Feminists are militant Protestant missionaries
I trust you read that piece by John Tierney on the need to be more respectful of female genital mutilation – or rather, of what he carefully decides to call ‘female circumcision’ because it’s critics who call it female genital mutilation. Well we call it that because chopping off the clitoris and most of the labia and sewing up the whole hatchet-job does seem like mutilation – we critics are funny that way.
Tierney’s piece on Leon Kass’s speech last week was terrific, but this one is…not so good. I do not like it. It makes me cross.
But the one by Richard Shweder puts Tierney’s in the shade. It’s jaw-dropping.
He’s very angry with feminists who don’t like FGM.
The article is one of a series of sensational, lurid and horrifying pieces that the Times has printed over the past decade or so covering the topic, all giving one-sided and uncritical expression to a representation of the practice that has been constructed and widely circulated by feminist and First World human rights activist groups.
Horrors. Feminists and human rights activist groups have ‘constructed’ a representation of FGM that portrays it as a drastic mutilation imposed on female children as a way to control women by chopping off most of their genitalia. How imperialist, how colonialist, how elitist, how cosmopolitan, how wicked. Of course mutilation of girl children is a fine thing as long as it’s done six thousand miles away.
If you read and believe those statements or most of the other things you find written about “FGM” in the popular press (which, for the most part, are recapitulations of the advocacy literature) then you must conclude that Africa is indeed a “Dark Continent”, where for hundreds, if not thousands of years, African parents have been murdering and maiming their daughters and depriving them of the capacity for a sexual response. You must believe that African parents (mothers and fathers) are either (a) monsters (“mutilators” of their children) or (b) fools (who are incredibly ignorant of the health consequences of their own child rearing practices and the best interests of their children); or (c) prisoners of a insufferably dangerous tradition that they themselves would like to escape, if only they could find a way out, or else (d) that African women are weak and passive and live under the patriarchal thumb of cruel, loathsome or barbaric African men.
In short, you must be a racist. Is that clear? Do you understand? Is the implied threat unmistakable enough? If you think FGM is mutilation then you think Africans are monsters, stupid, trapped, and passive. In order not to think that you have to understand and accept and believe that FGM is PERFECTLY ALL RIGHT for the people who already think it is perfectly all right, just as footbinding was perfectly all right for the people who thought that was perfectly all right.
[A]t least two things have changed since the 1920s and 1930s in Africa: anesthesia is more available, and the “civilizing” missionary efforts of militant Protestants have been supplemented and even supported by the evangelical interventions of global feminists and human rights activists…[I]t is time for a new more tolerant neo-liberal global discourse to be developed concerning unfamiliar or “alien'” body modification practices around the world. One of the central human rights claims of this new “tolerance promoting” (or at least “sufferance promoting”) neo-liberal discourse might be the following: that an offense to the culturally shaped tastes and sensibilities of cosmopolitan elites or the citizens of rich and powerful societies (whether they are Christian missionaries or secular humanist human rights activists) is not sufficient reason to eradicate someone else’s valued way of life.
‘Cosmopolitan elites’ is interesting – I wonder if Shweder is aware of how Nazi that particular formula is. If he is aware, it seems incredibly bizarre that he uses it as a weapon. But more to the point: it’s interesting that he thinks having or not having sheared off external genitalia is a mere matter of culturally shaped tastes and sensibilities – rather as if non-fans of FGM were campaigning for the people of Somalia and Egypt to eat more sushi.
I am going to argue that the emerging rules of the cultural correctness game have been fixed by the “First World” and deserve to be critiqued…I am going to suggest that these “First World” governments and activist organizations (who, ironically, often frame their campaigns in a discourse of human rights) have actually acted in violation of several human rights, including rights to self-determination and rights to family privacy…
Family privacy – yes – that is indeed where things get tricky. Let’s look at ‘rights to family privacy’ for a second. Do they include rights for male members to beat or whip or lash female members? Do they include rights of sexual access for all males to all females? Do they include rights to deny medical treatment? Rights to force children to marry people of the parents’ choosing no matter how repugnant? Rights to give young daughters to much older men to pay a gambling debt? Rights to give daughters to other tribes to settle disputes or compensate for a crime? Rights to kill daughters, sisters, wives, mothers, aunts who disobey male relatives?
He goes on to say more reasonable things about rights and the difficulty of grounding them, but the first half of the piece is riddled with unpleasant innuendo.
See? Yet another example of why post-modernism must never, ever, be allowed to escape into the wild.
Containing it within Academic departments, in carefully constructed University seminar rooms is all very well, but when the necessary security protocols aren’t observed, and it gets loose amongst the general population…
:-)
p.s. sorry, don’t want anyone to think I’m trivialising FGM…
That stuff is so irritating I can barely stand to read it. Yecch.
Liberals made their own beds when they invented cultural relativism. Now it’s been appropriated by conservatives and morons alike (kindly assuming that’s not redundant).
On the plus side, the comments (the first 20 or so at least) seem pretty sensible on the whole.
