King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia announced this past week that women would be able to participate in elections for the first time. Of course, in the U.S. this news was used a platform for self-righteous sermonizing about the treatment of women in the Middle East. On the Daily Show, Jon Stewart jumped on the bandwagon by making several insensitive jokes (for example, showing a picture of voting booths constructed out of women and their veils).
First of all, having the "right to vote" by no means signifies liberation for women in the U.S. or any country. In fact, the focus on voting is another example of the way in which discontent is channeled into activities that ultimately support the system. I would link to another post in which I made this point, but I feel like it is becoming a pervasive theme in this blog. Voting is an illusory, symbolic privilege that ornaments a highly stratified, oligarchic global society. (The fact that the Saudi king would be willing to allow women to vote as a sort of PR stunt - a response to regional instability - very well exemplifies the true nature of voting.) Women may be able to vote and even hold elected office, but that doesn't mean society is any less patriarchal.
Moreover, there has been a long history of Europeans pointing toward Arab/Muslim/Middle Eastern (undistinguished) patriarchy in contrast to the supposed liberation of European women (long before they ever got the right to vote!) as an excuse for the colonial project. And it continues to this day. The plight of Afghani women under the rule of the Taliban, for example, is used as a rationale for U.S. military involvement in the region, even though most women see the violence resulting from these operations as a greater menace than the veils they wear.
Some women like wearing veils and burkas. It has spiritual meaning for them and serves as a form of agency, a means of self-discipline. Who are we to tell them that they can only be free if they don't wear a veil?
Furthermore, where women do feel oppressed, they have the ability to act on their own behalf and fight their own battle. They do not need or necessarily want us to liberate them. They are not passive and helpless. However, their vision of "liberation" may differ from the Western feminist vision of liberation. But Western feminists will not recognize it. In this way, white feminists are actually denying agency to women of other colors and faiths.
But the bottom line is this: whatever liberation movements may have occurred in different places and at different times, the system has not changed in its fundamentals. All women are oppressed, and by the same systemic processes, though they may be oppressed in different ways. It does not make sense to play the game of "who is more oppressed?" Yes, women in some regions have to cover their entire body and can only appear in public with a male chaperone. But women in other regions may feel forced to expose or sell their bodies, and are tortured daily with self-imposed starvation and feelings of inadequacy. Is it any more liberating or honorable to be treated as an object and to hate one's own body?
Showing posts with label Islamic fundamentalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islamic fundamentalism. Show all posts
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Religion and Colonialism in MENA
In a previous post, I mentioned that there are two general responses to colonialism - nationalism and socialism - and one particular to the MENA reigion - Islamism (a political movement based on religious fundamentalism). I also suggested that Islamism may be viewed as a type of nationalism.
Of these three responses to colonialism, socialism poses the most radical challenge to the global power structure. Although socialism is a form of capitalism, the practice of nationalizing industries serves as a means of blocking the control of resources, enterprises, and markets from the most powerful competitors - the ones who maintain neocolonial control over the entire globe.
In contrast to socialism, nationalism and Islamism can be (and have been) coopted by the industrial powers to suit their own purposes. This fact is most fundamentally demonstrated by the way in which countries like the United States promote Islamophobia and denounce "Islamic extremism" on the one hand, while using their other hand to covertly aid and support Islamist groups. While the support for nationalist groups has been used primarily to destabilize other colonial powers, the capitalist powers are most likely to court Islamist groups when they can be pitted against socialist forces (in this sense, then, Islamism becomes "the lesser of two evils").
Islamist groups are remarkably varied in terms of the scope of their goals and the methods that they employ. It is by no means a single movement. Rather "Islamism" describes a heterogenous group of movements. (This is one reason it is misguided to speak generically of "Islamic fundamentalism," "terrorism," or "religious extremism" as a unified force, when these groups and movements are so often working at cross purposes.) Some Islamist groups are so narrowly concerned with consolidating political power within a single nation that they do not hesitate to coorporate with the industrial powers to promote a neoliberal agenda (e.g. "open markets") or whatever else these powers want in return for covert funding and support.
