Conclusions About Tent State University

My previous post about Tent State opened up some conversations that clarified my feelings about the event. First of all, I no longer suspect that what we did can be considered as "wrong." Doing anything on campus to get students thinking is extremely important because it is necessary to disrupt students' complacency and make them question. We were very effective in doing this. Secondly, it is important to note that the strongest reactions were from the people who were already political and who were perhaps dogmatic about their beliefs. This is a very small population of the actual students, and therefore we should not worry about them or waste our time arguing with them. If some of them want to have a civil conversation, that is fine; but overall they are a distraction from the real audience. The regular students did not strongly reject what Tent State was presenting, and many were curious and open to conversation.

Moving forward, I hope that SDS can find a way to address both international struggles and issues that students can relate to, while making the connection between the two. My previous experience with SDS can confirm the necessity for working for both audiences to appeal to a wide variety of students. For example, at the prolonged times where SDS was engaged in student issues, many people who were more interested in international issues stopped being involved; now that our focus has shifted to international issues the opposite has occurred. One practical way we can do overcome this obstacle is by having two campaigns.

Regardless of the direction SDS takes, I hope the leadership avoids becoming distracted by the critical minority of students. Many students seem to think it is adequate to criticize those who take action, while abstaining from actually doing anything on campus. A more productive response from those who are critical would be to design their own actions and campaigns--then we will be more successful in achieving our goal for a more active campus. 

Fall of the Imam by Nawal El-Saadawi

NEW FAVORITE BOOK!

The Fall of the Imam is a novel by Nawal El-Saadawi, an Egyptian feminist writer and activist. I really hope this post makes you decide to read the book.

Nawal-El-Saadawi-001.jpg

From reading El-Saadawi's memoir about her time in women's prison, I was under the impression that she denounced religion. This assumption made me believe she was not a spiritual person. However, I was pleasantly surprised, when I found that The Fall of the Imam was entirely about spirituality and what it should be. Her story weaves in heavy criticism of organized religion as a tool of patriarchy. She exposes how these institutions fear any challenge that can empower the people and cause them to question. While depicting this, Nawal shows how children are born with a natural form of spirituality that recognizes "god" as both a mother and father.

Additionally, Nawal portrays the mother and the daughter are the heroic and revolutionary figures who fight against the male dominated society. By doing this with such a poetic and mystical style, Nawal taught me how to love women and see them as strong. I do not now why it took a book to do that for me, but the message was so strong throughout the entire novel that it had a huge impact in making me appreciate the relationships between women in their struggle against patriarchy.

fall-imam.jpg

The most powerful part of the novel is the structure. It is written in a cyclical style with a strong and tragic recurring image. While the image stays the same for the most part, the perspective and context changes throughout the novel. For me, the effect of this was that the image became related to a feeling--a feeling of love for the mother and life, how these two forms can be interconnected, and how this feeling can be deadly in a patriarchal society. It combines the beauty of life with the tragedy of repression. The image reminds me of pagan beliefs and an appreciation for "mother nature." The image is first described in the passage below:

She would have escaped had she not been halted by the smell of the land and the sea, bringing back her whole life in one moment. She halted, took a deep breath, and just at that moment the bullet struck her in the back and bored its way through like an arrow straight to her heart. She dropped to the ground, bleeding slowly. Her dog whimpered once and was silent, and the birds flew up in fright, filling the universe with their cries." 

What is interesting about the recurring theme in these passages is that Bint Allah ("daughter of God") never really "dies." She continues to have consciousness and relates memories to this one moment throughout the book. This also shows that "Bint Allah" can be seen as an idea for liberation that cannot be killed.

Victimization and Empowerment:

I also appreciate how Nawal shows women as strong, even when they are in situations where they are the victims. For example in the chapter titled "The Imam and Bint Allah," the Imam tries to devour Bint Allah. Since he cannot do this intellectually (she will neither give into his demands for respect nor follow his patriarchal religion), he tries to physically devour her. The context of this scene leads me to believe he is raping her; however, Nawal shows how Bint Allah has power over the Imam because he cannot devour or conquer the part of her that he fears--her ability to challenge male dominion, which makes the Imam fearful and insecure, and eventually destroys the Imam.

