Reading question for Abu-Lughod
What was specific to the architecture and urban way of life in Islamic early modern cities, according to Janet Abu-Lughod?
What was specific to the architecture and urban way of life in Islamic early modern cities, according to Janet Abu-Lughod?
Am glad that about how the islamic cities are different from western cities, because am from a country with 65% muslim and their socio cultural life is different from chirstian. Their way of dressing, reaction to situations and especailly marrying up to four wives is common.
"The historic Islamic city often achieved community, privacy, and beauty...Since cities are living processes rather than formalistic shells for living, they cannot be built by us."
(p. 180, Abu-Lughod)
Chrissi
I found it really interesting to read about the regulations that these cities set up to intensify privacy and segregation. i.e. the placement of windows, height of adjacent buildings (177) These rules also formed responsibilities for the neighborhood to protect and secure one another's privacy. The separation of gender becomes apparent when reading Abu-Lughod's account of lattace screening, etc. The dychotomy of public and private space is probably the central idea in developing islamic cities. I enjoyed thinking of the neighborhood as an extension of private space for women, while the marketplaces and other public arenas was an enforced male territory. Yes, religion was part of the reason that these modifications were made, however, institutions like the state government enforced and enabled these customs to be carried on not by just the Umma, but for everyone.
I think it's always fun to look into how people in other parts of the world are living. I find the architectural aspect of the traditional Islamic city interesting because it segregates men and women, and neighbors and I wonder whether any of the citizens find this uncomfortable in any way. The design of the city promotes isolation between neighbors. The way the city is built, for example, the height of neighboring buildings are different and the windows are placed, in a fashion to promote privacy between one another. I wonder whether if this design would promote a secretive society and/or more curiosity between one another. Although people are able to speak to their neighbors (of same sex) from time to time, I also wonder whether if the people feel a certain void at all due to segregation.
In the conclusion of this chapter, she speaks about how city planners today have ideas of using the methods of the traditional Islamic city design and how it isn't a good idea. I feel that city planners have used a similar method to segregate people. Every city here in the twin cities area for the most part has a movie theatre, a target, a cub and other things etc. so it's unneccesary to travel outside of that cove. I then wonder whether if this is a move for practicality or if there is another purpose to this.
I agree that it is interesting that original Islamic cities were designed in that secretive fashion, and I think that it's interesting how people want to be a part of a society, that is so private individually, but I think it is very similar in today's times. I was just watching Seinfeld last night, and Jerry was upset because Kramer posted Jerry's photo and name in his apartment lobby as everyone in the complex was doing to make it a more friendly place where you can know everyone and say hello, even when you see them right in your own living quarters. Though it's funny how today's society, I feel, makes neighborhoods and homes as enclosed and difficult to view throughout as possible, I feel it is for a different purpose. While Islamic religion apparently believes in the segregation, particularly of the sexes, I think our society is just a bit shallow and values being able to do things without others seeing or knowing, even if it means not being very friendly. Then again, when people step out in public, such as in the market place, in Islamic cities I believe they are openly communicative, and it is genuine. When people in our society steps out in public, I think they feel the need to be friendly even though many would rather avoid any contact with others. That is just basically the general feel I got from the reading.
Nich, Thanks for commenting on my blog. When you mention people stepping out in public and feeling obligated to be friendly but rather avoid people, are you talking about people as in everybody or people as in friends, acquaintences, and/or strangers? I think the cause of people wanting to be isolated comes partially from the fact that people of some societies are obligated to be overly-friendly towards one another and not being genuine. When people are overly-friendly, in many situations, it's kind of like a poker face (or ambiguity) making it difficult for the recipient to know what the other person is feeling. When you live in a society that is for the most part ambiguous, you're not entirely sure on who is "friend or foe" so I say. Therefore, there is no true connection and honesty from this thus causing people to want to be "so close" or isolated from one another.
Comments
Abu-Lughod notes how architecture promoted gender segregation in early Islamic modern cities. Her arguement is that history and culture are less significant, rather religion acting as the primary factor in determining characteristics within' Islamic cities. In traditional Islamic religion, women are to be protected from disruptive attention from men. To enforce this, achitecture was tailored through, "...crooked entryways, lattice-wood screens, doors that do not face doors on the opposite side of the street, windows set so women could view men, but not the other way around." (173)
Since women were(are) viewed as second class citizens with less human rights (when compared to men) in these areas, it should follow that religous based cities aim to protect the women in their community/family from unnecessary harm. I've never heard of such architecture and think it's a rather progressive way to salvage a women's rights.
