I wore hijab and I liked it… Deconstructing the ‘men make me wear things’ debate

Dust-women-of-the-x-28669236-680-935

What are the bets that I — a heterosexual, middle class, white male — can’t navigate this topic sensitively?  More to the point, why should I try?  Isn’t this a debate that has little (if anything) to do with me?  Muslim women in Australia should be able to wear whatever the damn hell they want.  Why is this even up for debate?

As is sensible and appropriate, the rest of the Internet has taken care of the Islamophobic angle.  Islam is the Big Scary Religion and everything that is Islamic is somehow threatening.  For those of you who think law bubbles up from the pot of culture, it seems we have a series of ‘all-too-common’ law crimes, the most famous of which being ‘driving while black’.  Now we have ‘occupying a public place while under the influence of being Muslim’.

But what if it’s not just Islamophobia at work here?  Of course, it is Islamophobic and we shouldn’t try to eclipse that with anything else.  But what if there were something else at work here, mixed with the Islamophobia, which explains the way otherwise sensible people sense an affinity with this Islamophobic policy.

The launchpad for this begins with the concern that niqab is a threat to security not because Muslims are all trying to kill us, but because we cannot identify the person who is wearing the niqab.  It’s on this point that the ‘anti-burqa’ crowd seem to feel they’re being more reasonable and less Islamophobic.  If we lived in a culture vacuum where phrases weren’t situated in the context of discussing the way somebody expresses their religio-cultural norms, it might be less Islamophobic.  Alas, we don’t.

But even if we did, how reasonable is it to think that we must, at all times, dress in such a way that allows other people to identify us for security reasons?  How reasonable is it to think that we must, even in some situations, dress in a way that enables others to monitor us?

People — wrongly and foolishly — think that the panopticon is a State mode of oppression.  It’s not.  Unfortunately, our political language developed at a time when we were most concerned with the State finding ways of being generally awful towards us.  Today, we are censored in much more pervasive ways.  The companies behind social media platforms can tweak, shape, and block our messages.  Cyclists want to film us when we’re on the street.  Companies withdraw funding from celebrities who behave in ‘antisocial’ ways.  And we risk people informing our employers if we say controversial things online.  We are at all times visible to each other so that we can police each other.  The dangerous person is the stranger who does not subject themselves to the scrutiny of peers.

The only freedom we can have from this mode of oppression is through abnegation of identity.  We are only free to be ourselves when we are most anonymous.

And this isn’t to be utopian about it.  Most of us are terrible, terrible people.  I get threats and menacing telephone calls from people calling from private telephone numbers because they’re too gutless to say it on a more even playing field.  And I really shouldn’t be too precious about it — seeing the sort of abuse that my (female) friends get online from anonymous guys is far worse than anything I tolerate.

On this line of reasoning, the concern about the niqab is also an attack on people who transgress (in an interesting sense) the modes of oppression that allow us to police each other.  Anonymity is threatening because we only trust people that we can keep under surveillance.

It was this need to keep everybody in a state of mutual surveillance that caused Christopher Hitchens to write:

So it’s really quite simple. My right to see your face is the beginning of it, as is your right to see mine. […] The law must be decisively on the side of transparency.

He might not have believed in the divine spirit, but few people had a more fanatical faith in metaphysical rights which privileged his own status than Christopher Hitchens.  Of course, it is a nonsense to say that you have a right to see my face and transparency (in this sense) should only have the backing of law if you’re trying to force people to be obedient to social norms.

The ‘solidarity’ movement of posting a selfie of yourself wearing a hijab doesn’t quite grapple with this pervasive intuition that we’re only secure if I allow you, at all times, to identify me.  Weirdly, it reinforces it by focusing on a form of attire where the face can be seen and then encouraging you to take a picture of yourself so you can be identified.

Framed differently, if we didn’t have such an anxiety about people being anonymous in public, it would be easier to show the Islamophobic core of the ‘anti-burqa’ rhetoric.  The language of security wouldn’t be sullied with racism.

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “I wore hijab and I liked it… Deconstructing the ‘men make me wear things’ debate

  1. I think you’re totally wrong on this…I see the burqa as an ongoing symbol of female oppression. Yeah, women should be able to wear “whatever the hell they want” (your words)…but these women are /forced/ to wear this attire because of their religion. Travel in some Middle Eastern countries for a while (where it’s not safe or allowed for women of ANY religion to walk alone or be uncovered) and see what it’s like before shooting from the hip. Women have been downtrodden by religion for so long but it’s particularly menacing here (and with some 1.2 billion Muslims globally, it’s a massive threat to the rights of women everywhere). Just because someone has a different religion or belief, doesn’t mean I have to accept it and think it’s right when it’s oppressive and cruel. Just because I don’t have to live like that, doesn’t mean I don’t feel offended when other people are subjected to it.

    • Maybe, but I’m not really entering into that space. I’m not entering into that space because I don’t have a horse in that race. I’m white and male, living in Australia.

      Let’s try this a different way. If all the people currently forced to wear niqab were suddenly ‘liberated’ from the demand and nothing else in their society changed, would you think that women were now substantively liberated? Or are you instead saying that the expression of niqab is indicative of an underlying issue? In which case, why not deal with the underlying issue and then let the niqab expression sort itself out in the wash?

      • hmmm then I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue then…either you’re saying that women can wear whatever they want (end of argument, religion shouldn’t matter…in which case people should have to remove deidentifying clothing when people need to be identified for security reasons – just like I couldn’t wear a Daft Punk outfit into a bank even if I wanted to wear it and I should be able to wear whatever the hell I want by your logic)…OR you’re condoning the reasoning behind wearing the burqa/niqab in the first place (and that wearing it shouldn’t be offensive for either security or “Islamophobic” reasons).

        I think it’s closed minded (and overlooking the bigger picture) to think that cos you’re white, male and in Australia (as you like to point out all the time), that it doesn’t affect you. Like I said, women (and men who give care about their treatment) all over the world should be concerned about this. But I honestly don’t understand how anyone could think it’s reasonable that a religion dictates this dress…but maybe I’m just not post-modern enough…caring about equality for women is modern but in order to be po-mo you need to “feel” that people can disregard equality and believe what they want no matter who it denegrates.

        • What, what? No, I’m just saying that I’m not sailing into the Islamophobia space. I’m keeping it to the other tranche of the argument.

          I followed up by saying that people who are worried about niqab being oppressive should be more worried about oppression than the niqab. Instead, they’re really worried about the niqab and not as worried about the oppression.

          • Maybe some people….but not me. I’m concerned about the oppression it represents and that both the oppression itself and the symbol of it should be abolished

  2. Pingback: Barry Spurr and academic freedom: Thinkpiece No. 352,237. | AusOpinion

  3. Pingback: Some brave Apollo… Should the Internet ban anonymity? | Only The Sangfroid

  4. Pingback: L’horrible peur de la rupture… Social revision of anonymity | Only The Sangfroid

  5. It’s an interesting argument, but I would assume that if we were in that magical place where Islamophobia was no longer an issue, then that world would also be a world where people wouldn’t be concerned about burqa wearing females possibly being security threats.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s