The Great Influence of Al-Jahiz on Arabic Literature

The works of Al-Jahiz differ in number depending on the scholar you put the question forth to. Some say he wrote one hundred and forty works, others cite the number three hundred as an estimated figure, and still others say that the works cannot ever be numbered since so many have been lost during the twelve hundred years since his era. Scholars may reserve the right to disagree on such technicalities, but several facts escape the divisive, double-edged scalpel of time and scholars’ incessant inquiry. One such undeniable fact is the overwhelming prolificness that characterizes Al-Jahiz’s remarkable body of contributions to Arabic Literature. The second truth that has stood the test of time is the often controversial nature of Al-Jahiz many topics that hadn’t been written about, often in the history of known written works worldwide. The third such fact that is true in spite of what else someone might believe about the ideas of Al-Jahiz is his immediate and ongoing evolution that he effected on Arabic Literature as a genre and an art form.

Al-Jahiz has long been a source of literary and intellectual inspiration for the generations of Arab writers that have followed in his wake. But Al-Jahiz’s own sources are interesting to note as well, in order to better understand his purpose. Mu’tazalism was a movement that greatly inspired the author towards creativity, wonderment, and curiosity about the many aspects of life that Al-Jahiz explored in his literary contributions. (Jackson, 3) As “defenders of reason”, the ideological disciples of the cleric Wasil ibn Ata, the Mu’tazili (or Ahl al-Tawhid wa al-’Adl (“People of Divine Unity and Justice”) were the theological descendants of an almost Greek school of philosophical thought. The difference between the Mu’tazili and their Greek and Hellenist forefathers was their prioritization of the truths of Islam as the highest order of logic, with the entire lesser hierarchy falling into place below Islamic theology. In this way, Al-Jahiz’s greatest influences in the world of literature were the Qur’an, the Hadith, the Aristotelian writings, and one of his greatest loves, Arabic poetry from throughout the ages. (Wikipedia)

With such a host of literary precedents to guide and inspire him, Al-Jahiz wrote hundreds of works throughout his nearly ninety years in the Arab world. He wrote on every topic that caused him curiosity and intellectual stimulation. From zoology and biology to rhetoric and logic, Al-Jahiz worked out his theses and hypothesis in writing. Even grammar and lexicography – not to mention psychology, history, poetry, literature, and theology – were all topics that excited his learned and questioning mind. In his many works, Al-Jahiz utilized many different literary techniques to produce his unique voice in Arabic literature. He employed satire and humor to explore psychology and sociology within the framework of his society and culture. In other works, Al-Jahiz uses a simple voice of piety and reverence to uncover some of the mysteries of religious observance in the course of a Muslim life. In yet other works, Al-Jahiz takes the tone of a scientist or University lecturer, employing facts exposed during his own experiential approach to life.

Several, if not many of the works of Al-Jahiz incited controversy in his own time and beyond. One overwhelming truth that seems clear from the reviewers and crtitcs who have commented on his writings for hundreds of years is the consistency of admiration that shines throughout, in spite of their religious or moral objections to some of his more original and thought-provoking works. One such quote by the late nineteeth century reviewer George Sarton (compiled by Joshua Finkel in 1926) demonstrates this concept quite well:

“These three treatises confirm our general opinion of AL-JAIIZ: he was a very clever writer, original to the point of eccentricity, a man of immense learning but of little conscience, without principles or ideals except his literary standards, a good prototype of so many of the mercenary and unscrupulous writers of our own days. In spite of his egotism, bis writings are exceedingly interesting in what they reveal and in what they hide or try to hide. If one forgets a few traits which are characteristic of his type and makes due allowance for his prejudices, they constitute an excellent mirror of his age.” (Finkel, 2)

Therefore, even though in this case (and in many others before the mid twentieth, or even the twenty first century) the reviewer lacks a global context in which to accurately access the “moral conscience” of Al-Jahiz as demonstrated in his works, the apparent deep-seated respect that the writer holds for Al-Jahiz as an intellectual is not difficult to pick up between the lines. For a man who wrote about some of the first (perhaps the first) theories of evolution roughly a millennium before Darwin caused his memorable ripples and scandal through the intellectual community and well beyond its borders, Al-Jahiz was rocking the boat in his own part of the world. The lines of questioning that he pursued in his search for understanding necessarily provoked (and still provoke a heated response in certain circles.

Another quote that illustrates Al-Jahiz’s deep understanding of science and an early scientific method is from Mehmet Bayrakdar’s article on “Al-Jahiz and the Rise of Biological Evolutionism” that describes in detail his work on the concept known as “Struggle for Existence” which was a precursor to Darwinism.

“Struggle for Existence: al-Jahiz placed the greatest weight on evolution by the struggle for existence, or, in a larger sense, by natural selection. It operates in conjunction with the innate desire for conservation and permanence of the ego. According to al-Jahiz, between every individual existence, there is a natural war for life. The existence are in struggle with each other. Al-Jahiz’s theory of struggle for existence may accordingly be defined as a differential death rate between two variant class of existence, the lesser death rate characterizing the better adapted and stronger class. And for al-Jahiz, the struggle for existence is a divine law; God makes food for some bodies out of some other bodies’ death. He says, “The rat goes out for collecting his food, and it searches and seizes them. It eats some other inferior animals, like small animals and small birds. . . it hides its babies in disguised underground tunnels for protecting them and himself against the attack of the snakes and of the birds. Snakes like eating rats very much. As for the snakes, they defend themselves from the danger of the beavers and hyenas; which are more powerful than themselves. The hyena can frighten the fox, and the latter frightens all the animals which are inferior to it.”

Not only did the scholarly works of Al-Jahiz change the very face of Arabic literature, but they also paved the way for scientific discoveries that were fleshed out more than a thousand years after his death, in the work of Charles Darwin and other Evolutionary Biologists of the nineteenth century, a world away in Europe. (Beyrakdar)

It does seem that the delineation line is not so precise as to single Al-Jahiz out for the sole responsibility for the shift that was gradually taking place within Arabic literature, but it would be difficult to make a case that his writings on such widely varied topics and often completely fresh and unique viewpoints did not carry a movement into a new and more freestyle form of Arabic literature that was strongly associated with deep intellectual inquiry into a variety of topics that had heretofore escaped being written down in lasting form.

Although the number of works he produced during his lifetime range in supposed number from one hundred and forty to three hundred and fifty, Al-Jahiz certainly wrote enough to change what was acceptable to write about in Arabic literature from the ancient themes of the nomadic life, to any topic that inquiring minds care to explore on the written page.

Works Cited

Finkel, Joshua. “A Risāla of Al-Jāḥiẓ.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 47 (1927): 311-34.

