5 Assignment 12

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.

“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 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 her essay, “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving,” Lila Abu-Lughod discusses cultural explanation and the mobilization of women.  During the War on Terror there was a skeptical focus on Muslim women. Lughod discusses the connection between the War on Terror and the cultural mode of explanation.  When the tragic attack on New York’s World Trade Center and the U.S Pentagon occurred there was this need to understand culture of the attackers. There was this need to understand the meaning of a religious ritual and about the Islam faith and about it’s women to kind of help people grief and figure out the reason behind these attacks.  Lughod makes a good point about the need to learn about the Islam culture, she questions how is knowing about the culture of the region, particularly its religious belief and treatment of women going to help us understand why these tragic events occurred. Instead of focusing on their religious belief, people should focus on the role the U.S had with relation to the development of the repressive regimes. The U.S used the oppression of Muslim women as a means to justifies war as a necessary to free victimized Afghan women. During the time that the Taliban were in control Afghan women were forced to wear burqas and if they were seen out in public without them they’ll be punished and sometimes killed. Many people believed this to be a violation of women rights. When the U.S took control over the country many claim to have succeed and help the Afghan women be liberate when in reality even after they were free from the Taliban these women continue to wear their burqas because it is part of their religion. Lughod argues why must their be a correlation between the way people cultural dress and political problems. There shouldn’t be a reason to label people from a certain culture as oppress because of the way they dress and also major political decision shouldn’t be made because of it either.

In ” Do Muslim women really need saving? anthropological reflections on cultural relativism and its others”, Lila Abu-Lugnod discusses the involvement of US in Afghanistan. She starts by  mentioning how the attacks on Sep. 11, 2011 everything changed for them too. Americans started to look for almost an excuse to go into their country and start a “war against terrorism”. To the people there, it was clear that the attention  was focused on all the wrong places to try to look for something to fix. She takes first lady, Bush, to show how American troops were there and ‘liberating’ them from terrorism and supposedly from the Taliban. Instead of studying the history of the situation the country was in, they came in to ‘save’ women from the wrong factors. She criticizes that instead of getting to know their culture, the Americans came in trying to change the way they were treated to almost the same as it was in America. Here the liberation women have is different from that of women in Afghanistan. As the government announced in the first few months of the ‘war against terrorism’, women had gained some minor liberties like being able to listen to music, yet they left out things that women had been fighting against for such a long time. As she said there “was the blurring of the very separate causes in Afghanistan of women’s continuing malnutrition, poverty, and ill health, and their more recent exclusion under the Taliban from employment, schooling, and the joys of wearing nail polish”(Abu-Lugnod,784). To Americans it was communicated that these women were being saved in some way, but they did not addressed the real issues that they needed to. Maybe it might had been because they did not analyze their cultural struggles before coming in to fight a war. These women did not need the type of saving the Americans were trying to offer them.

In this article Lila Abu-Lughod discusses the way the image of the oppressed Afghan women and her victimized femininity were mobilized in efforts to justify the U.S post 9/11 wars in the middle east. She analyzes two major moments in media where this can be clearly seen: One was her interview with a PBS reporter and the other was Laura Bush’s radio address.  In her interview with the PBS reporter she discusses the way culture, women’s roles and Islam were evoked as a way to explain terrorism. Instead of analyzing the way U.S involvement created much of the instability in the region prior to the events on 9/11, the media chose to focus on Muslims and middle eastern culture to try to make sense of the attacks. The veil was evoked as a symbol of female oppression and a clear example of the “backwardness” and “barbarism” of Islam and middle eastern culture. In turn, the war was presented as necessary to “free” oppressed and victimized Afghani women. In Laura Bush’s radio address her manner of speech conflates the Taliban and the terrorists while framing the western world as the benevolent entity that would save the “women of cover.” This approach to Muslim women’s identities, their perceived oppression and victimization under the veil is problematic in different ways. Not only does It help mobilize the west to see themselves as more “civilized” and therefore superior, it also ignores Muslim women’s agency within their own cultural and religious tradition. While women face oppression and disenfranchisement in Afghanistan they fight their hardships by drawing on philosophy that makes sense in their context and through reinterpreting religious doctrine. Ignoring the way Muslim women carve out their own unique brand of feminism is an instrument that maintains the “war on terror” running by gaining support for western countries in the name of freeing middle eastern women from middle eastern men.

