Muslim Veils: Different Analyses (Special Topic 3)

Veils are piece of cloth that people wear around your head. Nuns of different cultures wear them. Jewish and Muslim women in different parts of the world wear veils too.

Issues surrounding whether Muslim women should or should not wear veils have been on-and-off the public agenda in many countries. In Western public discourse, you can find people supporting Muslim women veiling. Supporters might say "the veil is an expression of female agency" or "it’s just as an expression of religious piety". And you can find people opposed to it. Opponents might say, "it’s a rejection of all we stand for" or "it's simply an expression of male control over women". I find both views, for and against veiling,  uninformed by the kind of qualitative analysis anthropology gives.

Ostensibly, veiling is a religious issue. In the Q'ran, God says:

O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful.

But this doesn't really help us anthropologists understand Muslim veils. Why?

In the study of religious adherence we tend to focus more on what ordinary, lay-folk believe. Some anthropologists focus on studying religious specialists (who in Islam might be called "clerics", "ustadz", "ulama", and other words). But although religious specialists are influential, as specialists, they are 'special', so we analyse their understandings as them as having very particular stances on matter.

In any case, what matters to us interpretation. As much as certain people would like to say there is only one correct interpretation of the Bible, Torah, Q'ran, Scriptures etc., they only say that because so many interpretations exist! As we can see from the research by Abu-Lughod and Lindquist the veil has a wealth of significance that can't be easily deduced from the Q'ran passage above.

I think the best way to  begin approaching this topic is an extension (literally) of the Hair Debate (Special Topic 2). The question of public vs. private symbolism remains crucial in understanding Muslim veils. From this one question anthropologists might ask is, "what do veils mean, personally, for women who wear them?"  The other question is, "what do veils mean in the cultures in which they are worn?"

In this, the third special topic, from my subject Symbols and Society, I consider two different accounts of veiling. From them, we get a sense of similarities and difference in the meaning attached to veils in two different Islamic cultures.

Image of Malay women wearing jilbabs (the Malay Muslim veil) at my field site, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. These women are waiting to eat the food they have prepared for a communal meal.

 Abu-Lughod: Veiled Sentiments

Bedouin woman

GLOSSARY 

ghinnawa = poetry of yearning and love

hasham = modesty, shame, shyness, sense of being unworthy

tahasham = having hasham

It might be surprising given the title of the book, but in her Veiled Sentiments, Abu-Lughod only directly deals with the meaning of wearing a veil on p. 159. It must be remembered though, anthropology is mostly about providing context. Consistent with the idea of holism, anthropologists feel that one must have a picture of the whole culture and society (Awlad Ali Bedouins) before a single phenomenon (wearing a veil) can be understood. Also the word “veil” in the title is metaphorical; the ghinnawas, highly personal poetry, give veiled expression to highly personal and, in certain contexts, inappropriate poetry recited by women. So what does Abu-Lughod have to say about actual veiling in the physical? 

Bedouin Wedding Procession

The immediate context is tahashsham. I’m going for a simplified explanation that will leave the experts rolling their eyes: hasham is a feeling a shame, shyness, and unworthiness. Tahashsham refers to women who comport themselves in an appropriate manner. A woman who tahashsham is disinterested in sex; avoids contact with most men (aside from those of her father's family); is publicly disinterested in her husband. And most of all, for our purposes, women who tahasshsham wear a thick veil. They particularly do this in the presence of male superiors and strangers. To understand this in detail you'll need to read pp. 153-159 of Veiled Sentiments, which is available online at most university libraries. I have also tried to summarise it here:

Lindquist: Maju, malu and veils

Glossary:
Maju= advanced
malu = coy, shy, reserved
jilbab = veil which leaves face exposed

Located near Singapore and Malaysia, the Indonesian island of Batam is replete with modern factories and brothels. Singaporean men use it as a source of cheap labour and cheap sex. For an analogy, you might consider Tijuana; the Mexican city just over the border form San Diego, where young American men might go for buck's nights etc.

Factories in Batam as a rule typically only employ young women (it used to be the virginity was also tested!).  Lindquist writes about Indonesian women have migrated from all over Indonesia to Batam to work in the factories:

“As unexpected as it might seem, migrant women sometimes wear Muslim veils or take ecstasy in the same places and for the same reasons,” writes Lindquist. The factories, as a rule, employs only young single, high-school educated females. These young women may feel ashamed because they have travelled to demonstrate their personal development; but often fail to save money and ‘get ahead’ and be maju. To be maju is to be up-to-date, developed, cutting edge. A country that has made itself maju is Korea or Japan; a Muslim that has made herself maju would be sophisticated and embody the latest in practice and thinking about Islam [which would include wearing the veil]. The opposite of maju is to be backward, rural, traditional. Migration is about becoming maju and not malu (modest, shy, embarrassed).