It is fairly well known that the United States armed the Mujahideen in Agfhanistan in order to thwart the socialist forces that had taken root there (including Soviet involvement). People seem less aware that both the British and the United States have supported the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt. For this reason the Brotherhood is currently lauded for being "moderate" and friendly to Israel, despite the fact that they constituted an important part of the power structure of the previous despotic regimes. The aims of the world powers are, in fact, served by keeping in place as much of the governing apparatus from Mubarak's regime as possible, as it had been carefully constructed to protect foreign capitalist interests via covert interventions (including raising the Islamic Brotherhood into a significant political force).
Under what circumstances, then, do Islamists become "the enemy"? Some Islamists do not have such narrow political pursuits. Some are more broadly anti-colonial and seek to undermine foreign influence in the region. This may include opposition to the perceived proxy of European and U.S. interests in the Middle East: Israel.
This, like socialism, is too much of a challenge.
But why would the U.S. promote a generalized Islamophobia within its borders, when this does not represent the actual geopolitical relationship with Muslim or even Islamist forces? I will try to tackle this question perhaps in the next post.
Of these three responses to colonialism, socialism poses the most radical challenge to the global power structure. Although socialism is a form of capitalism, the practice of nationalizing industries serves as a means of blocking the control of resources, enterprises, and markets from the most powerful competitors - the ones who maintain neocolonial control over the entire globe.
In contrast to socialism, nationalism and Islamism can be (and have been) coopted by the industrial powers to suit their own purposes. This fact is most fundamentally demonstrated by the way in which countries like the United States promote Islamophobia and denounce "Islamic extremism" on the one hand, while using their other hand to covertly aid and support Islamist groups. While the support for nationalist groups has been used primarily to destabilize other colonial powers, the capitalist powers are most likely to court Islamist groups when they can be pitted against socialist forces (in this sense, then, Islamism becomes "the lesser of two evils").
Islamist groups are remarkably varied in terms of the scope of their goals and the methods that they employ. It is by no means a single movement. Rather "Islamism" describes a heterogenous group of movements. (This is one reason it is misguided to speak generically of "Islamic fundamentalism," "terrorism," or "religious extremism" as a unified force, when these groups and movements are so often working at cross purposes.) Some Islamist groups are so narrowly concerned with consolidating political power within a single nation that they do not hesitate to coorporate with the industrial powers to promote a neoliberal agenda (e.g. "open markets") or whatever else these powers want in return for covert funding and support.
It is fairly well known that the United States armed the Mujahideen in Agfhanistan in order to thwart the socialist forces that had taken root there (including Soviet involvement). People seem less aware that both the British and the United States have supported the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt. For this reason the Brotherhood is currently lauded for being "moderate" and friendly to Israel, despite the fact that they constituted an important part of the power structure of the previous despotic regimes. The aims of the world powers are, in fact, served by keeping in place as much of the governing apparatus from Mubarak's regime as possible, as it had been carefully constructed to protect foreign capitalist interests via covert interventions (including raising the Islamic Brotherhood into a significant political force).
Under what circumstances, then, do Islamists become "the enemy"? Some Islamists do not have such narrow political pursuits. Some are more broadly anti-colonial and seek to undermine foreign influence in the region. This may include opposition to the perceived proxy of European and U.S. interests in the Middle East: Israel.
This, like socialism, is too much of a challenge.
But why would the U.S. promote a generalized Islamophobia within its borders, when this does not represent the actual geopolitical relationship with Muslim or even Islamist forces? I will try to tackle this question perhaps in the next post.
Monday, April 4, 2011
MENA Dictatorships and Colonialism
The recent history of the MENA (Middle East/North Africa) region has been characterized by three successive waves of colonization. First, by the Ottoman Empire, until the Arabs were "liberated" by the British and French. This inaugurated a period of British and French colonization, until the Arabs were "liberated" by the United States. The United States then took up the torch of colonization (under its fancy new guise: neocolonialism). It should also be mentioned that Israeli imperialism has been pereceived as an extension of European imperialism; and the USSR also made some in-roads before its collapse.
Two means of resisting imperialism have been salient in the capitalist era. Nationalism is an assertment of the right to self-determination and a challenge to the racist assumptions (re: the superiority of European culture) that undergird the colonial enterprise. Socialism is a reaction to globalization and capitalist exploitation. These movements have often been employed in concert with each other in liberation struggles all over the world.