In the essay ” Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving”, Lila Abu-Lughod criticizes Westerners how they tried to “Liberate” Muslim women who they think they do not have freedom. After the 911 attack Laura Bush suddenly brings up Muslim women’s right which they never had before. She first mentions “War on Terrorism” which is about the Middle Eastern occupation of the United States. She also criticizes they justification Westerner made which America can occupy the area because they attacked America. She also criticize the logic since they are evil, we can beat them even though it was actually for economic benefit.  America went to War in Afghanistan against Taliban who controlled Afghan, and took the control of the country. Laura Bush said the Muslim woman is free after the invention. Women in Afghan wore burqas when Taliban control the region, and they were not allowed to go out side without it. If women in Afghan does not cover themselves they would be punished or harmed. Westerner thought it is a violence to the Muslim women right. However, even after United States took control of the country, they were still wearing them. Furthermore, she criticizes how  Laura Bush says they had been successful and that the invention of that country is helping Afghan people especially women. However, women are still oppressed in Afghanistan. I think saying something like “liberate” the area is actually looking down on people and their culture. Therefore, the way America did was totally against their will and it barely changed anything. People there have their own culture and if some outsider says something about this or forcing, I think it is really difficult for them to change suddenly. They have lived their lives with the culture, so instead of forcing to change, their regional power has to do something to it little by little.

Lila Abu-Lughod argues in her article, “Do Muslim Woman Really Need Saving” that people need to stop trying to “save Muslim woman” from their culture, and learn to appreciate their cultural and historical differences. She says that this idea to save others has a tone of dominance and would lead to unnecessary violence. For example, Afghan culture does not necessarily look at the burqa as a symbol of oppression but as a socially acceptable form of attire. Yet, western culture has a strong opinion that such dressing is subservient and in no way liberating. This mindset led Americans to justify bombing and intervening in Afghanistan affairs, because it would “save the woman”. I think the problem Abu-Lughod has with this is that Muslim woman were so important to this “war on terror”, yet were not considered in any other political conflicts. This cultural mode of explanation used them to tell the public why the war was happening, and symbolized the oppression that America was trying to liberate. I think this leads to a lot of today’s problems concerning discrimination in America. People still view Muslim traditional dress as a symbol of oppression and connection to terrorism. What I find really interesting about this all, is how many white American men, shame Muslim woman for dressing too modestly, yet also shame woman for dressing to revealing. Why do men feel the need to control and shame woman based on their dress, and with concern to Lila Abu-Loghod’s argument, why must Americans associate cultural dress with political problems as if they have anything to do with each other. Maybe woman dress in certain ways because they simply want to, without any other motives or symbolic message behind the threads. A lot of violence and death could be avoided if we simply (like Lughod noted) accepted one another’s cultures, and diversity, and didn’t use them to provoke and justify political decisions.

Abu-Lughod’s essay “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving,” questions why Americans think that “Muslim women” in Afghanistan need to be rescued from their society and country. She characterizes this premise as being a method of rejecting cultural differences, and states that this has become the West’s main focus following the events of September 11, 2001, and the beginning of the “War on Terror”. Abu-Lughod argues that countries in the West should analyze their contribution to living conditions in countries like Afghanistan. Furthermore, according to Abu-Lughod, the West trying to save “Muslim woman”,  recreates past events that took place in the 19^th Century by Christian missionary woman who attempted to save “Muslim women” and attempted to impose their dominance onto their society.

Abu-Lughod’s discusses that following the beginning of “War of Terror”, culture and religious practices became the focus in understanding the events of September 11, 2001. She further argues that by studying the culture, the West switched and moved away from the more important issue, namely, the political and historical reasons for men and woman enduring hardships in the Middle East. Moreover, Abu-Lugod cites Laura Bush’s speech, which discussed the plight of the “Muslim woman”. She refers to Bush’s speech as the “cultural mode of explanation” because it discusses the importance of saving “Muslim women”. Abu-Lughod argues that the speech served as a way to support and defend America’s “War on Terrorism”, and the destruction that came along to Muslim countries.

Abu-Lughod states that the religious and cultural practices of woman, including “wearing a veil” is something that has been practiced for centuries. It is a symbol of “modesty and respectability”, and is not the product and explanation for the events of September 11, 2001. She further states that if the mandatory “burqas” were no longer enforced, woman would choose another method of “veiling”. The veil is not the problem, but according to Abu-Lughod it represents the West’s problem of accepting differences in others, and dealing with the true problems that causing the Middle East severe hardships and suffering.