By Agus Rahman
Say 'Islam' and one of the primary things that will spring to mind is the burqa. The connotations of the burqa are not normally positive; in the western mind it has become synonymous with extremist groups like the Taliban; a symbol of religion's enduring contempt for all that is feminine. Worries arise as to whether this kind of association is little more than a sign of our own cultural prejudice; we are often prone to view the culturally distinct as in most way threatening. What is notable in the case of the burqa, however, is that the negative reactions have come not merely from armchair pundits though a wide range of intellectuals,. A charge of ethnic prejudice against opponents of the burqa too seems ill-conceived when we consider how little attention these critics direct at other cultural exports..,, are not predisposed to shun religious artifacts.
The majority of westerners, whether politically left, right, or centre, remain heavily sceptical of the application of hijab (modesty of clothes) in Islamic communities within the UK, and beyond.. Even the young who remain conveniently imperceptive to a range of moral issues seem to cotton on to something amiss with the burqa. By completely eclipsing the girl shape, the burqa invites immediate suspicion, becoming the ostensible expression of women's final and absolute banishment from public life. Due to this rather dubious honour, the burqa (unlike henna tattooing, dreadlocks, or even the St Christopher) has little opportunity of catching on in contemporary, secular, portions of the world.
Daring as it might seem to say, this can be more of a shame than we are inclined to suppose, and one need not be a person of Islamic faith to think so. There are reasons available to people of a secular leaning that commend the more modest fashion of outfit adopted by girls across the Muslim Diaspora. While these reasons will be presented in the course of this paper do not expect to find a knock down argument in favour of a public requirement of modesty, do not expect to find a knock down argument at all. Instead, the forthcoming consideration of modesty of costume aims at little more than bringing a reassessment of present attitudes toward outfit,.
The sex orientated and appearance obsessed nature of modern western culture provides the backdrop by which our reassessment of the burqa may start.,, as liberating in a range of ways In the 1940s the first hatchlings of a free-market attitude toward sex were born. Rita Hayworth's silver screen shenanigans had sex starved wartime soldiers in a case most un-conducive to good military protocol. Elvis, in turn, showed that females were not invulnerable to their own shape of sexual idolatry. The exponential growth of media technology, coupled with irresistible market forces, focusing with new fierceness on a sex sells mentality,.
Rita Hayworth and Elvis were no less revolutionary than the Bolsheviks, and like most revolutions theirs would have its share of failings. That the sexual revolution produced a range of positive changes might not be denied: whoever fails to rejoice in the steady decline of the sexual dissatisfaction and shame that plagued an earlier generation's attitudes toward sex has succumb to the kind of masochism that all to generally apparel itself up as the stern voice of morality. Be that as it can, a population of sexually harmonious and balanced individuals has not been in any way the result of this revolution.
, refusing to be left in the dust of change. Women of younger and younger ages are dressing in ways that have their parents hesitant to let them out the residence.. In certain men it arouses lust.
, used to the display of flesh: legs, bust, shoulders and all. So significantly accordingly, that one of the few ways we might actually measure the social and sexual significance of this display is by glimpsing back at the past. What was deemed provocative or revealing in the 40's (think Hayworth and Elvis again) seems laughable by modern standards. Now consider the option thought experiment: instead of judging Hayworth and co by our contemporary standards try judging our icons by theirs. One only has to imagine how people would react if the Goo-goo Dolls, or any number of their peroxide drenched legions, were to perform the typical pop routine back in the 1940s to get a gage on just how significantly things have changed.
Condemned to commended, refused afterward revered, the story of our attitudes towards feminine sexuality is one of a reasonably simple transition. But what underlies the motivation to undress to sexually impress? It can not just be a subject of acceptance at the social level. As far as we know it would not be a social taboo to wear an Armani suit to bed, however , that does not suffice as a factor that people would do therefore. There has to be the relevant desire that accompanies the environment of acceptance.
. The womanly shape is gorgeous and open for admiration by both men and ladies alike. We like to look, and we like being looked at. It is a component of the understanding of the times before our own as 'repressive' that they were keeping tethered that which yearned to be free.