Batamindo Industrial Complex

“In conversations with workers who wore the veil it was clear that most of them began to do so only after they had arrived on Batam. The typical response to my enquiry about this was that they had only just ‘become aware’ (baru sadar). For instance, Widya, from the city of Yogyakarta in Central Java, claimed that she had always wanted to wear a jilbab before she came to Batam, but that it was rare there. While in Java it was easy to be branded fanatik (cf. Brenner 1998:232), on Batam one gained support not only from roommates but also from the agencies and companies that recruited them. Widya continued: ‘one of the good things about working here is that there are a lot of religious activities. In the kampung [my village of origin] it is usually only on Hari Raya [the day of celebration that breaks the Islamic fasting month] that there is anything going on.’

One aspect of personal development these young migrant women can work on is religion—there are more religious activities and information sessions than where they came from. Wearing the veil (jilbab) is part of this religious development; they need not return to their home feeling malu, even if they have little money saved, at least the veil shows they are developed. Lindquist writes:

In the [Batam industrial] estate, however, it is possible to take part in religious activities on a daily basis, either in the main mosque or in a wide variety of organizations that are organized through particular companies or by community-based groups created by workers and supported by the estate management. The interests of the workers, the companies, and the local government appear to converge, as the movement of workers is restricted to the mosque (or the church), the dormitories, and the factory. The development of the [Batam] industrial estate is matched by the spiritual development of the worker” (Lindquist 2004, 493).

At a more complex level, Lindquist ties wearing a jilbab in with morality, affect, subjectivity, nationalism, migration and various other concepts. According to Winarnita (2011) for Lindquist, modesty/shame/shyness or malu is:

a key emotional trope [for female migrants to Batam]…Lindquist argues that in migration malu should be understood in relation to representations connected to the originating nation…to him malu is an important starting point for thinking about the motivations and actions of Indonesian migrants in negotiating their hopes and frustrations. [Lindquist] he sees the women migrants as having agency in which malu becomes a reflexive management of appearances in the face of dramatic economic and social change.

You want to show how advanced you are by succeeding in migration both in earning a wage and becoming a better Muslim. Thus wearing a veil symbolises to others that one has become advanced or maju.

Symbolic Significance

The veil could thus be seen as symbolising something personal for the wearer herself (such as her personal journey to Batam). She also sends out message to others about herself, whether it be that she is malu or tahasham. To understand these different levels of symbolism it is useful to refer to the great anthropological debate regarding hair.

Summary

So for Lindquist failing in migration makes female workers feel malu. To deal with this feeling of malu, the sex workers take ecstasy. Those who work in factories want to feel like they have 'made it' and one way of showing of success is religious development. And one sign of religious development is wearing a veil. When the workers go back home, they wear a veil, they can feel less malu. Feelings of malu lie behind both taking ecstasy (for sex workers) and wearing a veil (for factory workers).

For Abu Lughod, writing about Bedouins, wearing a veil is also related to feelings of hasham. 

Reflection

I think of hasham and malu as important symbols and feelings. The feelings/states they relate to include modesty, humility, shame, shyness, coyness, chastity etc.

9: Symbols as Models--Geertz

Welcome to Section 9 of Symbols & Society. The title of the reading is "Religion as a Cultural System", but I think it should be "Religion is a Set of Symbols". Geertz tells us that symbols provide a model of how the world and universe are made up. Symbols also provide a model for how to live. What is the difference between models of- and models for-? When do they come together? Why should we care?

The Geertz text we read this week can equally be considered a theory of religion or a theory of symbols. By way of background, if you're interested in seeing the text as a theory of religion, you might want to watch the following:

Understanding Geertz

Now it's time to read Geertz's "Religion as a Cultural System", in which the author argues that religion is a set of symbols. I have summarized it here.

You might then like to watch my presentation:

 

'Models of' and 'Models for'

Now I'll try to summarise the theory in 150 words or less: Humans are born without sufficient survival instincts. We need culture to survive; agriculture; horticulture; fishing; herding and so on. Culture is outside of our heads when we are born; we need to get it in. Culture takes the form of symbols and we get it in through symbols. There are two kinds of symbols 'Models of' show you the way the world is. 'Models for' tell you how to behave in the world. Outside of religion, these are separate. They come together in religious rituals like 

1. Baptism. Model of = baptism of Christ; model for = how to behave now you're born again.
2. Christmas. Model of = Mary, Joseph & Christ; model for = your family is & should be holy like there's is. The nativity scene is really real, and that is what your family should be like. 

This is a photo of an evacuation plan. It tells you what to do in a fire. It is, therefore, a "model for". It is not used in a ritual, therefore, it is not associated with the religious perspective.

Geertz's Perspectives

Religion is a part of culture. So religion is also constructed out of symbols. But religions is characterized by a certain attitude towards the world, which is distinct from other attitudes within a culture. Geertz identifies four attitudes or "perspectives" as he calls them:

•  Common sense perspective. According to a common sense perspective, you don’t go for a swim in a flooding river, because you might drown. You drink water if you're thirsty. You water plants. This perspective is based on an unquestioning acceptance of reality as it appears to the five senses. Geertz characterises this as a kind of naive realism.