Sarton, George. “Review: [Untitled].” Isis 10.2 (1928): 494-5.

ﺟﺎﻛﺴﻮﻥ, Sherman Jackson/ ﺷﻴﺮﻣﺎﻥ. “Al-Jahiz on Translation/ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﺣﻆ ﻭﻓﻦ ﺍﻟﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ.” Alif: Journal of Comparative Poetics.4, Intertextuality/ التناص: تفاعلية النصوص (1984): 99- 107.

Bayrakdar, Mehmet. “AL-JAHIZ AND THE RISE OF BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTIONISM.” Salaam.Com. 18 Apr. 2008 <http://www.salaam.co.uk/knowledge/al-jahiz.php>.

Vulnerability of the City: The Mujihadeen and Urban Destruction in Kabul, Afghanistan

The Mujahideen

Civil unrest, particularly unrest motivated by religious or ethnic factors, has become a threat to many cities in the developing world in the last half century. Political instability, totalitarian rule without representation, and a conspicuous lack of concern for human rights issues have combined to incite the formation of hundreds of opposition groups in dozens of countries. Many of the rebel factions are small and disorganized, specific to their own locale. However, one radical Islamist guerrilla force has become active all over the world.

The Mujihadeen, a loosely organized ideological alliance of Muslim jihadists, has laid siege to a small but significant number of the world’s cities on several continents. The Mujihadeen have played an important role in the Chechen-Russian conflict, where they quashed a Chechen incursion into Dagestan in 1999. The Mujihadeen are active within the Iraqi insurgency, and there is discussion of their involvement in the Somali Civil War. The Mujihadeen are undisputed warlords of the Pakistani-Kashmiri conflicts. They are active in Hezbollah, in Lebanon, and they are instrumental in HAMAS, in Palestine. From Myanmar to the Philippines, and throughout Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Bosnia, these jihadist forces wield extreme power and promote insurgency and guerilla warfare. (Wikipedia)

Arguably, no country has been more damaged by the Mujihadeen than Afghanistan, and no city rendered more vulnerable by the Mujihadeen than Kabul. Due to the excessive damage to urban infrastructure and built environment, the absolute collapse of critical city institutions, and the absence of municipal governance leading to the erosion of human rights, post-Soviet Kabul stands as a terrible and chilling example of the threat that the Mujihadeen and other extremist factions pose to the development and survival of the modern city in the developing world.

Politics and Urban Development in Kabul

Kabul’s history begins with its role as an important urban settlement along the Central Asian silk route. The Kabul Valley stretches along the Kabul River where settlers and caravan traders have long enjoyed its hot, dry summers and cold, snowy winters. However Kabul’s urban history is replete with invasions and unrest dating back to 522 BC, when Kabul was annexed into Persian Empire of Darius the Great, and rebel tribes staged constant violent revolts in opposition. Kabul then fell to the Greeks, the Bactrians and Parthians, and then became part of the Kushan Empire before it fell into the control of fragmented petty kingdoms by 220 AD. After the invasion of the White Huns in 400 AD, the city was almost completely destroyed. Kabul fell to the Yaftalees, back to the Persians, until finally the Islamic period began with the Ghaznavid Dynasty which ruled from 962-1140. (Gandhara 2001)

Traditional residential structures in Kabul and the surrounding region were made of mud brick, mostly constructed ad hoc by the families who lived in them. The houses were built with flat roofs and wooden drains to lead water and melted snow into ditches at the side of the rudimentary abode. Charles Masson observed wryly in the early nineteenth century, “The appearance of Kâbal as a city has little to recommend it beyond the interest conferred by the surrounding scenery. […] The houses of Kâbal are but slightly and indifferently built, generally of mud and unburnt bricks. […] There are no public buildings of any moment in the city.” (Issa & Kohistani, 2007)

Kabul has long inspired a sense of local pride in its royalty. In the 16^th century, Babur, founder of the Mughal Dynastry of Central Asia, filled Kabul with ten magnificent city gardens and made Kabul his capital. For the most part, however, the various Shahs and dynastic rulers that held power prior to the twentieth century had little impact on the built environment of Kabul. A notable exception to this trend was Amir Abdurrahman Khan’s palace, known as the Arg, built at the turn of the twentieth century in the British style. It still stands today and houses Hamid Karzai’s government in spite of decades of destructive uprisings that have destroyed most of the city’s structures. (Issa & Kohistani, 2007)The British invasion and the first Anglo-Afghan war (1842-1845) caused massive damage within the Kabul city walls. British troops symbolically bombed the Char Chatta Bazaar, which at that time served as the financial, communication and market center of not only Kabul, but Afghanistan as a whole. This purposeful “obliteration of an important symbol of national identity” became a theme that reinforced the city’s vulnerability war after war. (Issa & Kohistani, 2007) This tactic was used repeatedly by the Mujahideen during the post-Soviet civil wars (1992-1994) and by the Taliban during years of their factional supremacy (1994-2001). (Burns, 1996)

The first wave of significant modernization of infrastructure was introduced by Abdurrahman’s son Habibullah I (1901-1919), and continued by his son, Amanullah Khan (1919-1929). Their reigns saw the introduction of a modern postal service, photography, electricity, the telephone, and automobiles into Afghani culture. (Tanin 2006) After a visit to Europe, Amanullah Khan developed plans for transforming Kabul into a world class capital city along the lines of Paris, Berlin, or London. (Issa & Kohistani, 2007) Amanullah hired European engineers and builders to craft Darulaman Palace as “a centre for governmental institutions in big circular blocks, with central courtyards integrating the entrances to the different departments”. (Wild 1932) Amanullah’s vision for his capital was welcomed by most Kabul residents, but religious factions rose up in violent opposition. Amanullah was ousted in 1929, when he fled to a life of exile in Italy.By 1959, when Prince Mohammad Daoud was elected Prime Minister, Kabul was becoming a modern city. Women were being enrolled in University, and the birkah was ruled optional. Further reforms were made after the coup that gave Daoud Khan power in 1973, and a new Afghan constitution was written that confirmed the rights of women. (Gandhara, 2001) Underneath the progressive modernization movement, however, a communist opposition was beginning to form. On April 27, 1978 another coup was organized and carried out by supporters of communist Soviet sympathizer Hafizullah Amin, and the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan was formed. (Gandhara, 2001)

Soviet Era

The Soviets quickly determined the situation directly to their south to be radically unstable. In December of 1979, Soviet troops invaded Kabul, killed Hafizullah Amin, and installed Babrak Karmal as head of a puppet Afghan government under direct Soviet control. This historical invasion came after an extended period of official cooperation between the USSR and Afghanistan. The motivations that drove Soviet forces into Afghanistan have been debated by scholars and political scientists for decades; however, Asian Studies experts Halliday and Tanin (1998) describe the situation thus:

“The communist regime in Afghanistan was an example of what has been termed ‘revolution from above’, i.e. the introduction and imposition of a set of changes by a radical group within the state apparatus committed to a forced modernization of the country.”

