I now have this image of wandering around Chicago trying to speak French with everyone! I don’t think it would go down well . . . 🙂

      • dingosaar says:

        Yes, it’s a little complicated… AFAIK, a “doctor” in the USA is also more commonly a “Doctor” (don’t even medics in training get permission to be addressed as “Doctor” as interns?). If you can refer to someone as “title Name” (“engineer Müller”), you can call his wife “Frau Ingenieurin”.

        That’s what totally fascinates me in foreign languages – you get to answer questions about your native tongue that you never would have thought of as something special “home”.
        Yes, the notion of an “auto-switch” to French from your POV was my point; and you can’t imagine the faces of anglophone Blacks (the FRG has not a proudful history of allowing Blacks to become natives, alas) when I address them. 😉 If I ever spend time in an African country, I hope to get rid of this stereotyped behaviour; I think it is an example of our brains’ working with cathegories (aka Stereotypes) also in rather small and innocent details.
        The net gives freedom from them (“On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a Dog!”); however, they also cannot be corrected this way.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s