Naomi and hijab
One of the things that I really liked about Arat-Koc’s article was her idea about émigré feminists and their perspectives on the “home country.” It seems that an issue that comes up in cultural and gender studies is the idea of authority and knowledge and who has claims to these. While she did want to speak with authority on her experience and, having lived in Turkey and then immigrated to Canada, gave her two very different perspectives, she does not pretend that she knows something essential about her home country. However, she does acknowledge that her perspective has changed with regards to viewing her own country since she has had the experience of being the outsider. I wonder what impacts the place of refuge has on the shaping of viewpoints of the “home-country.” If one immigrates to Argentina instead of Canada what would be the implications for these new “perspectives” that are allowed as an outsider?
In addition to this discussion of the outsider perspective, I thought that her description of Kemalism and its relation to re-defining cultural definitions in terms of westernization was very interesting. How do we interpret other cultural practices? While the single party regime of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk from 1923-1945 attempted to “civilize” the Turkish state so that it could “catch up” with Europe, Arat-Koc introduces the idea of interpretation and imported sensibilities. While the state itself feared usurpment by European forces and thus wanted to exert independent civilization, the form of proving this independence was through adopting western ideals. In order to enter into contemporary civilization it was necessary to cut ties with the past, thus severing religious and Eastern influences. Thus, inherently, any practices which were associated with the past would be deemed as oppressive, backwards, un-civilized etc. and not permitted justification. The reductionist tactic of associating the hijab with a necessary symbol of women’s oppression leaves no room for choice, multiple meanings or cultural/religious freedom.
While I found Arat-Koc’s argument clear and engaging it seems that Moghissi would disagree to a certain degree, or at least chose to emphasize to a greater extent the responsibility of the interpretations of the exiled/ émigré feminist. In her conclusion she reflects on her position as an émigré and claims that it is often only from this place that women are able to put pressure on governing forces and help create change. Also, while it seems that Arat-Koc is open to interpreting the hijab in multiple forms, Moghissi asserts that the veil, while chosen by some women as a symbol of Islam identity, fundamentally represents ‘the chastity and modesty-as defined by men’ and’ symbolizes ‘male authority and control over the female body.’ Who has the power, authority to make such claims regarding what it represents? Does it matter if one is from the culture/ ‘home country’ itself? Should each woman be allowed to make her own choice regarding the participation or not in veiling practices, or are they seen as incapable, brainwashed by male authority to believe that it is necessary?