Other social descriptions attach to the decisions to dress in most ways. These meanings concern most obviously sex, and as a corollary power. Here we come to what is meant by woman 'capitalizing' on the social changes:. The original most obvious good it secures is sex. We generally like to pretend that sex is an insignificant human good, when in reality it plays a key role in shaping the contours of our lives, however even when sex is duly acknowledged as an significant end of human activity, there are still a range of other human goods (or opportunities towards human goods) that await the provocative of attire. Sometimes the promise of sex, no matter how distant, secures somewhat trivial practical things, for example, drinks in a bar or free entrance to clubs. Sometimes it secures practical, however certainly not trivial, things, such as a life partner, an crucial social network, or a career possibility. Other times it secures less practical however more emotional goods such as the confidence and gratification that arrives with making heads turn. All this can not be power in the sense of making others do what they do not want to, though it's rather a hypnotic kind of power, the kind that allows its possessor to bend the will of others to get precisely what it needs.
, however , maybe it is an approximation to this idea. After all, the Spice Ladies certainly did not seem to be saying crucial things about forms of woman empowerment such as the right to abortion or the rights to equal pay in the workplace. The sort of power they were talking concerning (that women could possess though boys do not) might then be the sort of power increasingly possessed by their fan base of young teenage females - feminine sexual power. As stupid as the Spice Women were,. There are, after all, reasons that we can be happy with the growing possession of power amongst lady; the foremost being that altogether it kindles the image of the once prostrate finally finding their feet.: in public life denied educational and vocational chance, in the political sphere denied representation and suffrage. Even in their 'right and natural place'- the house, produced far too generally vulnerable to the whims of a patriarchal household tyrant.
If this picture is still representative of the women encounter after that any swing in power would be welcomed and asking women to politely disarm of what little power they possess seems paramount to asking a slave to tighten his or her chain.
Moreover, asking females to tether their outward sexuality and relent in this modest possession of power seems likely to draw objectors from an entirely different quarter. Men - it seems - would be the preliminary to complain were there a decline in the feminine sexual animal; for men, it must be said, like the display of flesh; now they have tasted it they could not do without it.
While we must inevitably find ourselves with few allies in considering the situation for modesty of attire, the case have to at least be heard. There is after all something presumptuous and unreflective related to the notion that sexual empowerment is the crux, or finishing point, of woman empowerment - as if the suffragettes would have uncovered personal heroes in the likes of Atomic Kitten or Women Aloud.
. We might start by emphasizing how things really are not as bad for contemporary girl as the above picture leads us to believe. If modern females (unlike their long suffering ancestors) posses a identical range of opportunities as men there is little factor to think the slave and chain analogy even applies. Though while very few modern western women may say without the pangs of dishonest self-pity that they are in the same boat as ladies were two hundred years ago, the problem with pursuing this line of argument is that it gives the impression that the condition for modesty of costume stands or falls on the issue of women's recent social standing; as if we are arguing that the reason for women to clothes modestly is for the reason that the modern woman now has as well much power. To suppose this is to make the case for modesty of dress up into what it's not - solely a male interest issue.
To say this does not mean male interest is completely irrelevant to the discussion. In considering the ethic of woman outfit we have to consider the interests of men, only as when considering male clothes we have to consult the interests of women. We should it seems give equal weight to both simply because man and lady together body one community - a community that should seek for internal harmony.
, that men to may be objects of sexual exploitation, and that this is one reason in favour of lady modesty. Nevertheless looking at modesty of outfit in terms of male interest does not get to the bottom of the subject, it does not explain why women may (as they have done through various historic contexts) favour, without coercion, modesty of garment. Historically it may be seen as predominantly religious and devotional reasons that tell this modesty however , the line between secular and religious reasoning and definition might sometimes be blurred. If the great works of the enlightenment's key thinkers achieved anything it was establishing that what appear to religious behaviour, divine in inspiration, might have a non-religious source. It after that seems that there might be more, or at least could be more, than devotion which explains female endorsement of the burqa.
What then might constitute the women interest in modesty of clothes? The discussion of sexual power contains a hint. All of us are clearly aware that sexual power is not equally possessed by all women. We then find that in the interest of equality something pleasing might be said of the burqa. Sexual power as is obvious is a subject of attraction,., but surely a social construct, is in a few respects the product of a natural lottery. But millions of pounds are made in an attempt for us to correct whatever deficiencies we inherit through this lottery scheme, the sad fact is most of our success is predetermined. Losers in the natural lottery, that is those not born wonderful, have revealed the changes that follow the sexual revolution not for this reason liberating. Far from being a liberating force the demand to be sexually alluring adds one more constraint to an already demanding life. For each female who has the capacity to get the range of goods that their good looks afford,.
