Countering Islamophobia: Terrain for Non-Muslims Only

10.3.07

Today I attended a lecture at NYU given by Joan Wallach Scott (for those of you feminist/women's studies folks out there you know who I'm talking about). The talk was titled "French Gender Equality and Headscarves," in preparation for her upcoming book about gender equity and the ban on hijab in public schools in France.

In and of itself, her talk was interesting. She framed the French ban on hijab in 2004 around hostility to immigrants, non-whites, and Muslims. She linked it to similar movements across Europe (including the burqa ban in the Netherlands). Her book would look at the construction of two opposing sexualities and gender codes as the site of the 'clash of civilizations.'

She notes that the language used to talk about hijab in France was hegemonic; for example, the hijab was seen as an 'ostentatious' display of religion in the French legislation. Meanwhile, most Muslims see hijab as completely UN-ostentatious, in fact, as an dress that engenders and reflects modesty and moderation.

While the mainstream discourse called the donning of hijab a cloak over sexuality, Scott argues that the reason the hijab is so disturbing to Western sensibilities is that it in fact puts gender/sexuality in the open. It isn't the absence of sex but its very presence that disturbed the French, whose national ideology is one of 'abstract individualism' (we're all the same, so let's ignore our differences). The veil, Scott contends, makes public the issue of gender difference and inequality.

Scott also shows the racism of Western feminists that the 'clash' with Islam provoked. For example, those very feminists who, prior to the headscarf affair, denounced provocative and revealing attire among women later proclaimed it as a form of French modernity and liberation of women; essentially, they flip-flopped once their xenophobia was provoked.

French president Chirac called the hijab (or, as many call it, the veil--so people think that hijabi women cover their face--which they all don't) "a kind of aggression." What, you might ask, is the aggression in covering one's physical form? The aggression, particularly in the case of the face covering, is that the white man no longer has the right to gaze upon the Muslim woman. Also, it is that she can "see him, but he can't see her" suggests Scott. Fanon has said that the woman who sees without being seen doesn't offer herself to the colonizer. In general, the French ban upheld the view that women's femininity came from being put on display and viewed by men.

Problematic elements can be seen even among those who opposed the ban on hijab. For example, she noted one woman's citation of the fact that women with higher schooling had more sexual partners and sex relations outside of marriage. "Thus, hijab should be allowed in public school so these hijabi girls can get schooled" and ultimately engage in sexual acts deemed liberating by the West.

In popular discourse, some considered the ban on hijab as basic as the "ban on incest." This again implied a kind of universality of the Western, European understanding of dress code. It also implied that Muslims had gone wrong when regulating sexuality.

So far, so good, right? But let's not act like the content of one's work is all that needs to be considered. Why, I must ask, was a white woman publishing and touring with a topic that me, my mom, sisters, and friends have talked about over tea, a topic that we inherently understood by virtue of our experience? We can't ignore the race and power dynamics of putting on a pedestal a white woman saying "hijab is not that oppressive" when all of us non-Princeton-PhD-holders (Muslims and our allies) have understood that for years.

And more importantly, why was there only ONE woman wearing hijab in audience of about 75; only about 4 or 5 people who were likely Muslim, and a minority of people of color? Well, I suppose the fact that this event took place from 6-7:30 (aka sunset for those who observe Ramadan) during the holy month speaks volumes for who this conversation is intended to involve. The "good" Muslim who either doesn't fast, or doesn't mind missing maghrib prayers. The academic community, no doubt (which of course excludes the subjects of study). So while Scott's work itself purports to uphold a progressive idea around the BS of secularism and Western feminism, those belonging to the religious community in question must be excluded or compromise to contribute meaningfully to this discussion. In other words, even a talk that seems sympathetic toward practicing Muslims around the world can be scheduled at a time when practicing Muslims are breaking their fast and observing their prayer.

So, for the Nth time in the last month or so, I have come to the realization that there is often a huge divide between academics and what they produce; between progressive work and progressive politics; between antiracist writing and antiracist action...I'm guessing this isn't the last time I'll learn the lesson.