Analysis of Lila Abu-Lughod’s Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?
Lila Abu-Lughod’s article titled, “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?” takes a closer look at the problematic ethnocentric approach many have when trying to gain an understanding of another culture that may be foreign to that individual. In this analytical paper, Lughod looks at women in Islam, specifically the treatment of women and how it might be utilized as a justification for invading into a country and liberating its people. The country Lughod refers to in her article is Afghanistan, and Lughod points out the misunderstanding from the people to the Bush administration like First Lady Laura Bush who believed that intervention was necessary to free women from the captivity of their own homes. It is important to consider the role that different lenses play into all of this, especially when one’s lenses are being shaped by the media. Depictions of covered women secluded from society leave a permanent image in the minds of many, who would then later support the idea of liberation. This paper will discuss that the practice of using propaganda when referring to the lifestyle in the Middle East is not exclusive to the U.S; rather it has been utilized throughout history. Additionally, we will take a closer look on the importance of symbols, such as veils in this case; help to further emphasize the cause to liberate. Finally, we will analyze Lughod’s plea towards cultural relativism and away from liberal imperialism.The excuse for liberating a country or region has been roughly the same throughout history. Lughod cites the French and the English for her support since they both have had enormous presence in the MENA region. For example, the British colonialism in Southern Asia used native women as a clear justification for intervention. Lughod refers to this as classic “colonial feminism,” where there was deep concern to save the women from the veil, but these colonialists disregard the educational rights for women back home as well as women’s suffrage. These so called acts of liberation in history created resentment amongst the people they were trying to liberate, and Lughod makes the connection between the U.S. actions and their previous counterparts, “so we need to be wary when Lord Cromer in British-ruled Egypt, French ladies in Algeria, and Laura Bush, all with military troops behind them, claim to be saving or liberating Muslim women.”
Referring back to the veil, which is one of the singular images along with others that tie into perceived oppression. This suspicion of oppression derives from the lack of understanding and creates the dangerous misconception that once the people become liberated, they will instantaneously adopt our way of living. Lughod further elaborates upon this point by questioning that “once “free” from the Taliban, they (the women) would go “back” to their belly shirts and blue jeans?” Through this question, it becomes clear how women colonialism uses distortion as a means for liberation. It is easy to forget that the veil has its different forms and that some women choose to cover their faces whereas others prefer to cover their heads-both of which are valid interpretations according to Islamic jurisprudence. Although this maybe surprising to some, Islamic jurisprudence goes back in history before the formation of the Taliban; Lughod emphasizes this point as well that the veil serves to protect one’s modesty rather than excluding them from society. Contrary to popular belief, the veil Moreover, Lughod mentions that the exclusivity of the veil is not held only by Islam, but other religions such as Hinduism, Christianity and Judaism utilize the veil in one form or another, but the reasoning behind it is the same. The image of the veil speaks volume to people who have not seen it before, therefore it is easy to use it as a forefront issue and disregard actual oppression.
Throughout the analytical piece, Lughod refers to ignorance of the topic she is discussing several times but does not explicitly refer to it under a common theme. From my understanding, the ignorance of invading a country for “liberation” can be placed under one umbrella called liberal imperialism. Stephen Walt described the term liberal imperialists as those, “who are driven more by concern for human rights than they are by blind nationalism or protecting the U.S.-Israel special relationship.” Liberal imperialists often find themselves believing wholeheartedly that the United States is morally obligated to take some sort of action rather than just stay out of avoidable quarrels in foreign lands. To tie into the definition generated by Walt, Lughod mentions in the article how she never received a petition defending the rights of Palestinian women to safety from constant Israeli shelling. It is plausible to assert that the foreign policy of the United States since its involvement in the Middle East could be appropriately categorized as liberal imperialistic since it combines both neo-conservatism and liberation rhetoric. What is an alternative to liberal imperialism? Cultural relativism brought up in Lughod’s work could be a credible option. How so? Instead of taking a hard stance or racing to conclusions, cultural relativism allows the individual to understand and take the effort to recognize and respect cultural differences. Regarding cultural relativism, Lughod mentions that, “the task is to critically explore what we might do to help create a just world.” This would mean to move past the notion of liberal imperialism, and women colonialism, because it is essential to connect with another when one considers the increasing globalization; this would then allow us to solve common problems that we are facing.
Works Cited
Abu-Lughod, Lila. "Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections On Cultural Relativism And Its Others." American Anthropologist 104.3 (2002): 783-790. Print.
Walt, Stephen. "Top 10 Warning Signs of Liberal Imperialism." Foreign Policy. N.P, 20 May 2013. Web. 17 Mar. 2014. .
页:
[1]