Modernization was indeed a central strategy of the Soviet regime. The decade of Soviet occupation saw the introduction of urban development projects that generously referenced Soviet ideological aspects. (Issa & Kohistani, 2007) Soviet officials managed the construction of factories known as “Fabrik-e Khanasazi”, or “House-Building Factories”. The factories built government offices, schools, and residential super-complexes. One Kabul housing complex spanned sixty blocks and contained 11,000 individual apartments, a 500-seat cinema, a mosque, a swimming pool, a restaurant, and a retail mall. (Issa & Kohistani, 2007) Dozens of apartment buildings were erected in block formation throughout the city, although they primarily housed Russian troops and specialists, and the upper echelons of Kabul society which was made up of Soviet sympathizers and government administrator puppets. Kabul’s poor did not have access to the modern apartment blocks. Left without housing and services, this portion of the population was forced to build a village of makeshift tents that was torn down by Red police forces almost as soon as it was erected. It took several years for the occupation to tolerate the makeshift slums, which were known as “Zour Abad”, or “a quarter built with force. (Issa & Kohistani, 2007)

In the end, Soviet strategists underestimated the strength and numbers of the opposition forces, and the vast power of the armed faction “warlords”. The warlords and mujahideen were supplied with weapons by powerful friends, the United States. Both the Carter and Reagan administrations viewed Afghanistan as a vital foothold in the global struggle against communism, and the mujahideen were portrayed as freedom fighters. Armed with sophisticated weaponry covertly provided by the United States CIA valuing nearly $3 billion dollars, the rebel factions were able to keep the Soviets constantly on the defensive. (Draggon, 2003)

When the Soviets left Kabul in 1989, it was portrayed as a Red Army victory. After a violent struggle between the Soviet Occupation forces and the rebel mujahideen militias lasting nearly ten years, the Soviets were relieved to wash their hands of Kabul. An estimated 15,000 Soviets were killed, while an estimated one million Afghans lost their lives over the decade. (Keller, 1989) The period after the Soviet withdrawal was a return to the dark ages for Kabul and the Afghani people. The American Embassy in Kabul closed its doors on January 30, 1989. For three years there was a bloody struggle for power that raged between the communist government of President Najibullah and the mujahideen. The country was loosely governed by a constantly warring group of guerilla leaders. Abdul Rashid Dostum was the defected head of Najibullah’s military. Ahmed Shah Masood was the leader of the Jamiat-i-Islami party, known for its radical Islamist leanings. And even Osama bin Laden was active as an organizer and financier of mujahideen activity within Afghanistan. The warlords formed alliances and broke them in a relentless rain of rockets on Kabul that killed civilians and leveled the city structures.

Physical Damage and Cultural Losses

The result of a decade of open war in Kabul was an almost complete devastation of urban infrastructure. At the time of the Soviet pullout in 1989, public transportation was sporadic and unregulated, waste disposal was carried out largely by human and animal scavengers, the water supply was scarce and contaminated, and energy and utilities were unreliable and not generally accessible. (Mumtaz & Noschis (Eds.), 2004) By 1993 electricity in Kabul was entirely cut off. By 1994 an estimated 1.5 million Afghans had been killed and more than 2 million were seriously injured. 6 million Afghans had fled the country as refugees, and 2 million more were “internally displaced”. (Goodson, 2008) The destruction that the ongoing civil unrest unleashed on Kabul’s municipal institutions was, in most cases, fatal to the institutions. By the mid 1990s the warlords had obliterated Kabul’s education system, police force, public transportation system, religious community, social services, and utilities. The persistent use of sophisticated weaponry resulted in a capital city strewn with rubble. Goodson describes the Kabul of 1992-1994 as a city ruled by anarchy. While one small section of the city would be controlled by one warlord and his forced recruits, the very next street would be a demarcation line; a no man’s land where rockets whistled through the sky into homes as the neighboring warlord attempted to gain ground into enemy territory. Kabul’s citizens would be forced to relinquish food, valuables, and family members through the lawless methods of “extortion, robbery, rape, and murder”. (Goodson, 2008)

The cultural losses that occurred as a result of the infighting in Afghanistan had an immeasurable toll on the people of Kabul as well. The ruin of the National Museum in 1992 was an attack on Afghani identity. Nancy Hatch Dupree of the Archaeological Institute of America estimates that 70% of the artifacts exhibited in the museum were looted or destroyed.  (Dupree, 1998) An even more senseless act of terrorism was the obliteration of the historic Buddhas of Bamiyan. More than 1,500 years ago Buddhist monks spent decades carving remarkable monuments out of the side of sandstone cliff walls in the Bamiyan Valley. As a targeted act of cultural destruction, the Buddhas were completely destroyed by the Taliban forces on May 2, 2001 even as religious leaders and academics around the world cried out for their preservation. The jihadist strategy of targeting a central symbol of cultural heritage was becoming familiar by September 11, 2001 when Mujihadeen rebels flew planes into the heart of the largest city in the United States, destroying a built representation of American, and even Western, central ideology. The city as an ideological concept, the city as a cultural identity, and the city as a built reality is vulnerable indeed.

Hope for the City: Plans for Reconstruction

Political opinion on the United States’ recent role in Afghanistan is varied and controversial. Regardless of the arguable political implications for the long term, the short term effects on urban development in Kabul have been unassailably positive. Scholars and professionals from Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Americas have come together to form solutions for sustainable city growth and planning. As recently as 2004 the Old Town section of Kabul was a disease and refuse infested slum full of makeshift structures. (Issa & Kohistani, 2007) The plans are not simply for wholesale  modernization without thought to future sustainability.

Participants in the10th Architecture & Behaviour Colloquium on the Development of Kabul addressed the need to prioritize social and cultural considerations in the redevelopment planning process. The colloquium brought to the table “a multiplicity of initiatives that are currently advancing performance in areas ranging from poverty reduction, social capital formation, employment generation, gender equality, and environmental sustainability, through to good governance processes and partnerships, effective planning and management, and the socially just and equitable distribution of resources to those who need them most.” (Issa & Kohistani, 2007) As a cornerstone to the body of research presented at the colloquium, much consideration was given to the concept of “urban vulnerability”. Stefan Schutte of the Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit determined four main forms of urban vulnerability:

• Vulnerability to income failure

• Vulnerability to food insecurity

• Vulnerability to bad health

• Vulnerability to social exclusion and disempowerment

(Issa & Kohistani, 2007)

Schutte goes on to explain that that “current forms of globalisation and market-triumphalism bypass the interests of a majority of global populations – often leading to huge dissatisfaction and the readiness to use violence as a means of protest.” Since sustained violence has been historically the biggest threat to Kabul, and will likely continue to be, care must be taken to preserve and protect the interests of the population, therefore minimizing the vulnerability of the city into the future.

