Whose body is it anyway?
Christian and secular art have at least one thing in common - they like to have people in them. Christian religious art is brought to life with representations of the personalities that populate Christian history. From high art produced by the great masters, to local churches, the artistic interpretation of Christ and other figures opens the door to discussion about the spirituality conveyed. Body, whether through direct representation or iconography, is the gateway to the spiritual meaning of these works, and it feeds from the Christian idea that the incarnation of Christ connects human beings to the Divine through the body of Christ.
Islamic aesthetic principles find the body an alien impostor to spiritual aspiration. God has no incarnation, cannot be defined in bodily terms, nor has location, size, shape or gender. The Divine is found in the abstract and undepictable territories of the inner heart, and is manifested in the geometric perfections and multiplicities of both art and nature.
From a Christian European perspective, the body is uncomfortably absent from public Muslim life. Calligraphy and geometric art are used to transcend into the domain of the spiritual - human beings are not usually depicted. Even people seem to lack bodies in the public arena, with women tucked neatly under headscarves and men in looser shirts and full length trousers. Muslim heritage rejects the body being a public billboard. Instead, it is to be celebrated and shared only in private, retained for personal and family interactions and for the pleasures of intimacy. This is one of the fundamental reasons Muslim women wear the hijab: to be valued for who you are, not what you look like. Muslims, in this sense, are simply exercising their very modern right to privacy.
Today's secular gods of consumerism and self indulgent gluttony, of beauty, youth and immortality, have their roots in the same Greco-Roman heritage that Christian art draws upon. Secular art, which is offered up to its own gods show us sculpted bodies that meet our contemporary ideals of bodily perfection. It idolises the oxymoron of super-slim yet ultra-curvy women, the sparkling white of pristine teeth that have gorged on chocolate - a modern day food for the gods - or the tough muscular six-pack man in the age of longer working hours and high alcohol consumption. Image is the ultimate altar to worship at. One men's clothing chain ran an advertising campaign last year using simply the words: "Looks aren't important. They are everything." Body is the ultimate god, and fashion designers are its disciples.
The body is thus the fulcrum for public debate, expression and attitudes. What happens when the body is not available as the yardstick? Is the response to see women who wear the hijab as 'withholding' themselves from the public space, and to consider that inflammatory? The privacy of the body for Muslims means it is entirely natural for Muslim women not to shake hands with a man, but the role of body in social interaction through a European lens means it is highly unnatural not to. There is no quick fix to resolving these different perspectives, because they stem from deeply ingrained attitudes and perspectives. Intensive communication and understanding hold the only keys.
We are told that the body is public, but faith should be private. But if faith is about aligning your entire being towards a better way of being, then the body is de facto part of that. In the religious domain we focus on the body of Christ, in the secular it is the flesh of supermodels. In both cases, the body is a public canvas, a forum for discussion. The personal is public, and the public is political except, ironically, when it comes to using our own bodies to express faith. Faith, as an exception to everything else, is a private matter, we are told, separated from public life and to be left at home. It seems we are at cross purposes. Modernity protects our right to privacy, but this privacy does not seem to extend to the body.
This article was published in The Muslim News
Islamic aesthetic principles find the body an alien impostor to spiritual aspiration. God has no incarnation, cannot be defined in bodily terms, nor has location, size, shape or gender. The Divine is found in the abstract and undepictable territories of the inner heart, and is manifested in the geometric perfections and multiplicities of both art and nature.
From a Christian European perspective, the body is uncomfortably absent from public Muslim life. Calligraphy and geometric art are used to transcend into the domain of the spiritual - human beings are not usually depicted. Even people seem to lack bodies in the public arena, with women tucked neatly under headscarves and men in looser shirts and full length trousers. Muslim heritage rejects the body being a public billboard. Instead, it is to be celebrated and shared only in private, retained for personal and family interactions and for the pleasures of intimacy. This is one of the fundamental reasons Muslim women wear the hijab: to be valued for who you are, not what you look like. Muslims, in this sense, are simply exercising their very modern right to privacy.
Today's secular gods of consumerism and self indulgent gluttony, of beauty, youth and immortality, have their roots in the same Greco-Roman heritage that Christian art draws upon. Secular art, which is offered up to its own gods show us sculpted bodies that meet our contemporary ideals of bodily perfection. It idolises the oxymoron of super-slim yet ultra-curvy women, the sparkling white of pristine teeth that have gorged on chocolate - a modern day food for the gods - or the tough muscular six-pack man in the age of longer working hours and high alcohol consumption. Image is the ultimate altar to worship at. One men's clothing chain ran an advertising campaign last year using simply the words: "Looks aren't important. They are everything." Body is the ultimate god, and fashion designers are its disciples.