He sat in front of her sucking her bones, cracking them like sticks of sugar cane and extracting the marrow from the inside, with his tongue and lips. She watched him as she would watch a sheep fattened for the Big Feast enter the butcher's shop, his eyes sinking into their sockets with fear, for in his eyes there was nothing but fear, a terrible fear. No matter how much he ate he was never satisfied and no matter how much he protected himself with all sorts of things he never felt secure. She handed him bone after bone, then gave him the shoulder blade followed by the rump and the spleen. His belly was full, swollen like a goat skin, but she continued to hand him one piece after the other until she heard the sound of an explosion and his face fell to the ground. His eyes opened wide with surprise as though he could not believe what was happening and she said to him in a bantering tone: It begins as a game and ends in ruin. Then she lept away, light-footed as a doe, with her dog running close behind her. (144-145)

This suggests that women, as a force that challenges patriarchy, cannot be killed or suppressed, even though individuals might be. In the above passage, it is interesting how Bint Allah willfully gives the Imam her "bones" to suck on. I think this is perhaps because she knows that she can destroy him with her intellect. It is as if her body is a trap that she uses to lure him towards death. She recognizes the Imam's desire to devour her as "game," which she plays along with, knowing that it will end in ruin for the Imam. In this sense, the rape is allegorical for all relations between patriarchal men and women and should not be thought of as a literal scenario where Bint Allah willingly allows the Imam to rape her.

I think the above passage is an extremely interesting depiction of rape. It seems like most male authors always focus on the sexual aspects of rape, which objectifies the victim, even if they are still trying to gain sympathy for the female character. However, Nawal associates the act with a self-destructive gluttony that shows how patriarchy itself is self-destructive because its repression creates females who challenge it. I also think that the metaphor of the Imam sucking the marrow out of Bint Allah's bones depicts the emotional and physical pain better than realistic accounts might. This is because rape is more than a physical action and therefore can only be accurately described in ways that illustrate the violence in physical, emotional, and spiritual ways.

Definition of Love:

One of the most beautiful aspects of the book Bint Allah's recollection of falling in love, described in the chapters, "Ecstasy of Love" and "Together in the Trench." Below is a passage from "Ecstasy of Love":

During the day I moved from one wounded man to the other, carrying a pot for urine and another for stools. At night I kept wide-awake straining my ears to catch a moan. I could see his face as he turned it towards me in the dim light. It was thin and pale and wan. Over his chest there was a deep wound and from his eyes looked out a tender yearning. In the dark of night I go towards him and say: Fadl Allah was at the war front, did you see him there? Is he alive? Who is Fadl Allah? he asked. Is he your husband? He is my milk brother and he was with me in the orphanage, I said. Then I fell silent. Why are you silent? he said. What shall I say? Tell me about yourself, he said. But what can I tell you? Tell me everything, he said. 

But I did not know what to say. My life seemed full of secrets and yet when I started to talk it looked empty as though there was nothing in it to talk about. He surrounded me with his arms like a mother and whispered to me, Go to sleep, and as I slept all my fears slipped away from me. I began to talk about myself and each time I recounted something my tongue became freer and freer and my heart grew lighter and lighter. My body seemed to be flying like a body without weight. As I climbed higher and higher up the hill a gasp escaped my lips. I had always dreamt of going up to the top of the hill. For twenty long years, ever since I had been born, I had continued to see the hill between the river and the sea, there were my mother stood waiting for me. I could never forget the smell of the air, nor the damp earth under my palms, nor could I forget the tree and the rock and the slope of the hill rising up. Here was my land, my country. Its smells were the smell of my life, strong and penetrating. I opened my arms, filled my lungs with a deep breath of air like the first breath of life at the moment of birth, like the last breath of life at the moment of death. And for the first time since I was born I took in everything in one deep breath, the smell of the sea, of salt water, of iodine, of seaweed and molluscs and fresh fish. I abandoned myself to the sea air, let it seep into me, fill me up, drown me in its softness. Its white waves rose up in the night reaching to the sky, enfolding me like the arms of God. And he was by my side holding me in his arms and saying: 

Do you like fish grilled on charcoal?
I love it.
Do you prefer the head of the fish or its tail?
I like both of them.