Conclusion

The consequences of twenty years of ongoing warfare are the breakdown of all the things that make Kabul a true city in principle. A settlement of people without governance, infrastructure, cultural heritage, human rights, and a built environment is not a city at all. The Mujihadeen and other radical violent factions are a persistent threat to the world’s cities, as evidenced by Kabul’s recent history and the histories of so many other cities in the last fifty years. Kabul will be rebuilt with the help of the world community, but it must be done according to the principles of sustainable development, and a constant awareness of the needs of its population, or the cycle of intervention, disenfranchisement and violence may yet repeat. 

References

Tanin, Z. (2006): Afghanistan in the 20th Century (transl.). Teheran

Afgha News Images. Retrieved November 27, 2007, from http://www.afgha.com/?q=system/files/images/ak09.preview.jpg

Afghanistanica Files: Soviet Troops. (2007, July). Retrieved November 28, 2007, from http://afghanistanica.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/soviet-troops2.jpgBurns, J. F. (1996, November 30).

Kabul’s museum: The past ruined by the present. New York Times. Retrieved November 26, 2007, from http://login.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9612027569&site=ehost-live

Draggon, C. (2003). A Cautionary Tale: Lessons to Be Learned from Past Mistakes in Afghanistan. Association for Conflict Resolution Update. Retrieved November 27, 2007, from http://acrnet.org/acrlibrary/more.php?id=19_0_1_0_M

Gandhara: The history of Afghanistan. (2001). Retrieved November 27, 2007, from http://www.gandhara.com.au/afghan_table.html

Ghufran, N. (2001). The Taliban and the Civil War Entanglement in Afghanistan. Asian Survey, 41, Pp. 462-487. Retrieved November 29, 2007, from JSTOR database.

Goodson, L. (1998). The Fragmentation of Culture in Afghanistan. Alif: Journal of Comparative Poetics, Post-Colonial Discourse in South Asia, Pp. 269-289. Retrieved November 26, 2007, from JSTOR database.

Issa, C., & Kohistani, S. (2007). Kabul’s Urban Identity: An Overview of the Socio-Political Aspects of Development. ASIEN, 104, 51-64. Retrieved November 25, 2007, from http://www.dga-ev.de/articles/A104_051_064.pdfKeller, B. (1989, February 16).

Last Soviet Soldiers Leave Afghanistan. New York Times. Retrieved November 28, 2007, from http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/africa/021689afghan-laden.html

Looting and destruction in the Kabul Museum. (1995, September 23). Far Eastern Economic Review. Retrieved November 26, 2007, from http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/53/005.html

Montagne, R. National Public Radio: Preserving Memory of Afghanistan’s Giant Buddhas. On Afghanistan, Five Years On. Retrieved November 25, 2007, from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6616167

Mumtaz, B., & Noschis, K. (Eds.). (2004). DEVELOPMENT OF KABUL : RECONSTRUCTION AND PLANNING ISSUES. Lausanne, France: Comportements. Retrieved November 27, 2007, from http://www.colloquia.ch/en/colloquiums/Development%20of%20Kabul.pdf

Wikipedia. Retrieved November 25, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahedin

World Health Organization Afghanistan. (2003, April). Retrieved November 25, 2007, from http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.emro.who.int/eha/CntryUpdates/AFG/WHO/HealthData/AFG-Population.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.emro.who.int/eha/afg-healthdata.htm&h=421&w=568&sz=31&hl=en&start=14&um=1&tbnid=gHcf4kWuak6xdM:&tbnh=99&tbnw=134&prev=

My response to the question, “Is Jihad driven by an all-pervasive sense of inferiority in the Muslim world?”

I am not convinced that “inferiority” is the problem within the Muslim world, or even that it exists en masse. The sweeping tide of modernity and globalization pushed by a Western ideal should not (and did not, necessarily) create a feeling of inferiority. It highlighted the dissimilarities between two very different cultures, and perhaps emphasized the absurdity of forcing an incompatible construct onto a society with its own history, philosophy, manners, dress, and traditions. Western modernization may have caused the Islamic nations to discern, more clearly than ever, the validity of their own familiar way of life that was being leached from them and replaced with bland Americanism.

It must have been disconcerting to be an older person living in Iran during the Shah’s regime, having been raised with values and customs that were considered outdated and unpopular. Though to our television-framed perception, in the West, the 1979 Iranian revolution looked like a chilling return to medieval religiosity, it must have felt like a reclamation of Islamic identity and nationality to some who remembered the time before the American-loving Shah came to power.

Therefore, I don’t feel that inferiority comes into play. It isn’t surprising to watch Western style governmental institutions fail in a part of the world that has a much longer history and has sustained very different concepts of government than we understand fully. Perhaps a large part of the conflict is our (the West’s) interference and unwelcome application of inappropriate constructs. When did democracy become “right” and everything else “wrong”? It rather seems that a number of throwback colonialist tendencies go unexamined within the foreign policies of even the most visible and globally influential Western nations. We seek to change what we don’t understand, and we are threatened by any entity that won’t absorb our capitalist franchise, and in doing so, of course, become part of our income base.

I’m happy to see a fledgling movement towards responsible, sustainable development that is sensitive to the indigenous cultural environment. It shouldn’t shock us that the entire world doesn’t want to be assimilated into our monopoly; glued to their televisions for the latest oblique instructions on how to live, who to become, while leaving their history, religion, values, and identity in the dust. Who are we to think that we know how to run the world at the expense of the individuals who inhabit it?

Cover that meat, babe.

The practice of hijab, or the wearing of a veil, is based on the Qu’ranic instruction for women to “draw their veils over their bosoms” which was interpreted as an injunction to for women to cover their hair and face. On one hand, the veil can be seen as a physical representation of oppression and domination, however feminist reinterpretations of the Qu’ran have unveiled another perspective in which hijab is not an organic outgrowth of Islam, rather a consequence of a male-dominated culture which denies rights to women which conflict with the interests of the patriarchal elite (Mernissi, 1991, p. ix). It is possible for hijab to be an act of beauty and an assertion of religious and cultural identity when a woman chooses to wear the veil. In cases where choice is removed and women are compelled by laws to cover themselves, the religious significance is eliminated and it becomes an act of meaningless onus. As the Qur’an states so simply and so beautifully, “There is no compulsion in religion.” (Surah 2, 256) Women in every culture should be free to live life unveiled because of their intrinsic value as human beings. To force women to completely cover their bodies is to rob them of many of the physical representations of human identity, which is central to a full existence.