The body is thus the fulcrum for public debate, expression and attitudes. What happens when the body is not available as the yardstick? Is the response to see women who wear the hijab as 'withholding' themselves from the public space, and to consider that inflammatory? The privacy of the body for Muslims means it is entirely natural for Muslim women not to shake hands with a man, but the role of body in social interaction through a European lens means it is highly unnatural not to. There is no quick fix to resolving these different perspectives, because they stem from deeply ingrained attitudes and perspectives. Intensive communication and understanding hold the only keys.
We are told that the body is public, but faith should be private. But if faith is about aligning your entire being towards a better way of being, then the body is de facto part of that. In the religious domain we focus on the body of Christ, in the secular it is the flesh of supermodels. In both cases, the body is a public canvas, a forum for discussion. The personal is public, and the public is political except, ironically, when it comes to using our own bodies to express faith. Faith, as an exception to everything else, is a private matter, we are told, separated from public life and to be left at home. It seems we are at cross purposes. Modernity protects our right to privacy, but this privacy does not seem to extend to the body.
This article was published in The Muslim News
Labels: arts, Muslim News, Muslim Veil, Muslim women, Niqab
posted by Shelina Zahra Janmohamed at 11:42
9 Comments:
So your claiming that the representation of people is totally absent from Islamic art?
http://www.isim.nl/files/Review_17/Review_17-18.pdf
No, I'm not claiming that people are absent from art. I'm simply interested in the different approaches towards body in art, and social discourse, and how the concepts of body, faith and privacy intersect.
There are a few issues in this article that I am a little confused over. You state:
"We are told that the body is public" and also "In the religious domain we focus on the body of Christ". Your choice of wording suggest that you are addressing a majority western Christian audience, but I notice that the original article was published in The Muslim News.
In assessng the potential attitude of a western Christian (or indeed western non Christian) view, a lot of stereotypical assumptions have been made, for example:
"Is the response to see women who wear the hijab as 'withholding' themselves from the public space, and to consider that inflammatory?" and also "... it is entirely natural for Muslim women not to shake hands with a man, but the role of body in social interaction through a European lens means it is highly unnatural not to."
If you were to ask me, as a white western male, I would have not the slightest problem Muslim women wearing hijab, keeping their body or their personality private or not wanting to shake hands.
"There is no quick fix to resolving these different perspectives, because they stem from deeply ingrained attitudes and perspectives. Intensive communication and understanding hold the only keys."
Does their need to be a fix, I think that having different perspectives is a good thing. Tolerance does not require me to change my values, attitudes or opinions, and nor does it require any Muslim to change, but by being tolerant I will not be the slightest bit offended by any person, male or female, who does not wish to shake my hand.
With respect, I would like to point out that a woman who chose not to wear hijab in Iran, or north Pakistan or Saudi Arabia might face more intolerance than a Muslim woman wearing hijab, or not shaking hands in England.
There are three other questions I would like to ask Mrs Janmohamed and any other Muslim women reading this. These are not critical question aimed at attacking the role of hijab, but as a matter of interest to help me understand how you see its purpose.
1. In this article you say "... one of the fundamental reasons Muslim women wear the hijab: to be valued for who you are, not what you look like.". However, if you wear hijab, you very definately are judged on what you look like since you look like a Muslim. Does this go against the idea of not being judged on what you look like or have I misunderstood the point?
2. If you consider a Muslim woman in a crowded shopping centre in a western country, would it not achieve the purpose "not being judged on appearance" far better by blending in, that is, by wearing what most of the other women are wearing?
3. I actually rather like seeing Muslim women wearing hijab, I think it makes them look beautiful and elegant, as well as giving an air of dignity. Does this defeat the purpose of hijab, or is it acceptable to admire their femininity as long as this does not extend to seeing their body shape?
"Is the response to see women who wear the hijab as 'withholding' themselves from the public space, and to consider that inflammatory?"
I believe this to be absolutely correct.
Humans (like all other mammals) communicate in a very sophisticated manner and the words we use are only a small part of that. Inflection, tone, volume all add to that. It's why it's so much easier to misunderstand or offend someone in writing than when you speak to them directly. In writing we only have the words, facial expression and inflection are lost; just as they are lost if you wear a face covering that hides your expressions and distorts and muffles your voice.
Also extremely important is body language and above all facial expressions. We have a massive number of muscles in our face all of them there for no other reason than to allow us to express ourselves.
Scientific studies with infants show that they are able, without any cultural influences on them yet, to interpret facial expressions, they are automatically frightened of people with faces removed or hidden. Less inclined to be favourable or trusting of people they cannot see.
A staple of horror films and nightmares are faceless people, or people losing their faces.
Humans rely on facial expressions to judge how a person feels about what they are saying (or not saying); in babies they are the only means of communication. We use facial expressions from age 0 to determine whether a person we are with can be trusted or not.
Whenever we cannot see someone's face, we automatically trust them less. Facial expression can defuse a tense situation, but if we cannot see a face, we tend to assume the worst, and that makes people feel threatened.
