| OCR Text |
Show Unveiling Liberty Sarah Green Application An examination of the East/West veiling debate provides an excellent example of how cross-cultural discussions of cultural contexts provides a workable model for affecting change. According to Hirschmann, "Through cross-cultural communication that comes out of cultural specificity, but with a political goal in sight of ending sexist oppression, feminists may be able to offer insights and critiques from 'outside' that are not achievable from 'within'" (Hirschmann, 2003). As noted earlier, it is often our positionality within a culture that formulates our response to it. This is true of Western and Eastern cultures alike. Eastern feminists can provide valuable insight regarding the way social construction operates in our own (Western) context, and can suggest modes of resistance, precisely because they are not entrenched in it the way we are. This holds true for all cross-cultural evaluations. If feminist discussion can only occur inside of specific cultural contexts, as Guindi suggests, then we will only ever affect change within the specific social and cultural parameters already set in place (often by men, without the participation of women). To think outside of these parameters is extremely difficult if one has only ever existed within them. Admittedly, this raises issues about cultural sensitivity, and Hirschmann is quick to acknowledge this. Because of the history of imperialistic Western feminist responses to veiling, "Western feminists must recognize that their responsibility for promoting fruitful dialogue is greater than their Eastern counterparts, not only because the latter have already been forced to attend to the West, but also because the West has done much more damage to the East..." (Hirschmann, 2003). The Centrist perspective does not ask simply for one cultural group to allow the critical evaluation of the other, but that it occur across all cultural groups. This includes an Eastern evaluation of Western practices "that Westerners may consider benign or even liberatory" (Hirschmann, 2003). However, it is also critical that past injustices such as colonialism do not lead Eastern women to reject Western critiques outright. Susan Okin addresses this concern when she states that often, "whatever the quality of the evidence presented or the strength of the argument made, the mere suggestion, if made by a First World feminist, that women and girls in cultures other than our own are disadvantaged or oppressed by elements of their own cultures is regarded as offensive cultural imperialism" (Okin, 1998). Ultimately, if feminists across cultures can overcome concerns about cultural imperialism, and let down some of their reactionary defenses regarding any cultural critiques, there can result insightful, critical evaluations emerging from positions outside cultural parameters. This is the ultimate value in the Centrist response to veiling, for "without a critical evaluation of what is oppressive or liberating in various cultural practices and contexts, there can be no feminist account of freedom, because the terms of cultural difference are all too often defined by and in the interests of men who have political power" (Hirschmann, 2003). 42 The Centrist response to veiling may be criticized for posing more questions than answers, but this is precisely where it surpasses Eastern and Western feminism as a more appropriate response to the veiling debate. Eastern and Western feminist discourses on veiling provide specific responses regarding whether it is best for women to veil or unveil, but they are incomplete and one-sided responses to this issue. This is largely due to their unwillingness to have any meaningful cross-cultural discussion regarding the prac tice. They are reluctant to examine the failures of their sim plistic arguments and therefore leave out key considerations. For Centrists, the answer to this issue lies in the dialogue Western and Eastern feminists have been unwilling to engage in, a dialogue that would have proved much more productive if used in the French case articulated above. Feminists must not call for a concrete response to an issue that has rarely, if ever, been anything more than a cross-cultural debate in which neither side has been willing to concede any ground. By using the strategy put forth by the Centrist perspective, the first steps can be taken toward a cross-cultural "'feminist' account of freedom," one that not only addresses veiling, but endless issues within various cultural societies. References Ahmed, Leila. Women and Gender in Islam, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992), 236. Eum, Ikran. (2000) "Discourses on (un) veiling in Egypt." Asian Journal of Women's Studies. 6, 102-113. Galeotti, Anna Elisabetta. (1993). "Citizenship and equality: The place for toleration." Political Theory. 21, 585-605. Guindi, Fadwa El. (2005) "Gendered resistance, feminist veiling, Islamic feminism." The Ahfad Journal. 22, 53-78. Hirschmann, Nancy J. (1997) "Eastern veiling, Western freedom?" The Review of Politics. 59, 461 -488. Hirschmann, Nancy. The Subject of Liberty: Toward A Feminist Theory of Freedom, (Princeton University Press, 2003) Hooks, Bell. Feminist Theory: from margin to center, (Boston, MA: South End Press, 1984), 30. Moruzzi, Norma Claire. (1994) "A problem with headscarves: Contemporary complexities of political and social identity." Political Theory. 22, 653-672. Okin, Susan Miller. (1998) "Feminism and multiculturalism: Some tensions." Ethics. 108, 661-684. Rommelspacher, Birgit. (2001) "Culture, gender, religion and the dis' pute over the headscarf." International Feminist Magazine. 16, 44' 48. Sen, Amartya. "Gender and Cooperative Conflict," Persistent Inequalities, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990) * |