His laughter rang out, filling the universe like the laughter of children, like an oyster shell opening its lips to desire. The air of the sea filled her with a lust for life, with a deep hunger hungry for everything. All her senses were suddenly awakened like waves in wonderful turmoil. The stars glittering over the sea were like lighted pearls. The rustle of leaves, the sound of the waves, the whisper of the wind, joined in a single call going deep. Her black eyes opened wide in abandonment to the ecstasy of love, to the moment when everything else is excluded. Then when it is over, she closes her eyes and sleeps on his chest like a child being rocked slowly, and his voice wafted to her from a distance whispers: I love you. (83-84)

I think this passage captures the comfort of finding someone to listen to your story. In a society where most people do not care about one another, it is empowering to find someone who is curious and cares. Additionally, in a patriarchal society, where women and their stories are often silenced, he provides Bint Allah the opportunity to express herself.

Here is another beautiful passage from "Together in the Trench," a poetic chapter where Bint Allah reunites with her childhood friend Fadl Allah in a trench during a war:

She closed her eyes and said: I see you as though it was only yesterday when you left. I see you as you are, as you always have been. You have never been absent, you have always been with me. He closed his eyes and rested his head on her breast just as he used to do when still a child, then suddenly awakening opened his eyes and looked at her, seeing her as she was now, a woman. They were still in the trench and time had stopped moving. He put his arms around her, and the trench became too narrow for the two of them, too narrow for his arms stretching out to enfold her, too narrow for the vast universe, as vast as the burning disc of the sun up in the heavens. And she too wound her arms around him and the trench was now too narrow for her, for her to hold the universe in her embrace. And when light revealed them in the trench holding each other, they did not unwind their arms or move apart but held each other in a long embrace, their bodies slowly merging into one and the whole world stood still to watch a scene of love, to see two beings changing into one, never to part again, never afraid of the light, never afraid of death, for each of them had known what dying was. Now he and she were gone, lost in one another, dissolved. Now no force in the world could make them part again, neither the noise of guns and rockets all around nor the loud abuse of enemies or the whispers of their friends, nor the orders of the Imam or the Devil or the Chief of Security himself. 

I opened my eyes and found myself standing in the trench alone with the letter folded in my hand. Where was Fadl Allah? I wondered. Where had he disappeared to? Had he died in the war? Had he died in prison? In the distance I could hear their panting breath draw nearer, their feet treading on the ground with the sound of their iron-heeled shoes. So I started to run in the dark of night, trying to save my life. They kept coming after me, their dogs yapping and barking behind them, and I kept on running, now knowing why I was running like this all the time. I had got as far as the spot where the hill begins to rise. It was just before the break of day and I was on the verge of giving them the slip when one of them took aim at me and got me in the back. My body continued to run a few steps, then fell to the ground, but before the letters of the alphabet had disappeared from my mind I said: He was my brother and he was with me in the children's home. Your sins are without end and shall be counted against you, in this world and in the world to come, I heard them say. You are a child of sin and so is he, and his name is not written either on the lists of Hizb Allah or on those of Hizb al-Shaitan. 

I was running and the night was black as ever. I could hear them tread with their iron feet as they chased after me. I touched my belly with my hand, feeling for it in the night as I ran. It was round and smooth and loving, warm under my palm. His voice reached me, calling from a distance, sounding like the voice of my mother: Bint Allah, come here. He moved nearer to me until our bodies almost touched. I wound my arms around him and we locked in a tight embrace. A shiver like a strange fever went right through me deep inside. A voice whispered softly in the night: Fear not, I am God and you shall give birth to Christ. It was dark and I was still running with the letter held tightly in my hand. I hid it in my bosom when I heard them panting close behind. I delivered his letter to her. I will risk my life to save it. It is more precious to me than the most precious thing I have. I will risk being stoned to death, like the Virgin Mary who risked her life to give birth to her son, like my mother who died to bring me to the world. When I reached the place where the hill starts to rise upwards midway between the river and the sea, the smell of the earth came back to me. Suddenly I felt safe and just at the moment when I could have escaped I stopped to thank God for saving me. As I knelt in prayer they hit me in the back. They always strike me from behind and when I turn around to face them they quickly disappeared. They never look me in the face. Before I fell to the ground wounded in the back I said to myself. My belly was full of the fruit of love when I kneeled on the ground to pray, but I hear the Chief of Security say: Love does not exist, only the fruit of sin. (88-90)