Also, who is this Dr. Shweder, and what planet is he on talking about ‘vaginal rejuvenation’? What relevance does that have to anything?
Regardless of Tierney’s point about FGM, his larger point about constructing Africa as the Dark Continent is definitely sound. Just read your second-to-last paragraph. Man, Africa is a barbaric place. They’re little better than animals over there.
So: you may be right about FGM, but you’re still a fucking racist, Jack.
Perhaps it would be simplest to recognize that circumcision is the English word for genital mutilation. Obviously the effects of what those poor girls are forced to go through have a much more significant impact than male circumcision. That does not change the brutality of the practices our culture has embraced. Taking a razor to a youngster’s genitals is rather obviously never a good thing to do.
Oh, lordy, I meant to say but I forgot – these discussions always get hijacked into discussions of circumcision. I won’t have it. That’s not what this particular discussion is about.
saurabh –
Those questions don’t happen to be about Africa, they’re about things that do go on in the ‘privacy’ of some families – including lily white ones, for christ’s sake (denying medical treatment? ever heard of Jehovah’s Witnesses?). So calm down.
Maybe it was the word ‘tribe’ that set you off. Well I’m sorry to tell you this but there are places in the world where men do in fact give daughters to other tribes to settle disputes or in compensation – I’ve linked to news stories on such things here as well as to in depth reports by outfits like Human Rights Watch. Look it up. (And the ones I’m thinking of were not in Africa but in Pakistan and Afghanistan. But of course that still makes me a fucking racist. Even though it’s true.)
Here for instance. A whole BBC article on the subject.
“Pakistan’s top constitutional court has intervened to stop the marriages of five minor girls which were arranged in order to settle a tribal dispute. The case centres around the custom of “vani” in which blood feuds are settled through forced marriages, often at the behest of a tribal gathering or jirga. The girls, from Sindh province, are all between 12 months and five years old.”
And here.
“Afsheen, 19, who was just nine years old when she was married to a man four times her age in compensation for the murder committed by her father, speaks to Reuters in northwestern Pakistani city of Peshawar April 5,2004. Called ’Swara,’ such marriages take place in Pakistan’s semi-autonomous tribal region inhabited by ethnic Pashtuns.”
Thanks for calling me a racist, as a matter of fact; I’m finding useful material for the book.
Nevertheless you are of course wrong.
FGM = barbarism, stupidity, mysogyny. Off with their heads!
Jehovah’s Witnesses = Jehovah’s Witlesses
DR
Shweder: “then you must conclude that Africa is indeed a “Dark Continent”, where for hundreds, if not thousands of years, African parents have been murdering and maiming their daughters and depriving them of the capacity for a sexual response. You must believe that African parents (mothers and fathers) are either (a) monsters”
Considering that when I was there I saw regular reports of children maimed or murdered by parents for ‘mutu’ (magic or medicine), and that has also happened to african children in the UK, I feel his attempted blackmail falls well short of effective.
Yes, many ARE monsters who maim and murder their children.
Thanks for posting this, Ophelia. I don’t know what made me madder, the article itself or the reader comments. Here’s what I posted to the Times blog:
The rank ignorance of so many commenters here on what female genital mutilation is and is not positively chills me. To the next person who wants to make a comment like, “Well, we circumcise boys, so we can’t criticize, nyah,” think on these points:
1. The most brutal forms of female genital mutilation are not (let me repeat that: not) equivalent to cutting the foreskin off the penis. Cutting off the clitoris is the equivalent of cutting the head and glans off a penis and sewing up the hole so tightly that urine could barely exit. Do you really, really want to continue with the argument that there’s an equivalence (stop and think before you answer)?
2. All of us, every culture and nation, have problems we should be ashamed of and that we should be working hard to clean up. But for goodness’ sake – do you really mean to say that people of goodwill in the West who oppose this cruel and barbaric butchery of women in the third world must shut up and say nothing because some of our neighbors at home indulge in ethically questionable practices?
I cannot for the life of me understand the logic in saying that Western wrongs make Third World wrongs right.
Re: The custom of “vani” in Pakistan in which blood feuds are settled through forced marriage. OMG, it really takes the biscuit where it states in the BBC article (which OB kindly linked to in above comment) that, -“the girls, from Sindh province, are all between 12 months and five years old.” It beats all. I can by a hairs breadth believe what I have just read. I also cannot help thinking who in Gods name is going to nurture their baby wants. Are these babies/toddlers immediately handed over to their would-be in-laws? Or – are their husbands–to-be also between 12 months and five years old and will therefore remain with their respective families till the time is ripe for marriage?!!
It’s rather surprising to see an MIT alumnus making a serious (and libellous) accusation by using a term so widely ramified in its use as to be all but meaningless. In fact, the use of such a diluted but yet heavily-loaded term such as ‘racist’ causes saurabh’s coarse, hit-and-run comment to come across as little more than a piece of Godwin-esque trolling.
