Readings Notes on "The Study of Muslim Women in the Middle East: Achievements and Remaining Problems" by Nikki R. Keddie

Keddie, Nikki R. The Study of Muslim Women in the Middle East: Achievements and Remaining Problems. Harvard Middle Eastern and Islamic Review 6 (2000-2001): 26-52

Keddie begins her article with a bold statement, claiming that Middle Eastern women’s studies has been marked with an “apologetic tone or tend to accentuate the positive while minimizing the negative” (25). To understand why Middle Eastern women’s history is written with such a tone, she looks to history for cues. Historically, the Middle East was feared by the West and Islam was seen by Christians as a “threatening, false religion” (27). These ideals continued and were perpetuated as Muslim women were viewed as “oppressed, sexually enslaved, miserable, or degenerate” (27). Muslim and Middle Eastern women were portrayed negatively and as needing help, a help only the West could provide. This western influence in many cases hurt Middle Eastern and Muslim women, and let to a reassertion of Islamic traditions and values (28). In these Islamic revivals women were gaining and claiming rights, and those writers focused on these gains while avoiding the negatives associated with these women’s status under Islamic regimes. In this way writing about Middle Eastern and Muslim women has become apologetic in many ways, as Keddie argues, and writers are afraid to criticize Islam.

In the years of 1970-2000, however, some criticisms of Islam and its effects on women’s rights did emerge, however. Many authors argued that the pre-Islamic societies were more gender equal than the Islamic societies (31). Since these criticisms emerged however, many scholars have attributed this reduce in egalitarianism to the creation of the state (31) and not to Islam. More recent works, Keddie states include“recognition of the variations in women’s status and roles by period, region, class…” (34). Thus, modern scholars seem to recognize that the variations in women’s status are not solely based on Islam, but on other socioeconomic factors too.

Keddie characterizes modern studies (from 1990 on) as consisting of an opposition between universalism and relativism. There are people like Azar Nafisi who believe reform is not possible in the clerical regime (45). Only time will tell if reform will come, and Keddie reminds the reader that any impediment upon reform “is not Islam but those who use its name to limit the rights of women” (40). Many relativists, on the contrary, use reinterpretations of Quranic scriptures to support women’s rights as in phase with an Islamic regime and culture. Keddie argues that taking one side of the argument doesn’t provide a convincing argument for either side. She writes that “a more nuanced perspective would see that the women’s roles and status at any stage of historical development reflect historical, social, and cultural circumstances, including class and gender systems that favor and are favored by those with power and wealth” (46). For a more accurate holistic analyses, both relativist and universalist perspectives must be considered, along with the social, economic, political, historical, etc systems that influence women’s status in particular cultures and lands at particular periods of time. Alone they are not enough, but together they may paint an accurate picture.

In her conclusion Keddie makes last crucial and very interesting point. In analyzing the cultural divide in Iranian society that many scholars have analyzed, that the upper class, educated, and secular portion of society is perceived and criticized as being Western. These Western practices “in the family, and elsewhere” (47) should not be viewed as mere imitation of the west. Rather, they should be viewed as changes in a culture that is evolving to fit new socioeconomic conditions and challenges—originating in the upper class, educated, secular elite but then emanating outwards to the rest of society. Westernization is not necessarily Western imitation, but rather may be a common response to similar socioeconomic challenges (ie. convergent evolution).

Reflections
Keddie’s article resonates with me as a sort of warning of what not to do in my analysis and research. By presenting what has been done in the past as what has worked well and what is lacking, a couple of themes have emerged:
1) I should try not to maintain an overly apologetic tone in criticizing Islam. One can criticize Islam in an academically beneficial way, and should not have to apologize for such criticisms.
2) I should try to maintain a balance between Universalism and Relativism, and analyze women’s status in a particular place and time as based on a conglomeration of factors—not scapegoat one.
3) I should avoid falling to the “Westernization” answer without merit. Just because something appears to be Western doesn’t mean it is an imitation of or imposition of Westernization. Common economic and social situations can lead to the evolution of common cultures (although these cultures are not likely to be in isolation from one another).

One very important book for me to read, as presented in Keddie’s article, is Sex and Society in Islam: Birth Control Before the Nineteenth Century by Basim Musallam. Keddie describes this book as one that describes the use and practice with various methods of birth control and its tolerance under Islam. This is definitely a must read for my project.