The Qur’an, like many sacred texts, has the subject of considerable debate and subjective interpretation over the nearly fifteen hundred years since its initial publication. Muslims generally hold that the Qur’an is a book of divine guidance, a book of wisdom and direction for the lives of mankind. Qur’an means “recital” in Arabic, which is fitting because Muslims believe that Allah recited these words to his chosen prophet, Muhammed. (Wikipedia, 24) The faithful also practice recitation of the Qur’an daily, making it an oral tradition as well as a textual one. This tradition of recitation creates a great body of knowledge among the followers of Islam. However, memorization and recitation of a text does not intrinsically create understanding. Interpretation of such a great work as the Qur’an is a daunting task with a history nearly as old as the great book itself. Ultimately, it is the interpretation of the text that creates polarizing viewpoints on the tradition of hijab within Islamic communities.  

One of the most radical interpretations of hijab comes from a “mufti”, a legal authority and leader in Australia’s Muslim community named Sheik Hilali. During a religious address during Ramadan last year, Hilali sought to defend the honor of the Muslim leader of the infamous “Sydney Gang Rapes” by referring to the 2000+ female victims as “uncovered meat”. Addressing 500 Muslim worshippers during the month-long festival, Hilali said: “If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it … whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem.” The sheik then said: “If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred.”  He concluded his address by saying that women were “weapons” used by “Satan” to control men. (Kerbaj, 1-9)  Many Muslim leaders were outraged by Hilali’s comments. A prominent female Muslim advisor responded to Hilali in an interview with The Australian. “Iktimal Hage-Ali – who does not wear a hijab – said the Islamic headdress was not a ‘tool’ worn to prevent rape and sexual harassment. ‘It’s a symbol that readily identifies you as being Muslim, but just because you don’t wear the headscarf doesn’t mean that you’re considered fresh meat for sale,’ the former member of John Howard’s Muslim advisory board told The Australian. ‘The onus should not be on the female to not attract attention, it should be on males to learn how to control themselves.’” (Kerbaj, 11-20) Hage-Ali’s views are a strong recommendation against forced hijab, which promotes the view that women are responsible for carrying out drastic measures to protect themselves from the animal tendencies that men are naturally subject to. This is an inaccurate and dangerous view of both genders which cannot contribute to healthy interaction within a culture. 

In Eastern Islamic states such as Iran, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, the question of hijab has been answered by law. In these three Islamic states women are forced, in varying degrees, to don a burqa or other covering garment that fits detailed legal requirements even to tend her front garden. In some cases, vigilante groups roam the streets looking to violently enforce the law of hijab, armed with measuring equipment to verify that each garment is the legal length. Some women who live under the restrictive laws of an Islamic state exist their entire lives without their hair or face being seen by a man other than a relative, sweltering under thick black outer garments in the heat of the desert summers. Many are even attacked or arrested for misunderstanding the often confusing and convoluted legal code that surrounds their dress. As recently as April of 2007, young women were victims of targeted attacks by the Tehran police, a manifestation of power that was encouraged by the hard-line Islamic leaders. (Sanati, 2)  An Iranian news agency quoted Brig. Gen. Ahmad Rouzbehani, director general of the law enforcement centre for combating social corruption as saying, “Everybody knows what improper dressing is and how one should appear in the public. Anybody who is improperly dressed must therefore expect to face a legal encounter by the police” (Sanati, 8). This use of violence takes the subject of force to an entirely different level that goes far beyond religious observance. This kind of force perpetuates the perspective that women belong in the home, covered, the possession of her husband, father, and children.

Perhaps some of the most interesting perspectives come from Islamic women who have elected to wear hijab for personal reasons, even though they live in Western cultures which do not mandate hijab. Some women find comfort in donning a piece of clothing that identifies them as a Muslim. Shaista Aziz gives an account of her choice to wear the veil to the BBC News. “When I see another Muslim woman on the street we always smile, sometime we nod at each other and other times we exchange greetings: Asalaam e-lekum Walikum Asalaam.” (Aziz, 15) Aziz finds that most non-Islamic Londoners are accepting of her choice, and she disregards the opinions of those who would criticize her. She isn’t compelled by laws, nor is she forced into hijab by male family members. For Aziz, the veil is a choice that affirms her freedom and womanhood. “Through Islam I feel empowered and have been moved by the beauty and simplicity of wearing the hijab and the direction that it has given me in my life.” (Aziz, 28)

Samah Gamar, a Canadian Muslim woman, views hijab as a brave declaration of will against the commodification of women in western culture who have been made into “tools to sell beer and boost sales for the next football season” (Gamar, 7). Gamar explains that “Islam tells us that every woman is a jewel” (Gamar, 12), and then posits that showing off a thing a value immediately diminishes its worth, but is the same true for intelligence? Should people who possess intelligence be encouraged to keep it under wraps? Gamar has a point when she singles out physical beauty as something that women should not measure their worth by. However she disregards all the courageous women who eschew the glamorized vision of beauty that Kate Moss once represented for the much more potent and lasting charms of people like Rosie O’Donnell and Beth Ditto, who embrace their individual appearances in a very public way without degrading themselves as sex objects simply by being unveiled. Although I agree that Gamar and other women who choose hijab are brave for asserting their rebellion against objectification, I believe that they are going about it all wrong.

The issue of hijab comes down to two issues; choice and identity. As women, as people, we ultimately choose to express our religion and our ideals as we see fit. Some women choose hijab as an expression of identity, and I believe that they should have the freedom to do so. But I hope that in doing so they do not forget the identity that comes from the expressions of their face, the determination of their walk, and the unabashed celebration of their bodies that speak, write, and act on behalf their most priceless jewel of all: their mind. By unveiling, these strong women might command even more attention than they expected; not as sexual objects, but as free human beings with something valuable to offer the world around them.

Nikki Keddie & Jasmine Rostam-Kolayi, editors, “Women and Twentieth-Century Religious Politics,” Journal of Women’s History, Winter, 1999.

 Mernissi, Fatima (1991). The Veil and the Male Elite, A Feminist Interpretation of Women’s Rights in Islam. Wikipedia.com. 25 Jun. 2007. Wikipedia Foundation, Inc. 26 Jun. 2007 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur’an>.  

MSA-USC Compendium of Muslim Texts. University of Southern California. 26 Jun. 2007 <http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchquran.html>.  

Kerbaj, Richard. “Muslim leader blames women for sex attacks.” The Australian. 26 Oct. 2006. The Australian Newspaper Online. 26 Jun. 2007 <http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20646437-601,00.html>.