Exactly what do you mean, saurabh, by ‘racist’? Care to share your definition of the term? Care to explain exactly why OB’s post was racist? Care to provide suggestions as to how people may express their revulsion at certain culturally contingent practices without running the risk of serious accusations such as the one you’ve just made?
“Do they include rights for male members to beat or whip or lash female members?”
I think men who beat up women are the most miniscule of the lowest possible and should by the authorities be rigorously challenged. I also think that men who psychologically beat up women are just as low down and fingers should be pointed at them. I also think that men who are educated and who do both of the above have got very severe problems and they should by doctors be clinically treated. They are even lower than the low down because they have the wit to know better. Beating up women is a cowardly way out of things. I also think that men who abuse women in any capacity – whether it is anonymously on the Internet, or whatever should by the authorities be held accountable. Men, who abuse women, period, should not be in positions of authority where they have access to women. The authorities should monitor their actions (at every hands turn). Just like sex abuse fiends. See how they will like it then. Men are physically stronger because of their biological nature. They were in this way created to compliment the other physical delicate species. They were not by nature given this physical attribute to beat up women. By beating up women, they are saying to them that they do not know how to control their own nature. Therefore, to me that just represents weakness. You will always find there are other underlying problems that cause them to beat up women. Perhaps men who beat up women are basically very angry at their mothers and have this insatiable need to lash out at their wives, women work colleagues, girlfriends and women whom they perceive in their own minds who need putting down, because they for some other reasons otherwise feel threatened. There should be a special day each year throughout the entire universe dedicated to women who have been by men beaten up – and for the women on this special day to remind them that beating up women is not any longer by them going to be tolerated.
On the issue of male circumcision that comes up in this debate…
I do agree with the general idea that criticism of other cultures shouldn’t go on unless we’re willing to look at ourselves with a critical eye. Once you’re done finding fault with FGM–and I think it’s a despicable practice–yes, we ought to look at whatever we may do that has some of the same elements. Medical procedures done on children without their consent, for cultural reasons, and with negative consequences really ought to be put under scrutiny. So sure we should ponder male circumcision, maybe also the way kids are drugged so much, maybe also piercing the ears of babies. The class of things that come under scrutiny when you start thinking about FGM includes things that are much less serious. Still, we’d really be guilty of cultural bias if we refused to see any similarities between things we do and things “they” do.
People, people, there is no point getting too worked up over Saurabh’s post. That was only a bit of hit-and-run commenting. You know the style: they appear now and then out of nowhere, reduce and sieve every argument of every debate to fit in their own bugbears, bang a few heads together as soon as they find something they can possibly construct as being offensive and, if you are lucky, make an attempt at justifying themselves by talking up the superiority of the culture over the individual, before disappearing into the night like Batman, all warm and snug in their own self righteousness.
This internet of ours has too many superheroes and not enough social workers…
Jean K,
I think the point OB was making when using the word “hijacked” was a bit different (if I may, OB?) and more… practical. In my experience, discussions over FGM always get bogged down into discussion of male circumcision and, usually flame wars and irrelevant discussions of personal experiences. Whatever relevant anybody has to say then just get lost in the general noise.
So yes, in an ideal world, we would all be able to grasp the difference between a similarity and an equivalence and we would all define our terms before using them and we would be able to stick to the subject, but, hey, not a perfect world.
(According to Frank Miller, that’s why we need superheroes… Yeah right! (Sorry, obligatory pop culture reference here!))
Thanks, Arnaud – yes that’s exactly what I meant: the discussions always get diverted into what amounts to a different subject with the result that the actual subject – FGM – gets abandoned and forgotten. I’m all for examining ‘our own’ customs too, but I am not for discussions of an atrocity against women being diverted by men into complaint about a much less serious alteration (or mutilation if you like) of men.
I notice that Saurabh has not returned to defend the racisim slur he made. I think that makes him a coward.
Actually, I think FGM and male circumcision are similar enough to be part of the same subject. They are two manifestations of a single view–that culture (among other things) can justify a painful non-consensual surgery on small children. One is a much more serious manifestation than the other, so deserving of much more attention. But if you refuse to put the two things together, people will suspect you of cultural bias–as in, our practices are automatically beyond reproach, yours are reprehensible. So I think the answer to people who want to get bogged down on male circumcision ought to be–yes, I see the similarity. Let’s do think about that some day. But let’s think about this first, because this type of surgery is vastly more painful and debilitating. I mean really. Think about it.
Argh argh argh – I might (or might not) see the point of that if there weren’t such an established and pervasive pattern of this hijacking – but there is – so I just flatly refuse to let discussions of FGM get diverted in that way.
As for being suspected of cultural bias, that may be true of drive-by readers, but I don’t want to tailor my posts for drive-by readers. (That would be too boring for the non-drive-by readers, for one thing.) Anyone who’s at all familiar with B&W knows perfectly well it doesn’t give a pass to ‘our practices.’ On the contrary! here I am trying to persuade other people to read Dickens with a more skeptical eye.
