Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Derrida and Ethnocentrism

From looking at Derrida's Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of Human Sciences, we can see
similarities between both the theories of Derrida and Lacan (discussed in my previous post). They both argue that the signifier and the signified, totality and transcendental meaning, is always the metonymic play of figurative language. This includes metonymic desire specifically, even if we cannot pinpoint the exact center of that desire, Derrida argues that it is usually focused on discovering/defining Being as presence. Another similarity between the two theorists is that they think we understand ourselves through others, by what we are not, and this could be looked at as a violent action in many ways because we are loading signifieds onto signifiers in different cultures, species, genders, etc...in ways that may not be accurate  from a different viewpoint. It may actually be very prejudice the way in which we put meaning on things to differentiate ourselves from them.

In his article, Derrida says that ethnology "comes about within the element of discourse...the ethnologist accepts into his discourse the premises of ethnocentrism at the very moment when he denounces them." Derrida argues that in order to deconstruct something, one must integrate and borrow  from the heritage of the very thing that is being critiqued. What I want to look into here is the concept of ethnocentrism which dictionary.com gives two different definitions for: 1) the belief in the inherent superiority of one's own ethnic group or culture and 2) a tendency to view alien groups or cultures from the perspective of one's own. I think that today, a lot of people would like to either deny or ignore the fact that they, whether they realize it or not, practice this more often than they would like. In the United States it seems that we are at a time when more often than not, people are pushing for equality and reduction of prejudice and stereotypes, yet so much of it still goes on. I think a big part of this has to do with that fact that many people are looking at the world and at others through their own perspective or the perspective of their own culture. You may ask, well how else could anyone look at something if not from their own perspective? Education is the key here, if you don't understand a signifier that belongs to a different culture, if you haven't tried to understand the viewpoint of someone from that different culture, then it really isn't fair to judge.

This brings me to what I learned about the hijab and the abaya on my trip to Abu Dhabi, Dubai, and Sharjah for a Conference on Women as Global Leaders. This topic was actually brought to my attention even before I went on this trip from this blog post by my professor on ninja women in Iran and Saussure’s theory of the linguistic sign. He explains my point perfectly when he says that "In European and American culture, the sign of the veil is typically understood as a symbol of Islam’s oppression of women. In this sense, the veil and headscarf is understood by the West as a sign of difference –how they are different from us. Many connotations are attached to this one symbol, and it is somewhat famously controversial, but the strongest connotation for Europeans and Americans is oppression." I personally, even if I didn't mean to, tended to view the hijab in the same way that most Americans do. I am so glad now that I traveled to the United Arab Emirates and was actually able to talk to and make friends with real women from the UAE that wear the headscarf and the abaya.

Although some women may not like to wear the hijab, my friends told me that they do not have to, although I would imagine there would still be pressure from the culture and families to do so. But all of the intelligent and strong women that I actually spoke with said they liked to wear the hijab and that it is not only an important part of their Muslim culture, but a very important part of their religious Islamic beliefs. Men that also follow their religious beliefs too wear their traditional clothing which includes the thawb (much like a long white robe) and a headscarf.

American and European culture tend to view the hijab as a sign of oppression only because it is not how they themselves choose to dress, and this is a form of ethnocentrism. And although many women of the Arab world do suffer oppression from the governments of certain countries (for example, in Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive or travel without a male escort) this really has nothing to do with their religious decision to wear the hijab. And since no one can or has discovered the center or truth of relgion, who is to say what religion is wrong or right or what people are wrong for following what they believe in. Women in the UAE make up more than 60% of college graduates and, after visiting and learning from women of the region, most do not feel nearly as oppressed or inferior in their culture as Americans and Europeans naively believe.

See the below videos if you would like to learn more about how actual women who wear the hijab view it:


5 comments:

  1. I thought the videos you posted and what you said about Muslim women was interesting-I had never thought of the hijab as a choice. It just goes to show that whether we like or not we ARE ethnocentric. Therefore, it's our job to at least be aware of this tendency and to try to reform it by being more accepting/exploring other cultures.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think you make some excellent points in this post, but I just have one question: In it you focus on ethnocentrism and seem to say that Derrida and Lacan are both making the same exact argument. Isn't the ultimate conclusion that Lacan ends up coming to pretty different from Derrida's, even though they do indeed come close?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I mostly am just going off of Derrida's argument here and how both he and Lacan talk about defining ourselves by looking to others and identifying what we are not. Then I relate this to how Americans and Europeans do that with Muslim women. That's how I am relating them, but Lacan's final argument is indeed different from Derrida's. I just focused on the part that was the same.

      Delete
  3. I agree with the comments above mine—you make many good points about the hijab being a choice. I also agree that many times people make ethnocentric assumptions without even realizing they are doing so. Education would be a wonderful way to try and combat these typical assumptions. You also show the importance of perspective when one views a 'signifier' and the effect this has on how it is interpreted.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I never realized that the hijab was a choice, I was under the impression that it was mandatory for their culture. You did an excellent job with this blog. Very good job expressing Derrida.

    ReplyDelete