The above passage illustrates how true love is forbidden in the patriarchal society. While it is overtly forbidden in the society Nawal illustrates, it is also forbidden in any patriarchal society because of the gender binary. Lovers have to challenge this binary in order to find true love and doing so breaks the rules of patriarchy.

Reflections on "Tent State University"

tent-state-e1366210562772.jpg

I have heard talk about people's frustrations with this year's Tent State. I have thought of three different ways of mentally processing these frustrations, all with different implications. I am going to try to analyze these thoughts, while being as honest to myself as possible because I can probably learn something from this experience:

1) There were only a handful of people willing to organize this year's Tent State. These people organized it how they saw fit. If other people want to criticize this year's Tent State, then that is fine, but they should accept how they were not willing to help or do their own. Additionally, this was the only action taken all semester. Those who are criticizing should be putting their criticism to good use by organizing actions in ways in which they see fit. Similarly, I have heard the argument that this is not how "Tent State University" is supposed to be, and I find myself asking, "Who is the decider of what Tent State is supposed to be?" Why can't it manifest itself in different forms of different campuses based on the activist groups which are present and willing to contribute? As far as I am aware, I do not believe there is not any copyright on the idea of "Tent State," and even if there was it seems oppressive to enforce standards on a model for educating and raising awareness. 

The implications of looking at the criticisms allow me to justify our actions, while still considering their criticisms. I do not have to go insane at the thought of having done something wrong.

2) My next way of mentally processing Tent State is a worry that lingers over my mind like a dark cloud. What if we were wrong? Maybe we are a bunch of phony radicals who tricked ourselves into thinking that waving red flags will magically lead us toward communism? Are we just fooling ourselves? What if we were being elitist against the other leftists organizing on campuses? With these questions come anxieties and worries: What if they hate us? What if we are doing more harm than good? Then I get depressed and think about how it is not satisfying to simply be campaigning for lower tuition. I cannot morally justify doing this while I now that it is tied in with such larger and more pressing issues. I cannot care more about the college population that I do about the people dying as a result of US imperialism. Similarly, I cannot take groups seriously that fail to make these connections and that seemingly (through their inaction and direct or indirect support of Obama) contribute to much of the oppression that occurs on a larger scale. I have heard about working within these groups with these goals to recruit a broader range of students and having them be radicalized through experience, but I feel so alone in fighting for this and find myself lacking patience. Have I fallen into some sort of self-destructive ideological trap? I am afraid and want to crawl into a cave and hide from these attacks. 

3) My third way of handling it is more of an internal struggle. As one person, who am I to voice support for the nations that have challenged US imperialism? Have I turned into an ideologue who is no longer able to relate to the proletariat because of the consciousness that I have gained? I feel so alienated--from the beliefs of my family and old friends AND from the beliefs of comrades who I used to work with on the left. I no longer gain satisfaction from listening to leftist speakers--I just find myself criticizing them for not doing enough and angry with them for settling with small reforms. I think this ties in with the reform vs revolutionary action debate that I have not yet completely solved. While I know that certain reforms can serve to empower groups of people, I also feel like they mislead leftists into believing that all problems can be solved through reform. This allows many lefts to feed into the very system that oppresses them. One example is activism around school reform. While I admire how they can work toward improving public schools, I find myself being fatalistic about the ultimate fate of public schools. I find myself believing that any positive reforms gained can easily be undone. I see all of the energy going into changing the smallest aspects of the school system by navigating the capitalist bureaucracy--and I can't help but feel like a large part of it is wasted. Who are we--small ants--to beg the system for crumbs of reform when other ants are being stepped on all over the world? And yet, what else is there to do when that is what the majority of the people on the left are doing? By straying from this model am I being a mere individualist? 

