|
I was discussing these issues with a colleague this morning, and I figured I needed to get it down in writing, so that I can process this more fully. The question is: What is the feminist response to gender-specific religious articles such as the hijab in Islam or bonnets and dresses among Mennonites (my own heritage)? First I'll give a bit of background on my own political biases, so that there's some context to the comments I'll make on this issue.
My political views have evolved, as I think they always should, but right now I would define myself as an anarcho-pacifist, culling ideas from a range of sources - Lenin, Ellul, Tolstoy and others. I define anarcho-pacifism as the rejection of all forms of violence (hence pacifism), which implies a rejection of government, which, in my opinion, is an inherently violent structure (hence anarchism.) I interpret Christ's teachings as a rejection of violence, as well, so this is partially a religious, as well as political, ideology. All governments and all corporations, for that matter, use violence in some way to maintain power. Even the most liberal and progressive of governments maintain power through the threat of violence - this is unavoidable with top-down power structures. And, on this point I agree with Lenin, who called western democracies, "toy democracies" which gave people something to play with and an illusion of power and control. All modern democracies are, to a certain extent, "toy democracies." Governments change, yet corporations, who don't vote, maintain influence over decision making - this is just one example. You cannot collect taxes, for example, without the threat that if an individual does not pay them, they will be forcibly confined. Corporations also use the violence of economic systems and governments for their own benefit. My friend Jeremy says this line of thinking leads me to see violence in everything - and I don't deny this, but neither do I think that means the anarcho-pacifism view is invalid.
Now, I agree with Jacques Ellul that the notion of an ideal anarcho-pacifism society may be rather naive, and so I don't pretend to think that someday, somewhere, we'll actually have this ideal anarchist utopia or something. But, for me, it's a suitable lens in which to view the world. It's the ideal we should strive for. But it can never be achieved through our toy democracies and violent governments.
So-called "libertarians" would argue that government should be reduced to only functions of national defense and protection of individual rights. And while I agree with libertarians when they say government should not make decisions on individual’s morality, I disagree with their basic underlying notion. My beliefs stem from upholding pacifism and opposing oppression at all costs. Libertarians seem to believe that simply reducing the role of government is ideal, and ignore the violence and oppression that comes from corporations. Libertarians see only government as evil. I see both government and the corporate system as evil, because they are inherently violent. Yes, they are all made up of individual people, but such systems it coerce otherwise good individuals into abandoning their principles in order to maintain power for the corporation or government. So, my point is that the ideal 'government', which would be voluntary, regional and collective, cannot work unless people are liberated in their minds, as well as economically, socially and so on. Anarchism, if it ever hopes to succeed has to work on liberating people's minds, not just liberating them from the bonds of economic and social oppression (which seems to be focus of libertarians, both on the left and on the right.) I'm under no illusion that any kind of anarchist society could succeed unless people have liberated their own minds. So, this lead directly back into the original topic: I don’t believe that religion should be immune to the same level of scrutiny and criticism we give to other social structures. There is a tendency to be overly sensitive when it comes to religion. As an anarchist, I don't believe their should be any restrictions whatsoever on people's ability to practice their religion. However, for this freedom to be truly useful, it must be a freedom of the mind as well as the body. What I mean is that people are free to practice oppressive religions, but the ideal would be that people free themselves from this mental oppression as well. Now, specifically regarding the wearing of the hijab (or, and this is less notorious, but more personally relevant, the conservative Mennonite bonnet). I would consider myself a feminist and so I become skeptical whenever I see something oppressive towards women, defended on the basis of religion. I would never deny a woman's right to choose to wear the veil, but I would view it as akin to women choosing to stay in an abusive relationship, or slaves choosing to remain in the service of their owner, even after being "freed" (both of which are not uncommon choices.) These people may be making a choice, but one that stems, in my view, from oppression. The covering of the head is based on the notion that men are not responsible for their actions - women must cover themselves to avoid being leered at. And there is no analogous requirement for men. This isolates and marginalizes women. In some ways it has the same effect as pornography, by objectifying women's body - one by covering it and the other by uncovering. These rules were devised by men, not women, as most religions in the world are created by men, and so one must be naturally skeptical of the motivations for these rules. Now I realize there are modern women who say they cover their head voluntarily, and don't do it out of oppression. This is fine and they are free to do so. But we shouldn't deny that this is revisionism and not the original intent of the practice. It does make me wonder just how liberated and progressive they really are. I see these items as symbols of oppression and violence towards women. People may say, "Well that's not what it means when I wear it." Fine, I use this retort myself on other issues, but deep down I know that it's just a way of justifying to myself an action I know cannot truly be justified. There are women that "choose" to marry into polygamist relationships. People "choose" to join death cults. People "choose" all sorts of oppression. This only indicates that oppression and violence are often as much mental as physical and so, as a pacifist, I would like to think my goal would be to oppose this sort of mental violence, too. I'm not sure that anyone at anytime is ever making a free decision or choice - there are always coercive, even subconscious, influences. I think this applies to most "choices" we make - its unavoidable. But what's not unavoidable is the defense of these decisions on a dubious basis. Frantz Fanon has written fascinating accounts of the psychological effect that oppression has on people. And we're all familiar with the Stockholm Syndrome. So it shouldn't be surprising when any of us defends our own oppression by saying "to me, it's not a symbol of oppression." No modern person wants to think of themselves as oppressed, so of course they'll claim anything they do is done out of free will. I wouldn't ever want to deny someone's right to make these free choices. But I would hope that someone could reach out and help them see the chains that bind them....ha...that's getting sappy. And probably no one is reading this anymore....I'm an ass - an oppressed, and repressed one......I apologize....but would love to discuss these issues with anyone who can look past my neurosis and engage in dialogue on this...
I welcome your comments. |
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
northropfrye's journal