The hijab and other cultural artefacts that hide the face (note how all criminals and/or embarrassed people will automatically try to hide their face) is a tool designed to oppress women. If it weren't then men would also be required to cover their faces, after all if this is about privacy of body, surely men (being in charge and considered, most notably by themselves, more important in the culture that founded Islam) should have a greater right to this privacy, possibly a greater duty to prevent body from influencing their very important deliberations, decisions and lives?
Christian tradition also has elements of body modesty. My grandmother, a devout catholic, always wore a headscarf or hat when going out, always flowing dresses, not tight ones, simply because she had been taught that God required her to be modest. She would never hide her face though; just as vast majority of Muslims tend to wear only scarves, not hijabs.
This has never been about privacy or treating spirituality as abstract and separate of body; surely if that were the case, it wouldn't matter what the body looked like and you'd therefore have no need to cover it? This has always been about control, and control of women in particular. For some warped reason some Muslim leaders consider women to be a threat, and to make sure everyone sees them that way they force women to hide their faces, so that everyone naturally is more inclined to consider them a threat.
Just as many of the slaves of old saw nothing wrong with their slavery, teaching their children to accept the same lot in life, many Muslim women of today see nothing wrong with being treated as an unwanted object to be hidden under a cloth.
I would generally agree with the comments of xzanron above, and I have met Muslim women who are expected and told to cover their faces rather than chosing to do so, and this I strongly disapprove of, however I also know that there are some women who chose to cover their faces.
My own comments and questions above were based on the assumption that the term hijab does not require the face to be covered, but is a style of dress, I may have my terminology wrong but the hijab illustrated on the following website show it with the face uncovered:
http://www.thehijabshop.com/
I would assume that the face covering, or veil, would be added if required.
@Cameron,
I think you're right, I got confused. I was thinking of the Burka, which is the full face covering.
The hijab seems to be the scarf that covers the head.
Cameron, with regards to your point in your first comment about it being ok to have different perspectives on things like wearing hijab or not shaking hands, I think that sadly, you are in the minority. Earlier in 2007 you may recall the case of a young Muslim woman police officer who refused to shake hands at the graduation ceremony and who was vilified for that. The issue that I raise is that from both perspectives the response is valid - to shake hands for a Muslim woman if she doesn't want to is quite difficult (and it should be so for Muslim men shaking hands with women too), but equally in western heritage, not to shake hands is offensive. So we need to address this through dialogue.
As for your questions:
1. The end goal of wearing hijab is to avoid simple things like "why do men always look at my chest?" Eventually, the theory goes, the woman (and man) should be judged on their personality and contribution rather than their body.
2. Another valid point. Personally I agree to a great extent, that's why I feel that when wearing the hijab it is important to stylize it, and 'blend' into cultural style and fashion.
3. Finally, I also think that beauty , elegance and aesthetics are important parts of a Muslim's dress. I think being proud of femininity (and masculinity for men) is really important, and these qualities are to be exuded and appreciated. Personally, I object to the anonymity of some forms of Islamic dress. Muslims should love beauty and grace, but we also should try to use the concept of hijab and modesty to create happy gender relations.
Xzanron,
I think you pick up on this in your second comment, but I'm not referring to the face. I believe the face does not need to be covered (although I defend the right of women to do so), as it is exempted under the Qur'anic verse that advises to cover beauty "except what is apparent of it" which refers to the face. I agree that the face is important in dialogue, communication and relationships.
I'm speaking primarily about hair, but also about body. What right does anyone have to force me to show these things? My non verbal communication and body language are still very clear if my body and hair are covered.
I think your comment about Christian modesty is very insightful, and I often wish that those of other faiths would reflect on the concept of modesty and how it is woven into most faiths. It certainly is about looser flowing clothes, not just a headscarf, and yes, Muslims sometimes get confused about the difference.
Finally, as for Muslim women being a threat to leaders, check out my piece called "The war over Muslim women"
I've read the post "The war over Muslim women" and it's an interesting point, although I don't agree with it.
I see the Muslim world as being where Europe was a few centuries ago, where women (with the odd exception) relegated to secondary roles, expected to stay in the background and keep quite, while the men "talk business".
It's a problem Europe still faces, hence the ongoing debates and drives for equality for women.
In a way, I think you could blame the feminists for this image problem Muslim women have. They fought so hard to bring the oppression and subjugation of women into the minds of men that when Islam's treatment of women is noted, they being covered, less rights under law, less prominent roles in society etc. it rings all the alarm bells in us the feminists have worked so hard to install. I don't think this is a bad thing.
The problem Islam faces, in my view, is that it doesn't give the impression that women have a choice.
"What right does anyone have to force me to show these things? "
None.
Yet if you live in a society that thinks something is wrong, then you shouldn't be surprised if you find yourself marginalised. Be you a punk, a geek, a nerd, obese, a goth, a fraudster or a veiled woman.
In a free society the only thing that deserves protection from criticism and ridicule are the things you have no control over; your gender, your age, your race, and disabilities.
Post a Comment
<< Home