POSITIVES:

1) The conversations we were able to have with people about how tuition ties in with the larger issues of imperialism and capitalism. 

2) Many people who were never exposed to the positive aspects of communism were able to talk about it and rethink their thoughts on it

3) People across campus were talking about tent state and asking questions about if we were being too extreme. We provoked many people.

NEGATIVES:

1) We alienated potential allies that we could have had during the occupation.

2) It is possible that, for some people, the message about lower tuition was lost in the ideology that we were expressing. 

3) We did not communicate transparently with the volunteers who joined us about how to handle the cops and when we were planning on cleaning up.

4) We did not fit Tent State into an ongoing campaign that carried through the semester. This ongoing campaign did not occur due to internal issues.

I honestly do think that the positives balanced with the negatives. If we did Tent State in a different way (given the resources we had) that was more focussed on tuition, I believe the positives and negatives would have balanced out in a similar way. For example, more people would have responded to the issue relating to tuition, but we would not have raised as much awareness about how education funding connects with broader issues of capitalism and imperialism. 

This raises important questions about tactics. Is it better to dilute the message to appeal to a broader range of people, or to have a strong and defined message that provokes people into questioning their own ideology? I think it is important to have a little bit of both, when possible. I do not think having Tent State the way we did means we can no longer engage in campaigns that are purely against tuition. Perhaps we can solve the problem by opening up conversations within the organization about balance. 

_____________

I hope I have been humble with my thoughts. This is as honest of a picture as I can make of the thoughts in my head.

______________

Below is a comment I received from someone through email that I thought was worth sharing:

I think there is a lot of complexity to the situation. Thanks for writing so much of your thoughts, Lisa. I would like to find a way to make this event even better for next year. I think that overall the event was pretty good. It got people talking and was something concrete that we were able to work on together and pull off successfully. After a semester of only doing water issues stuff it was nice to discuss other issues.

Because of the split at the beginning of the semester, there as not as big or broad of a group willing to put things together. I only got involved the day things started. So this definitely was reflected in what issues were the focus of the event. I think that if more people had been involved in the planning that the focus would have had to be on common ground issues such as tuition. But this year there was so much tension between people, I don't think anyone had much of a real taste for cooperation. For next year we can reach out to more people to get many groups to co sponsor the event. It involves camping out in the springtime and chatting on the grass, so it shouldn't be hard to attract people if we do it right.

I dont think the use of the name Tent State University is a too big of an issue but I think it is poor taste. There are no shootings or violence involved in our event and I think it is not good to have an event name that recalls Kent State. I've been told this is an NJUS name and I want to know how they thought this could be a good name for an event. For next year I would like a name that doesn't focus on such a negative event in history and instead has a more unifying and community-building feel to it.

I think that it is more important right now to focus on what unites us instead of on the issues that separate us. Montclair doesn't have a big activist community so we need to focus on building one here. This year's focus on radical issues such as the North Korea stuff pushed away people who otherwise could have been drawn in. The grad students in my office are fairly liberal and many are in a very tough situation because of rising tuition and significantly decreased school funding for the teaching and research jobs that let us work for our professors instead of working at Walmart. If this event had a different focus I imagine many of them could have been convinced to camp out because they basically sleep at the school anyway. But instead, they were laughing about the crazy NK stuff they saw in the quad and not discussing issues that could have gotten them actually involved.

Change happens very slowly sometimes. Women got the right to vote in 1920 but my grandma still had to get permission from my grandpa to get a credit card in the 1950s. We are all very small and we live in a huge world, so sometimes it feels like the little changes we can accomplish don't matter at all and that we need to find a way to make a big impact. But then I try so hard and still see that I am just one person and society all around me is so sick and apathetic that even my hardest effort rounds down to 0. I get really frustrated and sad and want to give up, but I was talking to a close friend who is much older than me and she was telling me about all the changes she has seen in her life and how over time it does all add up to something. So now I am trying to moderate my efforts so I don't get burnt out like I have felt so often before. I try to pick issues that give me joy to work on and not constant frustration. There is of course a big goal to see people finally find a way to live together peacefully and with love, but who knows if I will see it in my life time? So I need to still pay attention to creating as much positive change as I can see in my own lifetime, so that it will inspire me and make the world that I do live in now better now. 