A new generation of have and ask nots are subsequently made: impacting our life chances we may now add, with new found confidence, the shapes of our noses, that fat on our torsos, or any other such elements contributing to our over all physical appearance. What we so find in the wake of the sexual revolution is not just a matter of a power imbalance among the men and lady though a power imbalance between female and woman. The free ride that gorgeous but intellectually devoid woman get stands as mockery of the efforts that hard working, and intellectually astute lady everywhere.
, the most significant, and in no way to be understated is the option of partner. The option of partner in turn generates a whole avenue of possibilities and goods. This is not to say that all, if you will pardon the term, 'aesthetically challenged' women will fail to get what they want out of life if they eschew the shallowness that engulfs the society around them, however the shallowness is therefore endemic and for that reason deep-rooted that it is hard to escape entirely.
To entirely dodge the feeling that you are judged lesser by others is no small task. This is not to say being widely desired is the backbone of a good life but it seems to be something that for better or worse might seem as a deep need in our psychology, and is, at the very least, a component of the 'good life' as defined by our Hollywood generation., warm hearted and ugly only how interesting, warm hearted, and ugly they are
, namely the ability to get what one wants through one's sexual magnetism, have negative results for egalitarianism, producing as much inequality as it hopes to remedy. Furthermore, this power imbalance is not of the kind that however , actual is rarely felt, it may actually impacts severely on individual welfare as well. A loser in the lottery of looks (sometimes even the winners, thanks to shape dysmorphic disorder) might in some instances plummet into a nauseating form of distress, feeling dejected and scorned for their failing in a competition in which they had little choice to enter. Eating disorders, as we are all aware, have rocketed in current years. The nervosa disorders, Bulimia and anorexia, are the natural outgrowths of a society obsessed by how it looks. The just odd thing related to these disorders is their relative scarcity. The media gets the brunt of the blame for our blossoming obsession and waning confidence. It's most certainly an amplifier (taking a condition of village flu and making it a global epidemic) yet there is nothing inherent in modern communication that suggests things must necessarily be this way.. Were we more sexually modest, were something like the burqa or hijab a more natural choice of costume, and were those adverts and entertainment stuff that peddle their soft porn imagery to the masses no longer meet with applause though disapprobation afterward the sting would be taken out of the media monster.
For that reason far it looks as if a recommendation of modest clothe would just come from the losers of the lottery. Convincing the gorgeous to discard there natural gifts would, from this point of view, be only an advancement in what Nietzsche would call 'slave morality', shackling the gifted and virtuous with the pity of the weak. But we need not see the call to modesty as a ruse of the weak. There exists reasons why even the winners, that is the stunning and sexually bold, might be convinced (as unlikely as it seems) to surrender their natural advantage.
, The attractive who put all there eggs in one basket find themselves, with the encroaching years, in a place of prematurely losing their primary source of value, and boy do they cling to it! For the rich, incredible lengths are gone to in order to withhold the visible signs of age. Instead of the presence of years being deemed a venerable sight, it has become something to be fought at all cost. Try as they can, time will soon get the better of them, and wont give it back. A modest approach to clothe, including the adornment of veils, would by no means cure our fear of aging and also the encroachment of death, though it may let us to go more gracefully to that end.
Our psychological depth and emotional fragility means that both men and women, despite our generally conflicting sexual urges, yearn for something beyond flings and fleeting relationships. We are all flattered by the notion of lasting loyalty. This need for fidelity may be little more than insecure human vanity, however , no matter how we view this desire, the desire today is increasingly unquenched. Our contemporary age is racked by fly by night relationships; no one could have put it better than Chesterton in comparing sex and family to gate and residence:
'The residence is quite significantly wider than the gate..
Even when we make it into the residence there is no guarantee that this will be anything more over a short stay. One of the most normal, but less honestly cited reasons, is straightforward sexual temptation. A fantastic deal of infidelity is not planned, and is commonly regretted. It is a standard example of the failing of the will; in this condition a caving to the pleasure of allure.
One does not need to make excuses for cheaters, they make plenty for themselves, though we do live in a tempting world: a sweetshop where the sweets seem intent on out doing each other in sweetness.? Do you think that we would worry even half as significantly related to our partner's fidelity were something like the burqa to become the more natural alternative of apparel? It would not abolish all our inclination in this direction though it would help by removing us from the sexual meat market we walk ourselves down everyday.
Drawing things to a close, most outsiders to Islam view the burqa with heavy suspicion - as the forced garments of a slave. Even from within Islam there's large dissent. We have to expect this. There is no mention allow alone explicit endorsement of the chadry fashion burqa within the Quran., not all Muslim lady welcome the burqa, least of all in places where it is forced upon them,. Outside of Islamic countries where we would most expect the Muslim community to become self-critical of its ethical codes we still find girl favouring the burqa..
