1

Islam and Postmodernism As denizens of West, we are constantly exposed to new plights of the people of the Middle-east. We are inundated with the view that somehow, our way of life is far superior, and it falls on the west to swoop down into these regions and free the people of the Middle-east from their tyrannical rule of whoever may be in power. This is especially the case when it comes to the status of women in the Middle-east. The 24 hour propaganda machine of west continually directs our attentions toward the manner in which women are mistreated by their Islamic captors. The media demands that we feel sympathy and that we express outrage. The West and the powers which act as its foundation constantly hold this region to its own moral code; for if their values do not resemble ours then they are of course savages, and we must save them from themselves. This is the sentiment and ignorance, which we call liberalism and modernity, postmodern thought seeks to rupture. The mantra of postmodernism is the constant and feverish desire for reevaluation. We must not rely on the concretion of old values if they no longer serve us. The ideal postmodernist should see the advantages of singularity and difference, not heavily relying on universal laws and essentialist claims regarding human life. The author of Feminism and Islamic Fundamentalism: The Limits of Postmodern Analysis, Haideh Moghissi, however, feels that the advent of postmodernism has, in fact, propelled the repression of women to a new found level. Also, it has provided the legitimation of fundamentalist values which, according to Moghissi, fly in the face of agency, democracy and womens rights. She claims that postmodernism is characterized by a moral relativism and, in fact, may support a regression of womens rights in the Middle-east. This paper will challenge Haideh Moghissis critique of postmodernism. In

doing so, we will present two trajectories: first, we will show that the foundation of Moghissis critique heavily relies on a misrepresentation of postmodern thought and also, we will challenge her analysis of a specific issue: the hijab or veiling. This will be accomplished by reading Moghissis text in light of the contributions of Saba Mahmood in Politics and Piety: The Islamic Revival and the Feminist Subject, as well as Basharat Tayyabs article, Hijab as an Instrument of Taking Women off the Sex Economy. It will give us a taste of the many different ways one can perform a study on cultural, religious and regional life. This paper, then, is essentially a meditation on method.

Moghissi and Postmodernism

Let us first describe Moghissis characterization of Postmodernism. She describes postmodernism as an opposition to the contributions of Enlightenment thinking. Moghissi writes, The most powerful impact of postmodernism comes from its critique of the Enlightenment. As a broad cultural and social movement, the Enlightenment represented the attempt to free humanity from the grip of medieval religion and metaphysics.1 She continues her analysis by citing the work of Friedrich Nietzsche, attributed as the initial inspiration of postmodernism, claiming that his book Thus Spoke Zarathustra employs the use of a Persian protagonist to break apart the decaying universals and truths of western tradition, namely, the contributions of the Enlightenment. Interestingly, Moghissi emphasizes Nietzsches use of a Persian protagonist as if he proclaimed that the East would rupture the foundations of western thought.2 The truth is that this is a misrepresentation of the character of Nietzsches work. He, in fact, utilized Zarathustra, a caricature pulled from Persian Zoroastrianism, because Zoroastrianism is attributed with
1

Haideh Moghissi, Feminism and Islamic Fundamentalism: The Limits of Postmodern Analysis, New York, Zed Books Ltd., 1999, Pg. 52. 2 Ibid, pg. 52-53.

the genesis or initial distinctions between good and evil. The goal of Nietzsche was never to propose a moral relativism as Moghissi accuses him of, but, instead, he urges his readers to reevaluate the foundations of thought, and forge our own singularized meaning. 3 Moghissi continues to misrepresent the relationship between Enlightenment thinking and postmodern analysis. She accuses Michael Foucault of the following: Does he [Foucault] aspire to a total break with the longstanding Western tradition of emancipation via rational reflection?4 Well, if Moghissi paid closer attention to Foucaults work, instead of relying on watered-down, secondary literature, she would find that Foucault, in fact, has mix feelings regarding the contributions of Enlightenment thinking. In his piece, What is Enlightenment? He champions many of the contributions of the fathers of the Enlightenment, but asks us what Enlightenment values still remain pertinent in postmodern life. 5 Moghissi, finally, conflates the trajectories of Islamic fundamentalism with the ideas and critiques provided by postmodernism.6 She makes the claim that, since postmodernism is largely a disavowal of Modernity, Islamic fundamentalism can find a home in postmodern notions. But, as we have shown, perhaps, Moghissi isnt quite up to date on her interpretation of postmodern thought. Just because both trajectories are skeptical of Modernity does not give Moghissi the authority to conflate the two. One is founded on a reaction to colonialism and the heavy hand of the West, whereas the other
3 4

Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Dover Publications, 1999. Haideh Moghissi, Feminism and Islamic Fundamentalism: The Limits of Postmodern Analysis, New York, Zed Books Ltd., 1999, Pg. 56. In fact, he champions the contributions of Kantian ethics and, also, maintains that dialogue in the public sphere is major result Enlightenment thinking. 5 Michel Foucault, What is Enlightenment?, The Foucault Reader, New York, Pantheon Books, 1984, pp. 32-50. 6 Haideh Moghissi, Feminism and Islamic Fundamentalism: The Limits of Postmodern Analysis, New York, Zed Books Ltd., 1999, Pg.64-67

would simply like to reflect on the foundations of human life purported by Modernity and the Enlightenment.

Postmodernism as a Positive Framework

Now that we have highlighted some of Moghissis problems with postmodernism, let us finally reflect on some of the positive contributions of this form of thought. In Hijab as an Instrument of Taking Women off the Sex Economy, author Basharat Tayyab, highlights the merit of a postmodern orientation when looking at Islamic life. She writes: Muslim feminists have employed postmodern techniques to address the major issues facing Muslim women today. They realize that their understanding of the Quran, the Islamic holy scripture, is in flux, and the changing socio-cultural conditions must be taken into account in our understanding of it. Consequently, Muslim feminists like Fatima Mernissi and Nawal El Saadawi have adopted the approach of reinterpreting the Islamic texts, the Quran and the Sunnah. These feminist re-readings of the texts seek to place the discourse of equality of sexes in the very heart of Islamic discourse in general.7 Here, we see that Tayyab highlights the fundamental character of postmodernism, the idea that one must reevaluate the foundations of our lives. It is true that many of these women live in societies that privilege masculinity and downplay that status of women. However, this is not an exclusively Islamic fact. Women all across the globe must evaluate and reinterpret the foundations of their life. The fact is that women such as Mernissi and El Saddawi live in worlds that are grounded in a relationship to the Quran and to reinterpret and revitalize readings of the Quran in favor of female values is not as disastrous as Moghissi reports. Tayyab, also, points to a dilemma which characterizes the lives of many Muslim feminists. She claims that the Muslim feminist is waging a war on three fronts: (1) she is
7

Guidance & Counseling 21.4 (2006): 201-209. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web 19 Sept. 2011.Tayyab, Basharat. Hijab as an Instrument of Taking Women off the Sex Economy.

trying to reevaluate the culture and religion in such a way that it adheres to her values of justice and equality. (2) She must constantly battle the judgment and misplaced disapproval of the liberalized western feminism and finally, (3) the Muslim feminist must combat the overall patriarchal structures she finds herself in. 8 Now, if we contrast the analysis of Tayyabs piece, once again, with Moghissis book, we see that Moghissi, ultimately, has very little faith in the strength of Muslim women nor does she see the predicament that her analysis may put women of the Middle-east. In Politics of Piety: The Islamic Revival and the Feminist Subject, Saba Mahmood examines the life of feminism in light of the Islamic revival within the Middle-east. She particularly focuses on the Egyptian womens Mosque Movement, which provides her with ample evidence to make the theoretical claims she purports. Mahmood is highly skeptical of the way in which liberalized, feminist discourse has misrepresented the plight of middle-eastern women. Mahmood, instead, reverses this idea by stating the following: [Modernity does not] problematize the universality of the desire - central to liberal and progressive thought and presupposed by the concept of resistance it authorizes - to be free from relations of subordination.9 One of the claims of her book is that women must attempt to find a place and relation to Islamic orthodoxy, where Enlightenment ideas, such as freedom, opposition to tyranny and secularization may not prove useful. Mahmood, instead, suggests that there may be some other avenues middle-eastern women may take to find their place in the world. In is important to remember that Mahmood is undeniably indebted to the work of many postmodern thinkers such as Michel Foucault and Judith Butler, but in no way does
8 9