I think that developing a larger and more active group on campus is very possible. Working aggressively toward that goal together would serve many purposes. We would be able to make concrete changes now on issues like lower tuition. Maybe tuition is a stupid idea in the first place, but even just accomplishing the short-term goal of no hikes next year works towards a more long-term goal of educational equality because it prevents an increase that would restrict access. These little successes can develop into big successes by changing our culture over time. We will also improve our own lives by being able to enjoy the company of a strong community. Maybe we will never see capitalism go down in our lives. Maybe we will get hit by an asteroid and all of this will have been pointless anyway. I would much prefer to have good friends that I can have good discussions (and disagreements!) with and work together on the things we agree on than to have divisiveness.

My response:
Thanks for the response. I hope you don't mind that I posted it on my blog for others to see. 

I agree with most of what you are saying. When I originally started SDS, I wanted to work on unifying issues and achieve small goals, while still trying to work to end capitalism. I think I became disillusioned with this process as a result of frustrations with NJUS and the voter reg drive, and am still facing that disillusionment. This is weird because, in case anyone remembers, I used to be one of the most positive and optimistic members in SDS.

This does not mean that I think doing the above would be a bad or good thing. I am still undecided. So basically, I need to sort out these personal issues and confusions. Thea, this does not mean I am questioning whether or not I am a communist (of course I am!)--I just think it is always good for me to question my tactics. Also--I feel really bad when my ideas for tactics, that I am actually sometimes unsure or insecure about, are applied to SDS and then face criticism. I feel guilty and wonder if the organization would be better off without me until i sort  out my confusion. But at the same time, it is hard to not be involved. Luckily, I won't be around SDS any more pretty soon and I will have time to start fresh with other organizations and to study these issues in more depth. 

Regardless of how I feel, I am going to try to come up with an objective summary of what SDS should be like: 

1) I think SDS needs to find a balance between student issues and outside issues. Historically, SDS is a student group that is against war and tries to tie in education issues with a broader critique of our undemocratic government and capitalism. I think in the future, SDS should be careful to try to include anyone who is sympathetic to any these issues, while making it clear that SDS is neither just a student union nor a communist group. We need to try to include all sorts of people on the left, as long as they understand the need for balance between issues. 

2) I think what happened with the split was that certain students were under the impression that SDS could serve as a student union and therefore should not mix in other issues that could alienate students sympathetic to tuition issues. However, this strays from the mission of SDS. Then, as a result of the split, those of us who remained in SDS strayed from the student issues aspect of the mission because of the tensions and not wanting to work with the people we split from. 

3) To prevent these conflicts in the future, we need to make it clear what SDS is and recruit people accordingly. We can also make it clear that people can participate in some of the actions that apply to their interests and do not have to participate in other sorts of actions. I know that I used to pretend we focussed mostly on student issues to try to "win" over new recruits. I think this was misleading and is not something that we should do. I don't think this necessarily means we need more structure in SDS. I think it has to do with how we market ourselves to the student population and how we present ourselves to new recruits. 

Regardless about how I feel about those tactics, that is as accurate of a portrayal as I can make of what SDS should be from now on. Those of us who are disillusioned, mostly myself, should use this image to get ourselves back on track. 

Does this mean tent state was wrong? NO! Like I said, there needs to be a balance between student issues and international issues. There were good things and there were bad things about Tent State. Tent State heavily emphasized international issues, so maybe the next thing we do can be about student issues. Also maybe for future tent states, we could try to have tuition and international issues more equally balanced. And there are always things we could do to make the connection between the two more clear. 