From the current scientific perspective, water is the liquid phase of a bond between an oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms

• Scientific perspective. According to the scientific perspective, reality isn’t as it appears. For example, 99% of the H2) molecule, and thus water itself is space. But water doesn’t appear as space. 

Renoir's aesthetic perspective of water

• Aesthetic perspective. Different aesthetic perspectives can be seen when you compare how Turner, Renoir, or Hokusai paint water. It's how we see the world with 'artistic' eyes.



Hokusai's aesthetic perspective of water.

•  Religious perspective. According to the religious perspective, reality is merely an illusion. There is another order; you can’t experiment, you can’t see it, but appears as super important; really real. Of course, you can drown in water, but, aside from the obvious depriving the body of oxygen, what is really happening when you drown? For example, if you think of meeting the love of your in such terms as “it was fate”, “it was meant to be”. For example, Jeff Buckley [90s musician] died swimming in the Mississippi. People, even atheists, of my generation say things like "his music lives on", "fate took him" etc..  And maybe that same water is used baptize people so that they can be born again. That's what the water is really about, from a religious perspective. The religious perspective is always about purpose and meaning; it's not necessarily about afterlife, spirits, God etc.

These Baptists can perceive water from common sense, scientific, and aesthetic perspective. To some extent, these are distractions from what is really real; a miraculous power in the water to absolve sins and, through the power of the Holy Spirit, to enable you to be reborn.

Applying Geertz: Australian secular religion

I grew up steeped in contemporary Australian religion of professed atheism. I couldn't understand how anyone could be so naive as to believe in God. As far as I could discern, it was like believing in Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and other make-believe characters that make us feel good. I even got to the point that I was convinced that believing in God was a collective delusion bordering on madness. I wasn't so much scared of a universe without a God; I was scared of a world where many people could indulge in such a fantasy! 

When I studied philosophy at Uni, I was shocked to learn that perfectly good arguments pointed to the existence of God. That still wasn't enough. Deep down, I felt the believers were mistaken. That changed after reading Geertz. 

Geertz allowed me to see a different perspective that 'religious people' took. They see everyday reality as merely an illusion. They believed that what was really happening lay behind the deceptive surfaces of appearances. Then, as 'religious' began to appear less crazy to me, I began to see myself as religious.

For Australian nationalists, the water around Anzac Cove isn't just any water.
From a really real perspective, it will forever contain the blood of young Australians and their sacrifice for us.

Following that, I had a reflective moment. I came to see my secular, atheist beliefs as deeply religious. I tried to express this latter perception in this brief opinion piece. It applies Geertz's ideas to Australian 'religion'. The piece seems irreverent and disrespectful to me now--I wish I had got the tone better. Because I think the Digger or the Battler is just as worthy of respect as the chishinga (Week 8) or the Virgin of Guadalupe (Week 7). 

You might also want to listen to me (and others) interviewed in a radio program about religion: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/earshot/the-accidental-atheist/7889880

I think the interviewer thinks I 'beg the question'; I didn't manage to convince him!

Evaluating Geertz 

We need to look at critiques of Geertz, for several reasons. 

1. In teaching this subject, and in my thinking more generally, I have been heavily influenced by Geertz. To provide balance I need to give some air to opposing positions. 
2. As Geertz remains the towering figure in the study of symbols within anthropology, the scholars who critique are also among the most influential anthropologists. To read critiques of Geertz is to gain understanding into other profound theoretical positions.
3. One of the aims of this unit is to develop your ability not just to understand and recognize different theories. Granted this is difficult in itself, but to think like an anthropologist you need to go further. You must be able to situate the theories historically and reflect upon them critically. For these three reasons, we focus on two critiques of Geertz.
   

Rosaldo's critique

Renato Rosaldo was doing fieldwork with his wife, also an eminent anthropologist, among headhunters in the Philippines. She died. He felt so much rage he could now understand the feeling of headhunters. This understanding enabled him to critique Geertz's theory.  Please read the section entitled "How I Found Rage in Grief" in the "Grief and a Headhunter's Rage".

You might also want to listen to my interview with anthropologist, Monika Winarnita, and what she has to say about Rosaldo and Metcalf (who critiqued Rosaldo).

Asad's critique  

Asad also famously critiqued Geertz's use of the term "religion" in Asad's "The Construction of Religion as an Anthropological Category". I have summarized Asad's argument in a blog. But, of course, it's much better to read Asad himself. 

Discussion

In this subject, I also have a special topic based around Geertz's description of ritual meals, called "slametan". So if you want to read more Geertz, you could start there.

Summary

For Geertz, culture (and religion within it) is a system of symbols. These symbols are models of the universe and models for how to behave. ‘Models of’ and ‘Models for’ appear just like theories until you experience ritual. Ritual is crucial to bringing them together and making them seem uniquely real. The uniquely real (not necessarily the supernatural) is religion. This is why the atheist, sceptic etc is religious in Geertz’s sense; because she will go to family dinners, sports parties (Superbowl, Grand Final, FA Cup, World Series etc.) BBQs, Christmas Lunch, and find that this is really real.