Furthermore, there’s a problem with the two manifestations of a single view thought, because it depends on which single view one chooses. If painful non-consensual surgery on small children is the chosen single view, then the two are partly comparable; but if the single view is, say, ways to control and subordinate women, then they’re not. FGM is one way to subordinate women; circumcision is not one way to subordinate men; in that sense the two are not similar at all.
And that’s even before considering the question of degree or quantity. It’s good to question our own practices but not if it just collapses into triviality – that way Buntingism lies. It doesn’t work to broaden criticism of ‘honour’ killings of girls and women by pointing out that some parents take away the car keys of boys who date girls of the ‘wrong’ race or class. There might be something worthwhile to say about that, but a discussion of ‘honour’ killing is not the best place to say it.
I agree on not getting bogged down on male circumcision, and not letting FGM be downplayed as mere circumcision. I just think if I were actually out in the field talking to people where FGM is practiced, I’d try to get them on my side by letting them point a finger at somewhat similar western misdeeds. Go ahead and do it..but let’s prioritize. On a scale of seriousness FGM is the thing we need to focus on. I do actually see an overlap between FGM and male circumcision, despite the fact that one serves to subordinate and the other doesn’t.
Oh in the field, sure; that’s different.
I see overlap too – but also radical difference.
It’s a little like that Anatole France quip, come to think of it – rich and poor alike are forbidden to sleep under the bridges of Paris.
Sure, I’ll defend my comment. I’ll also admit it was over-the-top, but I think it’s still fundamentally accurate.
A few years ago it was in vogue to harangue the Taliban for their horrific treatment of women. Coincidentally, this was during the time when the US was conducting a bombing campaign against that country. These days its in vogue to criticize, say, Saudis for their treatment of women.
Do these critiques have merit? Yes. Do I believe that reform is badly needed in these places? Yes. Do I support the efforts of groups like RAWA in Afghanistan to transform those cultures and end practices that oppress women? Yes. But does that mean that criticism of other cultures can be divorced from imperialist motivations? No, absolutely not.
In this case, criticism of FGM is almost entirely an attack on another culture, and little else. I find it ironic that I’m being criticized for hit-and-run attacks, when that phrase much better characterizes widespread criticism of FGM. Here, we’re going to take this one thing out of your society, a society we have little interest in, that we don’t understand, and that we’re not invested in in any way. Then we’re going to lambaste you for how horrible this practice is.
Now, I should back off my original comment about OB. I don’t know her from a hole in the wall, and I only can extrapolate from what I read in this post. But I am dismayed that she is instrumentalizing a particular flaw in a society to critique that society. Or, at best, she’s instrumentalizing that particular flaw to present a general critique of masculinity, which is perhaps even more offensive, because she’s not even bothered about the particulars of that society.
There IS a narrative being written, here, and it’s a much larger one than the very narrow one about FGM. It’s this: “We, white people, are a civilizing force. Our values are normative and good, and dark people’s values are regressive and bad. I mean, they’ve been foot-binding and mutilating genitals for years! It’s time we brought them the light of civilization.”
Saurabh: “Do I support the efforts of groups like RAWA in Afghanistan to transform those cultures and end practices that oppress women? Yes. But does that mean that criticism of other cultures can be divorced from imperialist motivations? No, absolutely not.“
How do you reconcile both these attitudes? Surely, if you support RAWA, you must realize that their ideas are hardly home-grown, didn’t appear organically out of the general Afghan culture, are actually based on foreign criticism of this culture?
Surely, if you support RAWA, you must realize that their ideas are hardly home-grown, didn’t appear organically out of the general Afghan culture, are actually based on foreign criticism of this culture?
Surely you see a difference between people learning from other cultures and sniping long-distance in order to underscore some point about misogyny? I’m not suggesting that all cultural interaction is imperialist (and hence anathema, if you’re on that same page with me), just that certain forms are. Critique especially is something routinely used for imperialist means, and given the long, long history of culture being used to perpetuate some pretty horrific enterprises (e.g. I notice someone in the comments of Tierney’s post mentioned the British banning of sati in India, but neglected to mention the impact that reducing India to abject poverty had on the lives of women). And the general posture that things are bad “over there”, constantly reinforced by the kind of dialog that OB gives us here, in my opinion underpins things like Americans’ attitude that they can barge into the Middle East willy-nilly and remake it as they see fit.
But saurabh (I’m glad you came back, by the way), since you say you don’t know me, how do you know I’m instrumentalizing a particular flaw in a society to critique that society? Or that I’m instrumentalizing that particular flaw to present a general critique of masculinity? And which society is it that you take me to be critiquing?
And as for the white people-dark people thing – I beg your pardon, but bullshit. Complete bullshit. The women in question are ‘dark people’ too you know! If this were about white self-adoration, why would I give a shit about some ‘dark’ women far away? Hey, I’m fine, nobody’s telling me to stay inside, what do I care what happens to anyone else?
Of course critique has been (among other things) a tool of imperialism, but it’s not the only tool and that’s not all it’s been. Do you honestly prefer indifference? Maybe you do, but I don’t.
And by the way where is it ‘in vogue to criticize, say, Saudis for their treatment of women’? Not in the US or UK governments it’s not; the BBC refers to the Saudis as ‘moderates,’ which in terms of their treatment of women and other races is laughable.
You know…I’ve asked some Iranian women’s rights activists about this business of underpinning Bushian urges to barge into places; I have worried myself that Americans talking about this kind of thing can taint local dissent; but I was told rather strongly that that’s crap, one can do both, disavow US militarism and criticize violations of women’s rights.
I just really disagree with you about the very idea of ‘sniping long-distance’ – another word for that would be internationalist solidarity, you know. And another word for not ‘sniping long-distance’ would be just I’m all right Jack smug indifference. The hell with that.
And besides, saurabh – there are groups and NGOs in all these far-off places working hard to get rid of FGM and ‘honour’ killing and child marriage and the like. Do you think they would prefer no support and publicity from others around the globe? As far as I know they very much welcome support and publicity.
Frankly I really think you’re being a tad reflexive in jumping to the conclusion that opposition to FGM is ‘racist’ in any sense at all.
At what point are we allowed to question the activities of a certain culture? Are honor killings under some special veil of protection? I don’t understand that one bit.
At what point are we uppity/strident/racist ‘westerners’ allowed to have concern for the nine year old girl forced to undergo a dangerous, unnecessary and painful surgery? Where does it stop? When does the desire to be respectful become condescension? (Ooh, that practice is upsetting, but they are not like us, so I should let it happen. What? The little girl is resisting and screaming? It must be part of their ancient ritual. Let them be.)
OB – the difference between “sniping long-distance” and internationalist solidarity would be, first, putting your own critique behind that of some people you’re expressing solidarity with. As I didn’t see any particular groups you outlined here (a notable omission especially given the subject of Tierney’s post – one would have assumed that, were they available, you would have juxtaposed indigenous critiques of FGM with Tierney’s indigenous support of FGM).
As to that whole “white people/dark people” thing, which defined the history of the better part of the twentieth century for the majority of the people in the world, it certainly is not bullshit. Concern for the well-being of the dark peoples was one of the primary justifications for many imperialist projects. Cf. “white man’s burden”. Hell, that’s why we’re ostensibly in Iraq today.
But, let’s grant that you don’t give a shit about race. Let’s even grant that you’re unaware of how this issue is instrumentalized in discussions of Islam, Africa, etc. (which I can’t imagine you are). What, in fact, are you doing? You’re taking a particular cultural practice and employing it in your discussion of gender. In so doing you’ve completely extirpated the idea of other cultures entirely; you’re not even interested in the cultural context of the debate, because your culture and values are normative.
One can disavow US imperialism and crusade for women’s rights, but in order to do that it requires you to actually disavow imperialism. I fail to see where you are doing that.
This sort of thing comes up routinely – “feminists” who allow themselves to be used as dupes n laying the ground for imperialist projects, and express empty “solidarity” with Third World women, but mysteriously vanish after the bombs have dropped or the famine hits.
One of the (regrettably late) insights of the left in the late twentieth century was the idea that feminism cannot exist divorced from anti-imperialism or environmentalism. Those things are far more damaging to the lives of women – and do a lot more to reduce the power of women within their societies – than any practice such as FGM ever did.
So, OB, it looks like you are a dupe for the imperialists. What you think is concern for universal human rights is nothing more than political cover for war in the middle east.
But what about opposition to FGM that is performed in the UK? Where does that fall in the imperialist strategy? Are you allowed to opposed clitoris slashing in your country, or are you restricted to your current home-municipality?
So, OB, it looks like you are a dupe for the imperialists. What you think is concern for universal human rights is nothing more than political cover for war in the middle east.
But what about opposition to FGM that is performed in the UK? Where does that fall in the imperialist strategy? Are you allowed to opposed clitoris slashing in your country, or are you restricted to your current home-municipality?
IanB – come on, is it really so hard to understand what’s going on here? Why is FGM discussed? Why honor killings? Why not, say, temple girls in Nepal? Could it have ANYTHING to do with the current rage against Islam? Could it have ANYTHING to do with the fact that we (the US) are fighting a war in Iraq and want to fight one in Iran? I’m all for calling people out on their shit, but let’s be realistic here – you’re serving a dual role, and I find it hard to believe you’re not aware of the main purpose of this discourse.
Saurabh, my point is, you said that you are supporting RAWA, not that you are in agreement with them but that you are actually supporting them. Assuming you are not yourself from Afghanistan (a big assumption, maybe), your support is by your own reasoning a critique of Afghan society and culture. How do you ensure that such a critique is not imperialistic? What are your criteria?
In the eyes of their opponents in Afghanistan (and gosh, how many of them there are!), what foreign support RAWA enjoy IS imperialistic, IS sniping long-distance, IS interference into their culture. How do you justify it? Just by saying YOUR goals are the right ones?
Everything – trust me on this – re-enforce the neocons’ opinion “that they can barge into the Middle East willy-nilly and remake it as they see fit”, but so? Are we supposed to just shut up because the bad men could be listening?
I’d agree with you that there is no way we can, from outside, change practices like FGM, however abhorrent they seem to us. Mainly, as I said in a previous thread, because it doesn’t work! And there are other ways but talking? Talking about FGM is imperialistic? Talking about FGM is racist?
Another example if you want. I am French and can be sometimes very critical of French society (and especially – surprise, surprise – of the racism still prevalent in a lot of ways in France). Now this criticism is in a lot of ways informed by the time I have spent in the UK (10 years and counting), does it for that reason qualify as “long distance sniping”? Was I supposed, every time the subject came about (and that was not always in a proper, gentle, concerned way, it was often blunt, in conversations that made me ashamed of my own country), to put my hands over my ears and yell “La la la! Not listening!” Where do you draw the line?
But saurabh, the trouble with all that is that you’ve already said you don’t know me. You say you fail to see where I disavow imperialism – well if you don’t know me you probably haven’t read much of the site, have you! You can’t expect me to say everything there is to say in every single post, you know.
Why FGM? Why honour killings? For the same reason I also discuss the Vatican’s murderous policy on condom use, and UK archbishops who blame floods on gay rights, and Amish child abuse, and Irish industrial schools that mistreated their prisoners in revolting ways, and a great many other things. No as a matter of fact it doesn’t have anythng to do with Cheney’s eagerness to fight a war in Iran, a project which I’m not keen on.
Look, you just don’t have a leg to stand on here, because as you’ve said yourself, you don’t know me. You clearly don’t know what the site’s about – there’s no reason that you should, but there is reason you should be a little slower to make all these loony accusations when you don’t know what you’re talking about!
And by the way, saurabh, if you type ‘rawa’ into B&W’s ‘Search’ you will find a link to…RAWA.
OB – you’re right, I don’t have a leg to stand on. I don’t know you, other than what I read here. I was merely reacting to your completely dismissal of Tierney’s post, without even an acknowledgement of other dimensions of the discussion.
But, from what little else I’ve seen of the site, I don’t find much to disabuse myself of the notion that you’re oblivious of the way your writing feeds into a larger culture war. There are articles on this site that do make important caveats, but the few things I’ve read of yours do not. You highlight the extensive debate over the Danish cartoons, which was CLEARLY being used for political purposes by both sides, which had almost NO real religious or free speech dimension, and blithely adopted the correct Western stance. If you’re not aware of what’s going on even in that obvious case, why should I believe you have any more depth of consideration in this one?
You mean, if I don’t see the Danish cartoons the way you did, why should I see anything else the way you do? Well, fair point; I probably don’t.
For instance, I don’t see my view of the Danish cartoons as the ‘correct Western stance.’ Sorry but you’re the one who’s ignoring things here. You’re ignoring what Jack Straw said, what State Department spokesman Scott McClellan said, what a lot of prominent people said, which was that of course there is a right to free speech but that does not mean there is a duty to offend. (Some varied the formula a little, to say there was no right to offend.) There was no one ‘correct Western stance’; the issue was hotly contested; the way I saw it was not all that popular.
Of course the cartoons were political (and used for political purposes), that was the whole point of them; where we apparently differ is that I think there was zero merit to the outrage about them, but it doesn’t follow that I’m not aware of what was going on, I just apparently don’t agree with you about which side was more ridiculous and wrong and coercive.
You’re wrong about my obliviousness to the larger culture war, by the way – I am aware that I sometimes say things that other people whom I do not admire say. I try to be careful about that, but sometimes it simply can’t be helped. If most of the left is turning a blind eye to, say, ‘honour’ killing while certain sections of the right are talking about it…then it’s the left’s fault for turning a blind eye, it’s not my fault for talking about it. That’s one huge reason the left really ought to stop turning a blind eye to such things – it ought not to abandon what should be its own concerns to the cynical designs of the right.
Arnaud – you’re right, I should more properly say I agree with RAWA, since I haven’t done dick to support them in the past seven-odd years. And yes, you’re right – we could certainly abstract away the idea of imperialism until any cultural exchange in that direction could be defined as “imperialist”. But we can be more intelligent about it than that, surely.
One of the things I liked most about RAWA was that they were resolutely opposed to the idea of the US attacking Afghanistan, even though this was cloaked under one of their fundamental goals (viz., the equality of women in Afghanistan). That’s a kind of imperialism that’s predominant and obvious – the kind that falls out of the belly of a bomber – and that’s exactly why I think it’s important to appreciate all the implications of the above debate. Because it’s NOT just about human rights.
Someone above suggested that every kind of dialog could be construed as supportive of invading Iran by “neocons”. Well, no, that’s not exactly true. There’s dialog that does NOT draw distance between West and East, and that’s certainly not supportive of invading Iran. Given that this is the central conflict of our time, why shouldn’t it inform every discussion we have, as responsible believers in human rights? Is the abstract discussion of FGM and its implications going to have more impact than the very real wars that are being fought? Do we need to see those cultures as more human, or less?
@ saurabh
I’m not sure exactly what your point is cf. the Danish Cartoons? It was being used for different political purposes but so what? The reaction to the cartoons in parts of the Islamic world deserved to be attacked, as would any kind of reflexive anti-Muslim rhetoric which followed from it. What do you mean by “there was almost no real religious or free speech dimension”?
This may just be my ignorance but I don’t see why people who want to take a nuanced view on the issue must disassociate themselves with the ‘correct Western’ stance (I’d also note that your tone here is a bit patronising) simply because other people with a similar view come to disconcerting or bad conclusions (if that’s what you are arguing)?
And I’d also like to ask exactly what you mean by “Do we need to see those cultures as more human, or less?”
Thomas – I mean only that both sides relished a manufactured conflict over the cartoons. Islamists delighted in showing how much the West disrespected them, and Western culture warriors delighted in showing how regressive Muslims were with respect to basic rights like free speech. Both sides had a vested interest in perpetuating the conflict. OB did not; at least, not according to my limited understanding of Ophelia’s world-view. But she chose to engage the subject anyway, and not merely to dismiss both sides, but to support one against the other. She says this is because she feels the Muslims were more out of line, here; I say it’s the conflict that matters, not the particulars. When there are larger questions at stake, should we not consider their implications first?
The hell I do – I don’t say ‘the Muslims’ were more out of line here – I’m not so stupid that I think ‘the Muslims’ had one view on the cartoons; one of the things I kept saying was that not all Muslims were ‘outraged’ by the cartoons. I say the people who reacter with rage were more wrong than those who didn’t – some of those who didn’t were – prepare to be shocked – Muslims! And some who were outraged were not Muslims but people who thought they were defending ‘the Muslims.’
You need to watch things like that…it’s the worst kind of condescension to think that ‘the Muslims’ think as one.
OB – sorry, I shouldn’t put words in your mouth. I was merely going off your citing the “ten majority-Muslim countries” and the OIC; I did not see any caveats about variation in Muslim reaction. I of course do not believe that “the Muslims” think as one.
But, I’m interested in your response on my actual point – don’t you think that the cartoon debate had a larger context? And why is it appropriate to react to it divorced from that larger context?
Thomas said exactly what I was just flexing my fingers to say while reading your question, saurabh. I said I thought the cartoon debate had a larger context – that was the ‘of course they were political’ bit – but I also thought they had another and another; in short, as Thomas said, that they had more than one.
The majority-Muslim countries and OIC point was about official actions, which of course can (and have to) be addressed as unitary, but I’ve never considered the other side the Muslim side. On the contrary, there were plenty of non-Muslims talking placating crap about the imperative not to offend and there were some Muslims who were embarrassed by the outrage.
Anyway, as Thomas said, there was more than one larger context; I was interested in the religious bullying context. I’m also interested in that when Christians bully, when Sikhs do, when Hindus do, when religious (as opposed to ethnic) Jews do, I’m even interested in it when Wiccans do.
I get what you’re worried about…but the thing is, I think it’s disastrous to let conservative projects determine what we feel able to say. Really disastrous. It’s kind of like ‘if we don’t go to the mall the terrorists have won’ – if we decide not to criticize FGM because some conservatives might also talk about FGM in aid of warmongering, then the conservatives have won. Conservatives are family values people, wives should gracefully submit to their husbands people; I’ll be damned if I’m going to let them decide what atheist feminists can talk about.
Even conservatives are right about some things. If a conservative thinks FGM is bad, well then I agree with that conservative on that one thing – and probably others too. Laura Bush’s talking about the women of Afghanistan is not going to make me stop talking about them. It will doubtless give me qualms, but I’ll overcome them.
Yes the cartoon debate had a larger context, but you seem to forget one quite important point. In case you didn’t realize, there is a rather large muslim presence in Europe (another thing our American neocon friends like to drone on about).
Criticizing islam (in particular its relationship toward free speech) is not purely a culture to culture thing. It’s not a colonialist attitude. When are talking about free speech and Islam, we are having a debate that is primarily about our culture and what we want it to become.
The cartoon debate was mostly an european debate. It didn’t concern the US (where the cartoons were not, for what I know, reproduced and which has anyway a muslim population less than a 1/4 of that of France alone) and, to be frank, it didn’t concern the muslim countries in which such an artificial furore was whipped up several month after the fact (with the help of redrawn “danish cartoons” which never appeared in Denmark) by extremists with their own agenda.
Saying that the cartoon affair was a neo-colonial or racist thing is actually playing into the hands of the racists, the same people who would tell you that muslims will never integrate in Europe and are still in the thrall of their countries of origin!
Look at the Teddy Bear affair in Sudan, where the same people tried to orchestrate the same kind of mass manifestations (and mostly failed) and you can draw a conclusion: you will never, however quiet you keep, satisfy them. It’s not about religion, it’s not about free speech, it’s about control. It’s about hatred being used by those in power to stay in power. And I don’t think we need to pander to them.
Arnaud, and OB – if you’re afraid of being controlled by the Muslim invaders, then I’m afraid we’re at an impasse. I find that a ridiculous notion.
OB – you state that we’ve “already lost” if we’re unable to talk about FGM. Well and good. But there’s a SLIGHT differential of power in play here. The most you can do is talk about it. The most conservatives can do is… start a war. That has a little bit of influence on the equation.
Anyway, I’ve said more than enough, I think. Thanks for a spirited debate; it was a pleasure.
Wow racist,imperealist,neo con dupe! I just thought this site provided lively commentary on a range of topics.
I can’t help thinking your opinion of OB’s writing is nonsense, saurabh.
(IMO only, excuse me please OB)
The ethos here is that an issue should be understood by evidence and argument, not on doctrines that are protected from examination.
This most particularly applies to the idea that a person’s religion, culture or race empowers an authority or ‘spokesman’ to limit that individual’s intellectual or bodily freedom.
Why should a person be denied human rights, or other fruits of social progress just because s/he is born NOT white or western? In case the neocons use it to get Bush to invade Iran? Hm.
Your critique implies that hope of freedom can (or should) be denied to individuals from ‘victim’ cultures. That ain’t justice. Maybe you should broaden your circle of friends a little.
Arnaud, and OB – if you’re afraid of being controlled by the Muslim invaders, then I’m afraid we’re at an impasse. I find that a ridiculous notion.
A ridiculous notion indeed, I don’t know where you managed to find it anywhere in what we said; but if we are to go back to wild accusations of racism or xenophobia, you may be right that it’s better to stop for now. It is for me anyway.
While I cannot speak for OB, I would still recommend that you peruse B&W whenever you can spare the time. You may realize that its purpose, to fight fashionable nonsense, goes a bit beyond providing, even inadvertently, intellectual fodder to the imperialist party. Just a thought…
Hah, makes male circumcision look positively on-topic now!
I’ve disagreed with OB on a lot of issues to do with Islam on this site, but the accusation that she’s “afraid of being controlled by the Muslim invaders” is so patently nonsensical that I can only conclude that saurabh is reading every post through some kind of text distorting a priori intepretative prism. Particularly as nothing OB wrote above seems to even touch on the topic, and Arnaud’s post said “criticizing islam (in particular its relationship toward free speech)…is primarily about our culture and what we want it to become. The cartoon debate was mostly an european debate…it didn’t concern the muslim countries in which such an artificial furore was whipped up several month after the fact…Saying that the cartoon affair was a neo-colonial or racist thing is actually playing into the hands of the racists, the same people who would tell you that muslims will never integrate in Europe and are still in the thrall of their countries of origin!”
In fact I’d go further than Arnaud and say that it is bizarely US-centric, almost imperialist even, to frame every discussion of every issue in terms of US politics and to try and impose limits on the parameters of that discussion predicated entirely in terms of a domestic US narrative of ‘imperialism’ and ‘culture wars’ with absolutely no regard to the context in which such debates are situated in Europe and elsewhere. Indeed it seems that this debate merely serves as a convenient leitmotif to hang a preformed ‘critique’ of imperialism for saurabh, with little concern for the material basis of FGM being expressed.
Just wanted to state my agreement with PM’s last paragraph above. In a very real sense saurabh was doing the very thing he was accusing others of. It’s a double-edged sword, that relativism!
And another thing…
A pertinent statistic:
“It is estimated that as many as 74,000 women in the UK have had FGM and that every year a further 7,000 are at risk.”
http://www.guysandstthomas.nhs.uk/news/newsarchive/newsarticles/femalemutilation.aspx
That was interesting – genyoowine cultural relativism in action.
There are those who think the cultural relativist is a strawman. Tierney and Shweder and saurabh have at least done us the service of exploding that illusion.
Not that I’m trying to turn this into a group hug, and not that I think it needs saying, as it seems quite obvious to me and clearly to most of the regular commenters as well, but… I think B&W does do a really valuable service in raising awareness of these issues and providing a bunch of excellent resources for those of us who are interested in the kind of stuff you write about. N&C is generally thought provoking, funny and cathartic, so thanks for putting in the time.
Thanks guys!
They are not actual Protestants but destroyers. Such subversives are from liberal-christianity to a lesser degree which can be traced before the Counterculture. However, it is the Counterculture that made this so-called Protestantism what it is. Which isn’t Protestantism at all. But a degenerate and perverse front. I am sure you all are eager to wreap the rewards of a fallen Western Protestantism. Beware: The Church is the Protestant faith. And it lives in the East now.
[…] Shweder is one of the people who signed that report. We’ve seen him before. It was five years ago… I trust you read that piece by John Tierney on the need to be more respectful of female […]