"Racism in the name of Feminism" or "Ideological Rant about Frustrations with Myself and the Left"

Article:

http://theaerogram.com/no-means-no-femens-assault-on-muslim-women/#comments

It seems to me like FEMEN's actions operate under the assumption that there is one way for a woman to liberate herself--by flinging off all of her clothes. Traditional clothing vs. modern clothing vs. nudity are lifestyles that can either be oppressing or liberating. Each society has its own code imbedded in it where, if broken, people become alarmed. Traditional clothing can be oppressive if it is forced on someone who would prefer individual expression; or it can be liberating in that it symbolizes a rejection of Western culture. Similarly, nudity can be oppressive when it is used to objective women in the media; or it can be liberating to display the body as it is without covering. This all depends on the individual and the context of the situation. 

It is because of this that FEMEN should not look at nudity as a definite means for liberation; and should not look at traditional Muslim clothing as a definite means for oppression. 

"Defiant exposure of the body may very well be how some women feel empowered, but it is ignorant to presume that this is true of all women. This is especially true of female Muslims, who can be shamed by both outsiders and fellow Muslims because of the way they chose to dress."

I learned in my Muslim Women Writers class that it is not the religion itself that is oppressive to women, but the patriarchal interpretations of religion. There are feminist interpretations of Islam that can be quite empowering. It is the patriarchal interpretations which are fueled by the political institutions, that need to be targeted, NOT the religion itself. 

mw.voice_.fb_.jpg

"Little surprise then that Muslim women are distrustful of other (usually white) women who try to “liberate” them. In fighting for the liberation of Muslim women, non-Muslim women rarely engage Muslim women in a way that allows Muslim women to keep their own agency. Instead, non-Muslim women try to “liberate” Muslim women through control — imposing Western perspectives and in essence, causing Muslim women to become invisible in their own battle."

FEMEN's actions targeting the Muslim religion are racist because they take away the agency of the Muslim women. Additionally, they target the religion in isolation from the patriarchal political institutions, which they should be criticizing. Rather than asking Muslim women how they want to liberate themselves, FEMEN forces their own interpretation of liberation on them. Additionally, it should be noted that all Muslim women should not be lumped into one category--religion is one small sliver of their identity. Subscribing one method of liberation for such a broad group of people is not productive. Perhaps FEMEN should look at a more unifying category such as class and find ways to liberate women within a particular class. Issues such as unpaid work are much more pressing than issues related to fashion. 
_____________________________

From my own experiences, I know what it is like to have someone (in this case, it was a male) try to force me toward "liberation" through persuasion. By giving into his definition of liberation, I was actually allowing myself to be oppressed by his impositions. At the time, I thought I was being liberated; however, looking back, I can see that it was something I did not want. Rather, it was something that he thought would liberate me. Without getting into the specifics, I hope you can understand what I am talking about. 

How does this fit in with the larger struggle? First of all, a lot of these forms of liberation deal with an individual's lifestyle. While they can be empowering to some individuals, others might not be ready or might not see them as empowering. These lifestyle liberations are not what particularly matters to the movement. Individuals can liberate themselves in a variety of ways that can empower themselves within a movement--and they should be able to choose which way fits them best. Otherwise they are not empowered. People should not judge one another on their lifestyle decisions unless they negatively affect another person. 

Concepts of liberation should instead be based on a broader analysis of oppression and how it is manifested in different forms for different groups of people. What matters is the ideological analysis that people have on collective oppression. FEMEN probably thinks it has an ideological analysis of how Islam oppresses groups of women. But they address this analysis in the wrong way--by calling on individuals to denounce their religion instead of targeting and addressing the political institutions as a whole. 

But even then, wouldn't that alnalysis still be imposing its Western view of what is "liberation" onto the collective? I believe this is different. What organizations should be doing is supporting the option that gives the oppressed the agency to recognize the cause of their oppression and to liberate themselves. However, this is easier said than done. Sometimes these "options" are not even available.

fantasia-algerian-cavalcade-assia-djebar-paperback-cover-art.jpg

For example, I just finished reading Fantasia: An Algerian Cavalcade by Djebar. In this novel, she poetically illustrates how the French's colonization of Algeria had some positive aspects for some women. For example, some women, even from lower classes, learned how to read and write in French, which allowed them to challenge their patriarchal institutions to a certain extent. However, overall, the French occupation had a negative effect on Algerian society. Then there was the revolution. Now, had I been alive during the time, I would have definitely supported the nationalist movement (while still being critical of the groups that were likely to come to power after). However, when the nationalist movement won, there was a return a political institution that practiced a traditional patriarchal form of Islam, and the promises that were given to women were taken away. 