Sanati, Kimia. “IRAN: Dress Code Row – Another Ahmadinejad Failure.” IPSnews.net. 30 Apr. 2007. Inter Press Service News Agency. 26 Jun. 2007 <http://ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=37543>.           

Aziz, Shaista. “Viewpoint: Why I decided to wear the veil.” Bbc.co.uk. 17 Sep. 2003. British Broadcasting Corporation. 26 Jun. 2007. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3110368.stm>. 

Gamar, Samah “Veiled Threats.” Peak.sfu.ca. 9 Nov. 1998. peak publications society. 26 Jun. 2007. <http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/98-3/issue10/veiled.html>.

Advertainment and a Definition of Gender

The USA Network’s new television production, “The Starter Wife” blurs the increasingly faint line between entertainment and advertising by bringing the advertisers into the creative process at the beginning and writing the script to function primarily as an advertising vehicle for Pond’s facial care products. This dubious infiltration of the public consciousness is aimed primarily at women, using a script focused on issues important to women to suggest that Pond’s products could somehow play a crucial role in lives have been ravaged by divorce, helping women to “start over”. “The Starter Wife”, taken as a cultural text, accomplishes what it sets out to do; it redefines entertainment in order to reach into women’s homes and tap into their hopes and fears, while strategically placing their product into the storyline as a solution to life’s woes.  

A longstanding assumption in our culture is that “Entertainment is just for fun.” (Latterell 361) People have long been gathering in front of the television for that very purpose. Since its introduction to the American family home in the 1950’s, television has played a fundamental role in the cultural landscape. Every few years, the entire terrain of television changes as an innovative idea takes hold; in the 1970’s it was the game show that captivated the public consciousness, while 2000 saw the rise of reality television. Advertisers, always on the lookout for the most pervasive method to introduce their products, have tended to latch on to the latest trends as a forum for publicity. In the past, this has usually meant booking time during scheduled breaks in the entertainment in which to air commercials; however, as we can see with the introduction of “The Starter Wife” and its subtle message, this process may be changing. As advertising slyly escapes the bounds of the traditional commercial break, our assumptions about “entertainment” might need to be adjusted as well.

 “The Starter Wife” is not the first advertainment production. As Seth Stevenson reports in Slate Magazine, the movie “Gracie”, a TimeWarner film, was financed in large part by Gatorade, infusing the script with brand identity and product placement. (Stevenson) Furthermore, even the first Miss America pageant in 1921 was a promotional event held by hotel owners in Atlantic City, New Jersey as an attempt to draw tourism and show off their city. (Latterell 362) Entertainment has long been sponsored by profit-seeking entities looking to market their product or service to the spectators. The evolution towards advertainment is recent, and quite significant. It forces us to define entertainment. In order for a production to be “entertainment,” must it be a purely creative project without any mercenary purpose? Certainly there is gray area in such a widely applicable term, but many of us can agree that a production that is created for the sole reason of showcasing a product is missing the point of entertainment. As advertisers insert themselves into the creative process, we run the risk of gutting creativity and turning television programs into thinly veiled infomercials without anything resembling artistic merit.

Although the script of “The Starter Wife” is admittedly engaging in places, the pretense of art collapses in upon itself every time the heroine reaches for a tube of Pond’s. In actuality, the better the acting, production value, and dialogue, the more blurred the line between entertainment and advertising becomes. Even a normally critical viewer with the judgment to separate advertising from art might find themselves lulled into not noticing the product placement. The overall result is more seductive, which is why the medium is so effective.  A much more sinister consideration is the active targeting of women that “The Starter Wife” illustrates. Advertisers approach women by identifying their deepest fears and insecurities, and then offering an instant fix in the form of a product. In “The Starter Wife,” Pond’s advertisers created situations in the script that touched the raw nerve of self-esteem issues; namely fear of aging, sexuality, appearance, and relationship viability. (Taflinger) In each plot crisis, the heroine, played by a beautiful 40+ Debra Messing, reaches for a Pond’s product in order to arm herself and assuage her fears. During a dream sequence, a team of detectives interrogate the main character with a flashlight and call attention to “those bags” under her eyes. Immediately the scene cuts to Messing, awake and looking in the mirror, and vigorously applying a Pond’s product to her under-eye area. (Stevenson) Advertisers are altering the cultural landscape as they promulgate the idea that women have a societal mandate to be attractive, even in the midst of a divorce. Will the viewer look a little more closely at her under-eye area in the mirror long after the television is switched off? The advertisers are banking on it. 

Perhaps the most objectionable message “The Starter Wife is sending to women is that men and our relationships with them are the focus of our existence. Even our strong and lovely heroine, newly liberated from an inauthentic relationship, is repeatedly “rescued” by men throughout the pilot episode. In one scene, Molly is passed over for a table at an exclusive beachside restaurant until her husband’s rich and powerful male colleague takes her under his wing. Molly, grateful and worshipful, throws her head back and laughs at his command in order to impress the ladies who scorned and insulted her when she was denied a table. In another scene, Molly acts on her brave declaration to “try something new every day” and rows out into the waves. A large swell knocks her boat over and she slips under the water. Apparently she can’t swim, and it takes a handsome stranger to pull her to safety. 

One of the most telling segments is paraphrased as follows: 

Housekeeper: “Oh, Mrs. Kagan…” (hugs her tightly) “Will you be needing a housekeeper?” 

Molly: “I don’t know what I can afford until I know what the settlement will be.” 

Housekeeper: “Mrs. ____ got the household staff in her settlement!” 

Molly: “Mrs. ____ was sleeping with her lawyer.” 

Housekeeper: (Shrugs, as if to suggest that might be a viable option.) 

Molly: (frowning) “My lawyer is a woman.” Housekeeper and Molly grimace knowingly.           

Even at the start of the program, an animation rolls across the screen with three diamond engagement rings; small, medium, and large. A voiceover narrates in a whimsical tone, “A screenwriter’s wife (small), a director’s wife (medium), an executive producer’s wife (large).  Is this what Pond’s thinks of women? In 2007 a program is being produced that portrays women as wives of men, to be discarded, cheated on, or loved at the whim of the rich and benevolent husband? “The Starter Wife” is chock full of messages about womanhood that should concern a critical viewer; truly too many to mention. 