Ibid. Saba Mahmood, Politics in Piety: The Islamic Revival and the Feminist Subject, Princeton University Press, 2005, Pg.6

she claim to be the middle-eastern heir to postmodernity. Instead, she follows their techniques of deconstruction and analysis, but, also, maintains ties to concrete, material evidence such as the Womens Mosques Movement. One of the most outstanding assertions found in her book, is the reflection on the idea of agency with regard to Islamic Revival. She shows us that there is more than one way to assert your agency. The West has conceived of agency, thanks to the Enlightenment and Modernity, as the outright opposition toward any oppressive structure. She writes, agency is, entailed not only in those acts that resist norms but also in the multiple ways in which one inhabits norm.10 What is meant here is that women who attempt to organize their lives around Islamic Revival are not somehow inferior to their western counterparts. Instead, it shows that women know what is best for them and that they should decide what it is appropriate for their lives.

Hijab
Let us now look at the 3 different types of analysis regarding veiling. As we reflect on these three different takes we will gain an insight into the methodology of these respective authors. Moghissi is especially skeptical of the rehabilitation of the hijab from a tool of oppression to instead a tool of empowerment. She makes the claim that most women are coerced into dawning the hijab and do not have any choice or agency in the matter. She writes, In the writings which view the veil as a tool of empowerment, the element of choice is taken for granted, while, most of often than not, the element of coercion, be it in the form of using brutal force or intimidation, or social cultural and

10

Ibid, Pg. 15

political pressure, is not even mentioned.11Moghissi takes this as a cue and from here on out points to several Islamic societies where the women are coerced into wearing a veil. Moghissi, first, looks at post-revolution Iran, writing, Legislation and government rulings make veiling mandatory. Improperly veiled women are subject to harsh legal and extra-legal punishment.12 She continues on to cite Palestine, Egypt, Jordan and many other middle-eastern regions as places of egregious mistreatment of women. Essentially, Moghissi feels that the postmodern critique of veiling often overlooks the concrete, material conditions that these kinds of practices are situated in. Moghissi asserts that when the postmodern idealization of veiling is looked at in light of concrete, material practices in many middle-eastern regions, we see that postmodern thought serves to legitimate the coercion and mistreatment of women. It will occur to any reader of Moghissis text that she generally focuses on example of women being mistreated, rather than places where women have had successes. This is not to say that critique of the practice surrounding veiling is not legitimate, however, the question is whether there is more to be said on the issue. Basharat Tayyab, following the work of postmodern thinker Luce Irigaray, makes the claim that the hijab can be thought of as a tool of empowerment. She points to Irigarays work, noticing that Irigaray could not envision a way in which to avoid or subvert sexual commodification, in other words, how does a woman overcome the possibility of being viewed as a sexualized object. Tayyab writes:

11

Haideh Moghissi, Feminism and Islamic Fundamentalism: The Limits of Postmodern Analysis, New York, Zed Books Ltd., 1999, Pg. 42 12 Ibid, Pg. 43