In this example, there is not really a clear option that would give the oppressed the agency to recognize the cause of their oppression and liberate themselves. Their analysis of their oppression ended with the French and did not include capitalism. So what I would think is right is the following: support the nationalists because they are clearly against the oppression of the French. Once the nationalists have gained liberation, be critical of the new regime and support a new revolutionary group that will continue on the trajectory toward liberation. 

I am only starting to realize how complicated these issues are when applied to the real world! No wonder the left is so scattered and scared to take stances on anything. Studying Marxist theory makes it seem so simple, but the world has divided itself into multiple classes all pitted against one another, while allowing the ruling class to continue domination! It seems so difficult to untangle this mess, but people must be patient. It seems like it is so easy to take the "wrong" stance on issues when there are so many options. In the long run, we need to unite somehow, and we should all appreciate one another for at least trying to make the world a better place. Our criticism should exist without hate, and we should reserve the hatred for those actually in power. 

Yet this is so difficult when I have the strong conviction that certain groups on the left are actually helping the ruling class by reinforcing some of their institutions... 

I don't know! I am even more confused than I was before I started writing. 

Board of Trustees Tuition Hearing Speech

Each year, the Board of Trustees at Montclair State University allows the students to speak about the rising cost of tuition. Students were given three minutes to speak. When I went up to speak, I turned the podium to face the students and faculty in the audience instead of the board members and administrators. Below is my speech:

Good Afternoon,

I am addressing you, the students and faculty, and not the administrators or the board members because they are not listening. And even if they were listening, they will certainly dismiss these comments from this lowly student as they have always dismissed my comments.

This event is put on to make it look like the administrators and board members care about what the students have to say. They can mention this event whenever a student feels they have representation. However, they do not actually care. For example, students have sent the board countless letters all of which have been ignored. Additionally, when students protested their lack of voice at the other board meetings, and when students protested the tuition increase, rules were changed to ban this form of speech and cops were placed in the meetings. Threatening letters were sent to some of the students involved. So it is pretty easy to conclude that they do not care about what we have to say, even though they are pretending to today.

Rather than beg for lower tuition to people who are not listening, we need to demand lower tuition and demand that we be heard. On October 17th, Susan Cole announced to the Student Government that, if the Bond Referendum is passed, there will be no need to increase tuition. I think we not only need to hold her to her word, but we need to demand more. (And we need to not stop demanding more from those in power until all education is free and all oppression is ended, but that's another speech).

We need to find ways to work together to stop this structure. It will not be easy to challenge it. A student was put on probation by one of our fascist administrators simply for sitting at a table in University Hall. But what if we got one thousand students put on probation or, even better, one thousand students expelled for ousting the administration? Then we might be getting somewhere--the administration would become jammed with its bureaucratic paperwork and would destroy itself.

The board members and administrators claim that their job is to represent the interests of higher education to the state, which is supposed to provide for its people. However, we cannot wait to "convince" these board members and administrators to do this job because their REAL job is to NOT do that job. These board members unanimously voted to increase tuition last summer, and there is no reason why they would not do it again. I am disgusted to say that even the student trustee voted to increase tuition. They do not actively challenge the state because they are comfortable in their positions of power.

And the problem is not these particular board members or administrators. Even if we somehow got rid of all of them, they will be replaced by an endless supply of businesspeople who love to support the status quo and sell their souls for individualistic dignity and money. It is inherently their job to uphold the interests of the state, which are NOT the interests of the students--but are the interests of the elite and the ideological apparatus that works endlessly to keep the people down.

Those in power will not give anything to the people unless they demand it, unless they feel threatened enough in their position of power. And we aren't doing enough to threaten. We need to do more if we want to get anywhere.

Thank you.

Here is video footage of me giving the speech:



Here is the YouTube playlist for the other students who spoke at the tuition hearing: