í Assignments

Hello, Should it all be in our own words like the weekly writing assignments, meaning no quotes?

Prof. Bullock’s response,

Feel free to include quotes but make sure that the length of the quote is appropriate and that you provide sufficient explanation pertaining to its inclusion and relevance. See the rubric if you have questions about how quotes will be evaluated.

I have a question on the final exam essay. For Section 2, question 3 what exactly is this question asking? Are you asking how the readings of history contribute to gender and sexuality studies? And it says choose at least two and no more than three people. Do we have to talk about the first three people you gave and compare it to two other people?

Can you give me an example on how I would structure and answer this question?

Prof Bullock’s response:

Yes, I’m asking how these historical works contribute to the study of gender and sexuality. You don’t have to address all three. Choose either Davis, Federici or Foucault. Then explain how this work relates to 2 / 3 works from the list provided.

The structure of your response is up to you. For example, how you read Davis (if this is the primary text you choose to address) should be used to underscore the bearing of her work on other material we read.

Let me know if you have additional questions.

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!

In her piece, “Affective Economies”, Sara Ahmed tries to explain the idea that people who are hateful aren’t truly hateful, they’re perceived or viewed differently because these people wish to protect something they love and cherish deeply. She says hate isn’t an true or primary emotion rather a byproduct when one feels that something they valued is being threaten. I feel like Sara makes a really good and valid point there, people don’t naturally hate on something or someone but do so when they feel like someone or something is going to changed or impact their interest negatively. She brings up the example of how the general view of America on immigrants isn’t that great, nationalists don’t really hate immigrants for who they are but the possibility they are going to take jobs, ruin society, and overall destroy their idea of the perfect nation. While these accusations may or may not be true, its the possibility that causes people to fear and hate theses groups of people coming in. Its fear and love that evokes hate, thinking of such makes me think of the quote, “Only thing we have to fear is fear itself” by FDR. She goes on bringing up another example of a white child seeing a black man shivering and immediately assume that it was an act of aggression, the child now who afraid of the black man goes on while the black man is now contained as he’s afraid of the actions that follow after for scaring the little boy. In this event, the two become divided, in a  way they both fear each other forcing them to walk down different paths. Sara also talks about how people see others and immediately assume that one is a threat without thinking about it even if its irrational. We judge and assess others subconsciously she says, from what we have experienced and been taught we naturally make the thought. One example would be if one got into an accident where he or she fell into the sea, as they grow up they see the sea they would immediately connect that to the accident they had years ago. This is also true when it comes to people, if we had a terrible experience with a group of people we would think about it as soon as we see someone from that group. We’re all guilty of such as it is baked into our minds.

“Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving” that is what Lila Abu-Lughod argues about in her essay after the 9/11 attacks and the sudden focus of Muslim women afterwards. She starts her essay with how after the attacks she was invited several times to be interviewed about Muslim women. She notes that many of the questions were general and turned into questions on Muslim women in politics. Abu-Lughod notes that these questions seemed to have stemmed from the need to understand how the attacks could have happened and why the questions didn’t go over more important topics like how the Taliban had taken control of Afghanistan.  Instead of looking into how it went wrong the focus shifted to Muslim women and how Westerns had to free them from their oppressors. Laura Bush’s speech she had made on how poorly Afghan women were being treated and how much the Taliban were monsters helped many people feel justified for bombings, intervention in the Middle East and supported the War on Terror. She talks about how this attitude goes along well with “colonial feminism” and gives a few examples on past experiences concerning it and warns of cultural icons being a part of a messy historical/political narrative. Abu-Lughod then talks about how people were surprised that after Taliban were pushed out of Afghanistan women weren’t in a rush to take off their burqa even though it was supposed to be a sign of their oppression.  It was the stage where people would contend with how the people of a different part of the world would do things their own way. After going in detail about who created the burqa she talks about how the burqa was a sign of oppression in the West but in the Middle East it was normal and even something that kept women safe from harassment from men because it provided a sense of seclusion and compared burqas to portable homes. It goes to show how it is important for people to understand the situation in a foreign place before coming up with their own idea on how to help or try to impose their own culture onto a different people.

A large part of what Lila Abu-Lughod tries to build on is that any observing parties must recognize that they themselves are subject to equal observation by others and themselves. One stance some may take by mistake is that in order to properly analyze a culture, one first remove themself from the international culture ecosystem. Doing so removes an important part of the equation of determining what problems in societies are, and what we should consider to address said problems. This is due to the fact that If analyzed at face value we overlook, or completely ignore the questions that ask why things are the way they are and solely focus on what they are at the present time; we may also do so incorrectly (Abu-Lughod, 2002:787).

Abu-Lughod presents her own experiences of interacting with media and those who influence the public on matters of foreign affairs. In general, if the aforementioned thought process is not considered, the result of an analysis may be reduced to nothing but a meaningless and helpful polarization in cultures between the analyzer and the analyzed (Abu-Lughod, 2002:784).

It seems Abu-Lughod supports the idea that the way we analyze anything may be done so in a way to rationalize and justify our goals and therefore the method of said analysis is unreliable. She highlights how American media has moved in the direction of justifying war through the illusion that the nation understands what freedom is to the cultural other (Abu-Lughod, 2002:784, 788). Women are used as objects for these justifications. She uses the American focus on the veil as an example and compares it to the larger and more valid concern of women in Afghanistan. The oppressive symbol of the veil, is a lesser concern to women than their immediate safety (Abu-Lughod, 2002:787).

Furthermore, she recognizes that which many may not want to. That being there are issues within reach that we neglect entirely while giving so much attention to aspects of a struggle that are entirely irrelevant to any agenda. Why do we turn a blind eye on other human rights issues? Why do we focus so heavily on the symbol of the veil?

In Ahmed’s piece, she argues that people’s emotions are not innate nor personal. Instead they are shaped by the myths perpetuated in one’s environment. The author uses psychoanalysis to show how white fears of “the other” are often rooted in unconscious beliefs shaped by deeper histories. Through the use of fear white people mobilize feelings of hatred of the perceived other. This hatred is justified through ideas of the white subject’s rights and the nation’s ground they view as under threat of the other. The nation is imagined as white which is believed to be synonymous with purity. The “others” are perceived as violating this purity and their entry is framed as overwhelming the white population viewed as the rightful owners of the land. The nation is also viewed as a white female in that the entry of immigrants is seen as a violation akin to rape. Ahmed argues that these feelings work to stick together identities such as that of an asylum seeker and the terrorist boogeyman. By conflating these two identities the nation is perceived as “securing itself” by not allowing asylum seekers. Since these people are viewed as dangerous the few that are allowed entry to make the nation be seen as charitable or righteous. White people are viewed the same way that the home owner that murdered the 16-year-old burglar is seen. Protecting property is shown to be more important than human life. Even though the boy was murdered the real victim is the home owner whose property was thought to be under threat. The grounds or nation is viewed as under threat by the other and white people who perceive themselves to be the “home owners” see themselves as having the right to secure it at any cost. The author also shows the way language in speeches reveals this fear in the use of words like “swamped.” These words carry connotations of asylum seekers as dirty and as intruders which mobilize national attitudes to be anti-immigration and refugee aid.

In her piece, “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others”, Lila Abu-Lughod talks about how the West viewed the people of Islamic, specifically women. She argues how Westerns used the concept that the women there need saving or are enslaved in attempts to changed their ways. Western media has made it seem as if the people there understand what freedom is and needs to spread it to other cultures. She goes on to saying how the U.S. was trying to find a reason to to enter the country and after the attack on September 11th, 2001, the United States went in on the terms that it was a war against terrorism. In her argument, she points out how the troops (U.S.) didn’t really understand the culture of the area. First lady at the time, Laura Bush made the point of how the women there were being oppressed by the Taliban because they were enforcing the women to wear the veil. It was all for the wrong reasons, there were numerous other issues women there faced yet they decided to address the issue of clothing. She also directs how the people of the U.S. were also oppressed not being able to dress the way they want without being looked down upon by the community. If a girl in the U.S. were to wear revealing clothing at night she be immediately deemed as a slut or whore, she isn’t able to dress the way she pleases without a guy catcalling her. She kind of wants to point out that the U.S. shouldn’t be meddling into other people’s problems when they can’t even take car of their own. Overall I feel like people should be able to do what they want so long it doesn’t not impact others negatively; people shouldn’t be oppressed.

In the article, “Affective Economies” written by Sarah Ahmed, she discusses how hate attends to our emotions within our economic structure. Emotions play a crucial role within everyones everyday lives, Whether its talking about a sad show you saw, or something that made you laugh. In the beginning of her article, the narrative talks about how it is the love for the nation that makes other people hate one another. In this article, Sarah Ahmed want people to realize that people love to hate one another. There is a huge correlation between loving and hating. In today’s economy you need to have a job in order to earn money. Most people will get a job with something they have interest in doing. They will end up loving their job, but if the economy goes to dumps and people start getting laid off and loosing their jobs, it causes fear to rise. When fear of losing something you have happen, it can cause hatred. You can start hating the people who will take your job etc. Some people can say that our emotions are the problems, not the individual. Ahmed state on page 119, “in such affective economies, emotions do things, and they align individuals with communities- or bodily space with social space- through they very intensity of their attachments. Rather seeing emotions as psychological dispositions, we need to consider how they work, in concrete and particular ways, to mediate the relationship between psychic and the social, and between the individual and the collective.” I agree with this statement here. In oder for love and hate to come about, you need to take a step back and look at your emotions and how they can contribute to your everyday life, if your emotions are a positive impact or a negative impact. Your emotions become a property when you discuss how a certain thing may make you feel.