å Sunday, December 10th, 2017

In Lila Abu-Lughod’s essay, “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving,” she deliberates on cultural explanation and the organization of women. Throughout the War on Terror, there was an emphasis on Muslim women. Lughod discusses the linking bound between the War on Terror and the cultural mode of explanation.  After the catastrophic attacks on both The World Trade Center and the U.S Pentagon had occurred, there was a necessity from the Americans to better understand the culture of the attackers. Americans wished to better comprehend the meaning behind their religious rituals and know about the Islamic faith along with the women who helped the people grief and figure out the reasoning behind these attacks.  Lughod makes a strong argument about the essential need to learn about the Islamic culture. She questions that how can knowing about the culture of the region, particularly its religious belief and the treatment of women, is going to help us better understand why these disastrous events had occurred. Instead of concentrating on Muslim religious beliefs, people ought to have focused on the role the U.S had with relation to the development of the repressive regimes. The U.S had decided to use the oppression of Muslim women to help justify going into war as a necessary help to free the mistreated Afghan women. During the time the Taliban were in control, the Afghan women were enforced to wear burqas and if seen in public without wearing one, they’ll be punished and occasionally be killed. Numerous individuals had believed that act of punishing women for not wearing these burqas are a violation of women rights. When the U. S took control over the country, there were countless claims that they had succeed and helped the Afghan women be liberate. Though even after they were free from the Taliban, the Afghan women continued to wear their burqas due to it being a fragment of the Muslim religion. Lughod reasoned why should there be a relationship between the way people culturally dress and political problems. There shouldn’t be a reason to define people from a certain culture as oppress due to the way the natives dress, and major political decisions should not be made as oppressive as well.

I think that I have a good sense of what I will be writing for questions 1 and 3. Can you please elaborate a bit more on what you mean by “understanding the politics of human subjectivity”? I feel like I understand it but am having a difficult articulating it.

For question 3, I planned to use Davis, with Collins and hooks. I just wasn’t sure if you wanted one reading per one of the works?

Also am I correct in saying that you did not want any outside sources because it’s more of an opinionated essay?

Prof Bullock response:

Question 1: When I talk about a politics of human subjectivity, I am highlighting a limitation for our understanding of power and resistance that is affiliated with the nation-state. This follows the arc we traced in moving from Collins’s work to other authors more concerned about oppression as it is experienced by persons who are not necessarily protected by the law, like those who immigrate but are unable to obtain the rights of citizenship. I hope this helps.

Question 2: For this question, you should choose to address either Davis, Federici, or Foucault. Then choose an additional 2/3 readings from the list of works provided (this list includes material we addressed after the midterm exam). From what you’ve indicated above, it looks like you are on the right track.

Question 3: I encourage students to stick to the works we’ve read in class because the primary goal of this exercise is to demonstrate your knowledge of the works we have covered. If you decide to include any outside sources, make sure you attention to these pieces does not preclude your attending to this primary goal.

Let me know if you have additional questions!