If the appeals in favour of the burqa were produced only on religious grounds then significantly would be lost on me, I share little sympathy for Islam, or any religion in fact. However in my encounters with moderate Muslims I came to reassess my own attitudes precisely because the reasons offered in favour of modesty tended not to be grounded in scripture. An element of what has after that been done here is to examine those reasons in a little more depth, presenting what may be said in favour of modest dress in a non- religious vernacular.. The conclusion I lean toward is itself modest: hoping to just demonstrate that there is fertile ground for discussion of the ethics of attire once we concede that we in the west are prone to our own subtle forms of slavery.
Unhappily,.. However , while mullahs, imams and all players in the world's major monotheisms may use the concept of temptation (and commonly in a flagrant and excessive manner) there's no reason to believe that the religious have the monopoly on it. We need not believe in the detestable notion of original sin to know humans are susceptible to various forms of temptation. Temptation comes from wanting things,. When 'temptation' appears in the vocabulary of fundamentalists it invites blame and contempt. The Taliban for instance views the women's face as the origin of corruption. This is entirely the wrong way round; if we are to use terms like 'corruption' at all, then the corruption surely lies within the heart of the man, his weakness, his inability to control his wayward sexual desire.
Unlike the fundamentalists I also at no point try to say that sexual promiscuity is wrong, or worse - evil. I merely say that in for that reason far as we value monogamy after that we are in a few way complicit in the loss of what we value by collectively favouring the provocative western trend of dress up.
Obviously the most significant diversion is my account to that of the Taliban is in the attitude toward coercion.. All I have attempted to do is examine the generally neglected pros that might stem from freely choosing to adorn the sexually reserved outfit of the Muslim Diaspora, with the result of offering no more over a reassessment in current attitudes.
It must be stressed just how normative my account is: the burqa carries a lot of history, numerous baggage, and in the past it might very well be an instrument of oppression however I have been trying to move beyond this past as if we are viewing the burqa for the initial time, as if secular western people detached from religion were deciding a fresh, how we may choose to publicly feel and relate to each other in the not to distant future.
No doubt, if any objection is to be heard time and time again,. Men it may be claimed are no less creatures of sexual power than female.,,. Men it may too be said will take this power as a heavy burden - becoming increasingly slaves to their looks. The conclusion to which we are drawn is then that a recommendation to modesty should not differ among the the sexes,. In the age of anti-aging cream and six pack bearing cover patterns I do not doubt there is something to this objection.
Men and women, whether by nature, culture or economic situation, are not the same in all aspects, and outward sexuality is one of the most glaringly obvious areas in which they differ. Male attraction is not entirely sexless, not entirely blind to appearance, though it's still a very different and subtler phenomenon (we rarely catch or even predict the expression that a man is dressed 'too provocatively', and parent rarely worry if their teenage sons are dressed also sexy). Nonetheless things do change., with all it suggest for male modesty.
One underlying factor why modesty of garment can mean one thing for women and another for men resides in the tacit acknowledgment that men tend to be more prone to promiscuity and infidelity than girl. The entire concept of Eve as the tempter is more telling of man's own acknowledged weakness.
If the thought that men are more prone to temptation turns out to be old fashioned, unscientific, ungrounded nonsense, and girl might happily admit that analogous weakness to men, after that modesty of attire should mean exactly for men as it does for girls. Additionally, in order to finally put an end to the thought that what motives veiling is patriarchal domination there seems no better solution than an equal approach to male clothe, if only as a token gesture.
We must end by acknowledging a strong reason why the condition for modesty of apparel may not be seen as conclusive. The simple subject is that whilst examining the pros might let us to be less quick in our negative judgment of the burqa in a range of cases this does not mean they outweigh the cons..
Unlike our social class or our physical health we do not readily acknowledge how much the languages we inherit by birth can impact on our life chances.. A society of faceless and entirely modest individual might be only like a world where English is the only tongue. Individuals in a faceless society would still retain their mental individuality, but on the outside there seems something holistically ugly, even self hating, in this level of uniformity
. It have to also be noted that we as a species have evolved for thousands of thousands of years in face to face touching. To shroud the face can therefore impact on our social interaction in unforeseen ways.
The difficulty after that remains in balancing on the one side the desires for equality (along with the other merits of modesty) with our inherent desires for decoration and variation. It might be that modesty as far as the ninja fashion chadry goes is a step also far however this certainly does not mean we who cast stones in the west have it right either.