Posted by: Valerie | January 24, 2007 03:57 PM
The architecture of Hamdi, a restaurant on Lake St. near Chicago Ave, supports the traditional culture of Islamic gender segregation...there are essentially two rooms connected by a kitchen...one room for men, and another for women and children. there are also two entrance doors to the restaurant that lead to the separate rooms. I asked the waitor about it, in case my assumption was completely ignorant, and he said that it would only be awkward for someone to break the segregation, and that i was welcome to sit among the men.
Ps: they have really good food.
Chrissi
Posted by: My experience at Hamdi | January 24, 2007 09:43 PM
Thanks! I'll check it out sometime.
Posted by: Valerie | January 24, 2007 10:47 PM
Progressive yes! If visibility is a trap, as Foucault has said, then invisibility must be liberating right? When I went to Riverside ages ago, there was also a little partition to ensure that women are not disturbed while eating. Of course, any time there is segregation it is important to be extremely cautious of anything that may be oppressive. For instance, being relegated to the back room severely restricts a person’s range of motion, and having to completely cover up in public makes it hard to communicate with a free range of people.
Greg
Posted by: Greg | January 24, 2007 11:53 PM
My .02
I dont agree with the idea that the private areas were for a woman's protection but rather so men could know that their wives were not in a position do do anything unbecoming. The "protected" areas seem like child care for women. I did find it interesting though that Hindus veil themselves from family while Muslims veil themselves from the outside world. I am not sure which one of those is more offensive.
Dorian
Posted by: dorian stanasel | January 25, 2007 12:54 AM
The correlation between segregation and oppression is disingenuous. Both segregation and desegregation can be equally oppressive or liberating, depending on the social construction from an individual's viewpoint. Hence the vastly different views stated during the 20th century American women's rights movements. Women were sharply divided between the defense of private sphere life and gaining purchase in the public sphere. (I still find it odd that either camp found it necessary to badger those in the other camp to submit to their doctrine.)
Abu-Lughod's analysis of the gender stratification in Islamic city architecture is a supporting argument for her main assertion that the contemporary construction within Islamic cities will fail if there is no heed paid to certain historic segregations practiced since some time in the past. While this assertion is valid, stating it will not lessen the attempts to enact Islamic architecture reform by those who might view this passage as an appeasement of the segregation status quo. The same thing goes for her other supporting arguments, that of regulatory centralization and zenophobia. Of course, I could be completely delusional and it may be that my rationalization is simply personal opinion seasoned with good old American enculturation.
- David H
Posted by: David H | January 25, 2007 02:42 AM
This reading and all of the comments remind me of a book that I just finished called "Postville" by Stephan G. Bloom. It described the small town of Postville, Iowa and the culture collision between the locals and the Hasidic Jews who settled in the area to open up a kosher slaughter house. Bloom, who was raised Jewish himself portrays the Hasidism have similar gender roles as in Abu-Lughods writing. The women are to wear wigs or wraps around their hair when in public, or in the presence of others beside her husband. Also, when praying, women and men are not to be in the same room, this is so the men will not get distracted from praying by getting aroused. I highly recommend this book if any one loves good sociology read like me.
Posted by: Kari J.
Posted by: Kari J. | January 25, 2007 11:15 AM
It was also stated in the reading that architectural segregation “…was possible only, if at all, for the very wealthy… For the poor, no such absolute segregation was possible.” (178) This then means that when there were resources available, the gender segregated architecture was created. You must keep in mind that, traditionally, in urban areas the rich are the minority. This would mean that the majority of areas in Islamic cities would be segregated by tacit social norms such as “…the sign used in front of the public bath to indicate ladies’ day.” This makes me believe that a very small percentage of an Islamic city’s layout is determined by sexual segregation.
Tim T
Posted by: Tim T | January 25, 2007 01:36 PM
Sexual segregation in Islamc cities reminds me of racial segregation in America's history. In response to the previous comments about sexual segregation as a means of protection and distrust, another way to look at sexual segregation is to look back into our country's history with racial segregation when the definite divide between Blacks and Whites in America were established because Blacks were classified as 2nd class human beings. In that sense, segregation was inhumane, unjust, and oppressing. I think sexual segregation in Islamic cities are just the same; they are oppressive towards women.
We can also give mind that Islam is a patriarchal society and understand the architecture of Islamic cities through this lens.
Kathy
Posted by: Kathy X. | January 25, 2007 03:04 PM