FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1971570069> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1971570069 endingPage "119" @default.
• W1971570069 startingPage "93" @default.
• W1971570069 abstract "The Newly Veiled Woman: Irigaray, Specularity, and the Islamic Veil Anne-Emmanuelle Berger (bio) In 1995, in a piece published in a special issue of Les temps modernes devoted to the Algerian “Guerre des frères,” the late Monique Gadant, a sociologist of postcolonial Algeria, called for a dispassionate reflection on the reasons why a sizable number of Algerian women, in Algeria but also in France, decided to wear the hijab, or “Islamic veil,” without, she said, being coerced into doing it. Warning against a naive French ethnocentrism which may have led people to mistake the hijab too quickly for a sign of women’s oppression, she wrote: C’est s’aveugler que de ne pas voir qu’il y a de très nombreuses femmes qui portent le hidjab sans y être forcées par personne. . . . Avant de se dresser contre le hidjab, réduit à un symbole d’oppression (les femmes qui le portent étant jugées en contradiction avec ce qui est censé être leurs intérêts et la vérité sur elles-mêmes dites par d’autres), on devrait prendre un peu de temps pour réfléchir aux motivations de ces femmes. [”Femmes alibi” 228] [One would be blind not to see that numerous women are wearing the hijab without being forced to do it by anybody. . . . Before denouncing the hijab, reductively conceived as a symbol of oppression—the women wearing it being found to contradict what are supposed to be their interests and the truth about themselves as told by others—one should take some time to reflect on these women’s motivation.] Indeed, a growing number of women have adopted the hijab in the past decade, in Muslim or predominantly Muslim countries where the “Islamic veil” has not yet been made state law, as is the case in Iran. One thinks of Egypt or Indonesia, for instance, as two other examples where—against weak attempts by the governments in place to curb the powerful development of Islamism, after they helped foster it—the hijab has enjoyed considerable though unequal success. One should not underestimate coercion as a factor, especially within the last few years, when terrorism directed against civilians in Algeria and ever-growing intimidation stemming from Islamism’s social success in Egypt have undeniably led tens of thousands of scared, weary, or energetically “persuaded” women to wear the veil. Nonetheless, I want to take up Monique Gadant’s suggestion that we seriously try to think through at least some of the stakes of the phenomenon she identifies: an impressive number of women today affirm that they want to wear the hijab, and they do it. This raises at least two series of questions: (1) if the hijab fulfills a wish, rather than indicating a state of oppression or alienation, one has to reflect on the nature and structure of this wish or desire, and perhaps ask what the relation might be between desire and the veil, or rather this veil. For the hijab, as it is called in Arabic, is indeed a new kind of veil, or rather a new way of using an old Koranic precept, one intended to replace traditional modes of dressing and veiling. (2) If the hijab, and sometimes even the nikab and the jelbab, which cover women’s faces and bodies entirely, are willingly worn, should one [End Page 93] take this as a particularly blatant testimony to the radical relativity of cultures, which would in turn preclude any “Westerner” or non-Muslim individuals or groups, beginning with women, from making any assumptions concerning the condition of women or the hermeneutics of gender relations across cultures? This is indeed what Gadant hints at when she denounces the “naive [French] ethnocentrism” [228] at work in the negative response to the hijab. 1 One encounters here, as we know, a most divisive, philosophically crucial, and politically decisive issue, one that not only pitches non-Westerners against Westerners, but sometimes equally forcefully, as in this case, “Westerners” against “Westerners.” Ethnocentrism, as a tendency to (mis)understand a different culture in terms of one’s own, hence as a veiled form of cultural imperialism, should be uncovered and indeed denounced..." @default.
• W1971570069 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1971570069 creator A5011478891 @default.
• W1971570069 date "1998-01-01" @default.
• W1971570069 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W1971570069 title "The Newly Veiled Woman: Irigaray, Specularity, and the Islamic Veil" @default.
• W1971570069 cites W1483414133 @default.
• W1971570069 cites W1525470820 @default.
• W1971570069 cites W1554411713 @default.
• W1971570069 cites W1583664752 @default.
• W1971570069 cites W1590850396 @default.
• W1971570069 cites W1603116206 @default.
• W1971570069 cites W2025184223 @default.
• W1971570069 cites W2066313831 @default.
• W1971570069 cites W2075393068 @default.
• W1971570069 cites W2101513886 @default.
• W1971570069 cites W2329422585 @default.
• W1971570069 cites W584465750 @default.
• W1971570069 cites W594381061 @default.
• W1971570069 cites W614254507 @default.
• W1971570069 cites W63583323 @default.
• W1971570069 cites W647966008 @default.
• W1971570069 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/dia.1998.0001" @default.
• W1971570069 hasPublicationYear "1998" @default.
• W1971570069 type Work @default.
• W1971570069 sameAs 1971570069 @default.
• W1971570069 citedByCount "55" @default.
• W1971570069 countsByYear W19715700692012 @default.
• W1971570069 countsByYear W19715700692013 @default.
• W1971570069 countsByYear W19715700692014 @default.
• W1971570069 countsByYear W19715700692015 @default.
• W1971570069 countsByYear W19715700692016 @default.
• W1971570069 countsByYear W19715700692017 @default.
• W1971570069 countsByYear W19715700692019 @default.
• W1971570069 countsByYear W19715700692020 @default.
• W1971570069 countsByYear W19715700692021 @default.
• W1971570069 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1971570069 hasAuthorship W1971570069A5011478891 @default.
• W1971570069 hasConcept C107993555 @default.
• W1971570069 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W1971570069 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W1971570069 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1971570069 hasConcept C15708023 @default.
• W1971570069 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1971570069 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1971570069 hasConcept C24667770 @default.
• W1971570069 hasConcept C2549261 @default.
• W1971570069 hasConcept C2776526686 @default.
• W1971570069 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W1971570069 hasConceptScore W1971570069C107993555 @default.
• W1971570069 hasConceptScore W1971570069C138885662 @default.
• W1971570069 hasConceptScore W1971570069C142362112 @default.
• W1971570069 hasConceptScore W1971570069C144024400 @default.
• W1971570069 hasConceptScore W1971570069C15708023 @default.
• W1971570069 hasConceptScore W1971570069C17744445 @default.
• W1971570069 hasConceptScore W1971570069C199539241 @default.
• W1971570069 hasConceptScore W1971570069C24667770 @default.
• W1971570069 hasConceptScore W1971570069C2549261 @default.
• W1971570069 hasConceptScore W1971570069C2776526686 @default.
• W1971570069 hasConceptScore W1971570069C94625758 @default.
• W1971570069 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W1971570069 hasLocation W19715700691 @default.
• W1971570069 hasOpenAccess W1971570069 @default.
• W1971570069 hasPrimaryLocation W19715700691 @default.
• W1971570069 hasRelatedWork W1994516721 @default.
• W1971570069 hasRelatedWork W2110572870 @default.
• W1971570069 hasRelatedWork W2148742359 @default.
• W1971570069 hasRelatedWork W2335794077 @default.
• W1971570069 hasRelatedWork W2552382703 @default.
• W1971570069 hasRelatedWork W3027011768 @default.
• W1971570069 hasRelatedWork W4251609694 @default.
• W1971570069 hasRelatedWork W4252911023 @default.
• W1971570069 hasRelatedWork W4282823060 @default.
• W1971570069 hasRelatedWork W2510352135 @default.
• W1971570069 hasVolume "28" @default.
• W1971570069 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1971570069 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1971570069 magId "1971570069" @default.
• W1971570069 workType "article" @default.