In the MENA region, Islamic fundamentalism represents a third mode of colonial resistance. It is many ways a type of nationalism, as it an assertment of the superiority of traditional Islamic values over Western, secular culture. This is most definitely a challenge to institutionalized racism, particularly the scholarly enterprise of "Orientalism," which has portrayed Arabs and those of the Islamic faith as cuturally backward and prone to irrationality and liscentiousness.
Various combinations of Arab nationalism, socialism, and Islamic fundamentalism have been employed in resistance struggles in the MENA region. Arab nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism have also been actively cultivated by, first, the British/French and then the U.S. to fuel resistance movements against OTHER colonial powers (the Ottoman Empire in the first case; the USSR in the second).
At other times, the British and French created and encouraged religious sectarian rilvaries in order to effect divisions among the population and consolidate their own rule. Furthermore, the British, French, and U.S. have all had an interest in undermining socialist movements, overthrowing democratically elected governments (for example, in Iraq and Iran), and supporting (sometimes installing) dictators with whom they could "do business." In this way, these colonial powers have actively nourished instability, authoritarianism, and infrastructural weakness to maintain neo-colonial control over the region.
And for what ulimate purpose? The necessities of capitalism.
The MENA protestors are just as concerned about employment, wages, and social services as they are civil and political rights. In part (notwithstanding concerns about political repression and abuse), they believe that democracy is a means to effecting better socio-economic conditions. Yet, it is poverty that creates the conditions for dictatorship, and not vice versa.
Attempts at social and economic reform that would mitigate poverty and create more egalitarian conditions are routinely squelched by the U.S. and other capitalist powers. For it is in their interest to keep markets "open to foreign investment" (read: open to exploitation by multinational corporations).
In short, inequality and widespread poverty exist in MENA because it is a necessity for capitalist profitability. U.S. and European foreign policy in the region has revolved around creating and sustaining these conditions.
If the Arabs wish for a better life, it is capitalism and colonialism that they must continue to fight against. Not just the individual dictators.
Two means of resisting imperialism have been salient in the capitalist era. Nationalism is an assertment of the right to self-determination and a challenge to the racist assumptions (re: the superiority of European culture) that undergird the colonial enterprise. Socialism is a reaction to globalization and capitalist exploitation. These movements have often been employed in concert with each other in liberation struggles all over the world.
In the MENA region, Islamic fundamentalism represents a third mode of colonial resistance. It is many ways a type of nationalism, as it an assertment of the superiority of traditional Islamic values over Western, secular culture. This is most definitely a challenge to institutionalized racism, particularly the scholarly enterprise of "Orientalism," which has portrayed Arabs and those of the Islamic faith as cuturally backward and prone to irrationality and liscentiousness.
Various combinations of Arab nationalism, socialism, and Islamic fundamentalism have been employed in resistance struggles in the MENA region. Arab nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism have also been actively cultivated by, first, the British/French and then the U.S. to fuel resistance movements against OTHER colonial powers (the Ottoman Empire in the first case; the USSR in the second).
At other times, the British and French created and encouraged religious sectarian rilvaries in order to effect divisions among the population and consolidate their own rule. Furthermore, the British, French, and U.S. have all had an interest in undermining socialist movements, overthrowing democratically elected governments (for example, in Iraq and Iran), and supporting (sometimes installing) dictators with whom they could "do business." In this way, these colonial powers have actively nourished instability, authoritarianism, and infrastructural weakness to maintain neo-colonial control over the region.
And for what ulimate purpose? The necessities of capitalism.
The MENA protestors are just as concerned about employment, wages, and social services as they are civil and political rights. In part (notwithstanding concerns about political repression and abuse), they believe that democracy is a means to effecting better socio-economic conditions. Yet, it is poverty that creates the conditions for dictatorship, and not vice versa.
Attempts at social and economic reform that would mitigate poverty and create more egalitarian conditions are routinely squelched by the U.S. and other capitalist powers. For it is in their interest to keep markets "open to foreign investment" (read: open to exploitation by multinational corporations).
In short, inequality and widespread poverty exist in MENA because it is a necessity for capitalist profitability. U.S. and European foreign policy in the region has revolved around creating and sustaining these conditions.
If the Arabs wish for a better life, it is capitalism and colonialism that they must continue to fight against. Not just the individual dictators.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)