Advertising is a powerful medium that affects thousands of people daily. Advertisers, as much as any other group of people, have a responsibility to maintain a code of ethics. Numerous organizations exist as consumer watchdog agencies, government regulatory entities, as well as industry self-regulating bodies. But new forms of advertising require a fresh look at the codes that guide advertisers. Advertainment is a genre that allows products to be snuck into emotional segments of a plot that viewers might be too invested in to censor mentally. We cannot fully predict the consequences of such an understated medium on a culture already inundated with a constant barrage of ads. While many believe that we have learned to tune out these pleas for our time and money, the response to the latest form of guerilla advertising seems to suggest otherwise. Critics and viewers alike have bestowed upon “The Starter Wife” rave reviews. According to Multichannel News, 5.4 million viewers invited the program into their homes on May 31, an auspicious beginning for any television debut. (Reynolds) 

Whether the public will respond to this trend with their buying power is yet to be determined. If they can attract viewers and move product, advertisers will become still bolder in their approach. The quality of entertainment will suffer if we allow the creative process to be hijacked by corporations with an ulterior motive. When advertisers hold the creative power behind the programs we watch, they must portray us as weak, flawed, and missing something: their product. In this way, the values that define womanhood can be eroded by widespread messages such as the one that Pond’s has sent with “The Starter Wife”. Each of us, as consumers, has an incredible amount of power. We can vote with our remotes, and we can speak out against unethical advertising with our wallets. We have the power and the responsibility to insist upon quality entertainment and demand respect from the programming we allow into out lives. Ultimately, we dictate the cultural landscape we inhabit with the choices we make, and we owe it to our children to do so responsibly. 

Latterell, Catherine. Remix: Reading and Composing Culture. New York: Bedford/St. Martin, 2004.  

Stevenson, Seth. “How Pond’s infiltrated The Starter Wife writers’ room.” Slate May 2007: 11 Jun. 2007 < http://www.slate.com/id/2167188/>.  

Taflinger, Richard. “Me, Myself and I: Self-Esteem and Advertising.” Washington State University: Media and Communications Studies May 1996: 11 Jun. 2007 <http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~taflinge/esteem2.html>.  

Reynolds, Mike. “Good Ratings Start for USA’s The Starter Wife.” Multichannel News Jun 2007: 11 Jun. 2007 <http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6448814.html>.  

Anti-Malthusian for a Green Revolution

Thomas Malthus presented a theory of population growth in 1798 that draws attention and advocacy even today. Known as the Malthusian theory, it is based on two premises:

 

1.      Humans tend to produce prolifically, that is, geometrically — 2, 4, 8, 16, 32

2.      The capacity to produce food and fiber expands more slowly, that is, arithmetically — 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Thus the population will eventually exceed the food supply unless population growth is checked by society. If growth continues, surplus populations will be reduced by war, disease, and famine.

Source: Clawson, D., Johnson, D., Haarman, V., Johnson, M. (2007) World Regional Geography. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. (p.33) 

Neo-Malthusians promulgate doom-and-gloom predictions about population growth claiming that even though Malthus left quite a bit out of his theory, the population/production crises has not been averted, simply delayed. What did Malthus leave out, and why does it matter?

Malthus most likely anticipated that the general population would continue to reject birth control on moral grounds. He could not have anticipated the wide availability of convenient methods of controlling conception, as well as the secularization of culture which led to a growing disregard for Roman Catholic reproductive mores in developed nations. The current natural rate of increase in highly urbanized nations with industrialized economies (less than 1.0%) reflects this.

Click here for larger map. 

The United Nations Population Fund and the World Health Organization have partnered to create highly successful campaigns to provide access to family planning and education to large portions of the population, with an emphasis on less-developed nations. The years since the 1994 (and especially the 2004) caucuses have seen marked improvement in family planning policy in almost all countries.

China, which is home to nearly 20% of the world’s population, is slated to have a population of 1.376 billion by 2010. According to the China Population Information and Research Center, the birth rate has continued to drop steadily, from 1.40% to 1.24% from 2000 to 2003. Zhao Bingli, vice minister of the State Family Planning Commission, estimates that in the 30 years since family planning legislation has been introduced, exponential population growth has been averted, and 300 million births have been prevented.

From the Agricultural Revolution that began 10,000 years ago in rural villages that allowed people to start to specialize their occupations instead of simply living hand to mouth and producing all their own food for their family unit, to the Industrial Revolution in the mid 18^th century that allowed large quantities of goods to be produced in factories, rather than by hand, human advancement has a way of catching up with population growth in previously unimagined capacities. We are currently in the midst of an Information Revolution. What could this mean for population? Many are concerned about job migration; tech companies are outsourcing skilled jobs to developing nations. In addition, labor investment is shrinking as jobs are automated. This serves a purpose that societies need for advancement. When people are left with extra time once taken up by consuming tasks, cultural advancements occur which in some cases go on to become full-fledged revolutions.

Revolutions are organic movements, usually spurred by innovative technology development (domestication of plow animals, printing press, steam engine, the internet). There cannot be a call to revolution per say, at least there has not been a historical example of this that I am aware of. But if there could be a call and response for a new revolution, what should it be? I think what we need next is a Green Revolution. What scientific or technological advances would make it possible for us to inhabit the earth without doing so much damage that we cannot remain here?

Malthusian theory is outdated and inapplicable. The revolutions that have taken place since humans have inhabited the earth have kept up with population growth. Population growth is steady to negative in most developed nations. Furthermore, steps are being taken to curb growth in underdeveloped areas. As medical care reaches depressed regions and slows the death rate, birth control and education are also reaching populations and curbing birth rate. Urbanization also contributes to population rate deceleration; rural families view children as an asset to help with farming and ranching, while larger families are a financial burden on city dwellers who tend to give birth to fewer children on average. In 2007 the world’s population crossed the threshold to become more than 50% city dwelling. This trend continues as cities utilize technology to be able to provide food, housing, and social services to a larger and larger population while the birth rate in these urban areas shrinks at a respectable rate.

With a Green Revolution we stand a very strong chance of applying our growing technical knowledge to advances that will allow for moderate population growth with less impact on nature than ever before. We must continue efforts to curb rapid growth in developing nations, but we must also look to the future with an eye towards less impact on our environment.

The Costs of Staying Home

According to author and Ph.D. Linda Hirshman, there has been a 15% increase in stay-at-home mothering in the last ten years. You might think that this statistic refers to low earning, less educated women working in entry-level positions, and you would be wrong. Hirshman ran a study using the couples who posted New York Times wedding announcements in 1996, the high-powered, Ivy League educated couples who have careers primarily in law, medicine, and academia. 85% of the wives were at home either half time or full time. Alternet.com also reports that “Half of the wealthiest, most-privileged, best-educated females in the country stay home with their babies rather than work in the market economy.” Montana.edu reported that 2003’s graduating class at Berkeley Law was 63% female. Women at Harvard Law were 46% of the graduating class in 2003, while Columbia Law graduated nearly 51%. So, women are being increasingly educated for success, and yet women comprise only 16% of law firm partners according to the American Bar Association. Similarly, women make up roughly 50% of undergraduate business majors nationwide, and yet only 16% of top level executives are female (only 10.6 percent of Wall Street’s corporate officers are women, and a mere nine are Fortune 500 CEOs). Where are these mid-career females? Do these headlines shock anyone besides me?