The woman who uses Hijab makes a radical political statement about herself. She states what she accepts and rejects. She refuses to play the gender roles of the patriarchal order. She refuses to play her role around sex and the aura of sexuality where all social relationships have sexual undertones. When a woman takes the Hijab, she rejects this role in the sexualized society and asserts that sex has nothing to do with her public life.13 Here, we see the possibility of viewing the Hijab in a totally different way, not as an oppressive tool pushed on women, but, rather, as a means to protect oneself from sexualization in the public sphere. It is important to note that Tayyab largely speaks of this view of the hijab in terms of potential, and not in terms of actual material conditions. So, it would seem that Moghissis critique would hold true. However, as mentioned before, Tayyab is highlighting a potential way in which women in general and her readers can rethink the practice of veiling. Saba Mahmood, in Politics of Piety: The Islamic Revival and the Feminist Subject, takes her analysis of the veil even further, writing: studies identify the veil as a symbol of resistance to the commodification of womens bodies in the media, and more generally to the hegemony of Western values. While these studies made important contributions, it is surprising that their authors have paid so little attention to the Islamic virtues of female modesty or piety, especially given that many of the women who have taken up the veil frame their decision precisely in the terms. 14 Mahmood shows us what the ideal thinker looks like. She is both skeptical of the contributions some postmodern thought, especially the stance taken by Basharat Tayyab and maintains that there is something sought after when it comes to traditional liberalized western critiques of the veil. Also, as we asserted before, Mahmood relies heavily on
13

Guidance & Counseling 21.4 (2006): 201-209. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web 19 Sept. 2011.Tayyab, Basharat. Hijab as an Instrument of Taking Women off the Sex Economy. 14 Saba Mahmood, Politics in Piety: The Islamic Revival and the Feminist Subject, Princeton University Press, 2005, Pg. 16

concrete evidence provided by her study of the Egyptian womens mosque movement. There is no reason to delegitimize the desire to elevate modesty and religiosity in the affairs of women. Once again, we have seen another way in which we can contrast the views and projects of Modernity to postmodern thought.

Concluding Remarks
Our study of the varying analyses of veiling has highlighted a few things. First, there is a multiplicity of ways at looking at something which is culturally, religiously, or regionally located grounded. One must not completely condemn a practice without reflecting on all possible avenues of analysis. Second, on a larger scale, we have provided a demonstration of 3 different methods of analysis. In Moghissi, we see a disavowal of postmodern thought and a desire to ground here work in concrete, material conditions, elevating the contributions of Modernity and the Enlightenment. In Basharat Tayyab, we examined the way in which she highlights the potential for reevaluation and appropriation of what we generally think of as oppressive structures. In a sense, Tayyab proves herself as an heir and allegiant of the postmodern way. And, finally, we have seen what we view as the ideal thinker, one who considers the contributions of postmodern thought, and, yet, also sees that merit of concrete, material evidenceessentially, she presents her own take, which borrows and disavows postmodern thought at the same time. In this way, Mahmood embodies what the postmodern thinker should look likesomeone who prides themselves on constant reevaluation and remains skeptical, yet, is charitable of whatever they are presented with. Also, we can make some concluding remarks regarding Moghissis book. We have shown how valuable postmodern thought has been to writers such as Saba

10

Mahmood and Basharat Tayyab. As a result, it provides a context in which we may view Moghissis contribution to this particular field of study. One thing becomes powerfully apparent, that Moghissi does not exactly have a problem with postmodern thought, and instead, it seems as if she has a qualm with Islamic fundamentalism. Although, her work is necessary, for reflection and reevaluation are methods that must be championed in all scholarly work, she makes a few grave missteps. For example, mis-readings and muddied interpretations are never a justification to right off an intellectual method. It is important to be skeptical, but not at the cost of losing a viable, fruitful framework of analysis. Finally, we ask, why is this important? So what if Moghissi does not like postmodern analysis? What if there are important ideas that come out of the Enlightenment and Modernity? Let us take the foreign policy of the United States as our example to prove importance of being critical of modernity. The Bush administration, along with its international allies, used the language of the Enlightenment and Modernity as the tools to wage wars in several middle-eastern countries. The Bush administration used words like liberty, freedom and dignity to not only justify its wars, but, also, to concrete the Wests perception of Islam, Arabs and the Middle-east. These liberal ideals helped to serve the west not the people of the Middle-east. So, does Moghissis desire to rehabilitate this stance hold true? It may not be the case.