Should mothers work? The debate is hardly a new one. In 1900, only 5.3 million women were employed. Compare that to 18.4 million in 1950, and 63 million in 1997. The 1980s in particular saw droves of non-feminist working mothers entering the workforce, many unprepared by education or experience, compelled largely by divorce to take on the role of breadwinner for their young families. The 1980s brought us the term “latchkey children”, along with a marked rise in district funded after-school programs. Throughout the 80s and 90s, popular culture contrasted the warm, maternal stay at home mom with the cold, modern careerist. Mothers suffered from a collective guilt as the child psychologists advised them to take time off to raise their young children. Dr. James Dobson of radical right wing Christian organization Focus on the Family says of Linda Hirshman and her fellow supporters of working motherhood, “Most of these (radical feminist) writers…had never been married,” Dobson said. “They didn’t like children and deeply resented men.” This seemed to be a running diatribe from the mouths of televangelists and radio preachers. Do working mothers hate men and love their children less that their stay-at-home counterparts? It seems hardly likely. And yet, for those with the luxury of choice, how was a loving mother to choose her path?

The point that is clear to almost all critical observers of culture is that stay-at-home mothers are not sitting on the couch with their feet up watching soap operas and eating bonbons. It’s a hard job that requires a level of patience deserving of notice. Women who choose to stay at home are sacrificing their careers and daily intelligent adult interaction, not to mention the salaries they could have commanded. As Betty Friedan states in The Feminine Mystique, “Vacuuming the living room floor, with or without makeup, is not work that takes enough thought or energy to challenge any woman’s full capacity.” It’s hard work, without question. But it isn’t the kind of intellectually stimulating work that women have won the right to be hired for, in a capacity where they deal with powerful adults every day. It’s meant to be an unselfish choice. But what are the consequences of leaving the workforce for one, five, ten years or even permanently? What valuable minds are we losing in the intellectual community when women ages 20-50 are at home raising children?

“These are the women that would have gone into the jobs that run our world. These were the women who would eventually have become senators, governors. These women would have been in the pipeline to be CEOs of Fortune 500 companies,” explains Hirshman to CBS News. So who are our senators, governors, lawyers, doctors, professors? In large part, these positions are filled full time by loving parents; fathers. The majority of college men questioned in a sexual politics class at a top university responded that they will expect their female partners to take responsibility for childrearing. Maybe the question we should be asking is why? How is it that fathers can be fully loving parents while also working full time in the workplace? And how is it that gender roles haven’t changed as much as we think they have?

According to Linda Hirshman, “The family — with its repetitious, socially invisible, physical tasks — is a necessary part of life, but it allows fewer opportunities for full human flourishing than public spheres like the market or the government. This less-flourishing sphere is not the natural or moral responsibility only of women. Therefore, assigning it to women is unjust. Women assigning it to themselves is equally unjust.” But is choice really the point here? As Mark Twain once said, “A man who chooses not to read is just as ignorant as a man who cannot read.”

I think that it is an unquestionable guiding principle of our society that children should be loved and nurtured, and raised with the utmost care. Fathers have shown for centuries that a parent can love a child and care for them while still working outside the home. Should one parent stay home? That is an interesting question that can only be answered by both men and women…and if the answer is yes, then the role should be shared equally if we are ever to have true equality among the sexes along with a diverse, thriving intellectual and professional community.

Gay marriage…not edgy enough for queers?

Today is the three year anniversary for the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts which is, in my opinion, a massive victory for all Americans. I don’t expect everyone to feel that way. In fact, the vast majority of Middle America takes issue with gay marriage, and its legalization. No big surprise there. What I didn’t expect is for gays to have a problem with the legalization of gay marriage. That’s a shocker. This afternoon National Public Radio reported on Day to Day that some gays see marriage as a too-conventional institution that erodes the counter-culture that gay identity was founded on.

What is marriage, anyway? That’s a question that is seldom answered. Marriage predates recorded history, and almost every culture has a form of marriage that exists as a socially or legally recognized bond that sanctions a sexual relationship between two (or more) people. Polygamy, polygyny, and polyandry have been present in many cultures throughout history. Africa leads the continents with the most incidences of modern polygamy, while China only outlawed it in 1953. Many cultures have placed restrictions on who one cannot marry, known as exogamy. For example, in the Brahmin caste in India, it was prohibited to marry someone of the same gotra (a clan assigned to a Hindu at birth) because of the possibility of the same patrilineal line, and in most cultures it is not acceptable to marry one’s first cousin. South Korea prohibits marriage between two persons with the same surname.

Endogamy (marriage within a specific tribe or ethnicity) has been a staple of racist lawmaking for centuries. Nazi Germany is a modern example; Jews were to marry Jews, and non-Jews were to marry non-Jews. Keine Ausnahmen, no exceptions. Apartheid-era South Africa legislated endogamy as well. In most cultures, only fully recognized citizens were allowed to marry legally. Serfs and slaves formed unions, but they were not binding. In the United States we didn’t allow our slaves to marry legally, even within their own race. (Slave owners often tolerated slave weddings, which some of them defiled by raping the bride.) Embarrassingly, we didn’t even allow blacks and whites to marry each other until those laws were repealed between 1940 and the 1960s, ending with Loving v. Virginia in 1967.  

So this is the blighted history of a revered institution. We know that marriage is not, as the traditionalists claim, meant to be formed between one man and one woman. It is much more complicated than that, with polygamy being the frontrunner for the “most traditional form of marriage” prize. We also know that marriage was the province of people who are considered to have the rights of emancipated citizens. (Let us keep this about people who are emancipated; eighteen years of age and older.) I can understand why some gays would say “no, thank you” to such a questionable institution. But supporters of gay marriage have a very valid concern that few gays would argue. Gays are humans with human rights. American gays are citizens with all of the rights that citizens are afforded. So citizens should be allowed to marry who they like. Let’s not be demure and pretend that “traditional marriage” means marriage between a man and a woman, because history simply does not bear this out. Marriage is a union between one or more people of varying sexes. Everyone should get to enter into this contract if they desire it. And if they think it’s too conventional, they certainly don’t have to get married; but the right should be there.  

The argument against gay marriage (by gays) is that it dilutes the edginess of the culture. The refrain is now, “I’m not plain, boring old gay; now I’m queer.” Some gays don’t want to be associated with the mortgage-paying, barbeque-giving, suburbanite nuclear family image. They want to be counter culture, with the underground art movements and passionate protests of an oppressed community. But is this a reason to take marriage rights away from the more “conventional” gay counterparts? Is it worth that kind of step back?