|
submit
articles |
| Underlying Reasons for Women's
Oppression Zahra Seif-Amirhosseini The notion that the differences between the
sexes is inherent in their natures and determined by their biological
differences which in turn leads to psychological differences have been
used both in the East and the West to justify the social inequalities of
women. Biological determinism and the emotion/reason dichotomy is not
specifically Islamic and in parts is in fact contradictory to the
teachings of the Qur'an. The biological differences or
"inadequacies" of female biology is used to negate her
spirituality and relationship to her Creator. It is highly probable that
the rational of male/female differences, if not the rights themselves are
heavily influenced by Greek philosophy, particularly the works of
Aristotle and Plato, which have been present in the curriculum of our
religious schools from the early formative years. In Islam, nature (including human nature)
is divinely ascribed. The argument that is often used is that the female
is more emotional, less rational and therefore subservient to the rational
and logical male. The question of human culture and history mediating
concepts and normative rules of behavior as "natural" or
"unnatural" is hence dismissed. In the Qur'an there are no
direct references to the differences in male and female nature. The
arguments which emphasise differences between the male and the female as
justification of female subordination are based on secondary
interpretations of the Qur'anic verses. The Qur'an itself is both timeless
and a-historic, but the same cannot be said of its interpretations. In
this respect cultural influences in defining human nature become relevant
and deciding factor. The normative force of natural behavior
cannot, and should not, be ignored. The concept of unnatural behavior
throughout the history of humankind has been used to justify and
legitimize various forms of social oppression. An example of this is the
way in which belief about the nature of women has been used to justify
their social standing. In the history of philosophy the notion of human
nature has often been a normative one: being fully human is seen as a goal
to be achieved. Concepts of "human-ness" have often been linked
to a series of characteristics that are essentially masculine. These characteristics differentiate human
beings from other animals and men from women. The most defining character
of the human being is rationality, by denying women any sense of reason is
to exclude them from humanity. Islam does not do this, in fact, the
egalitarian message of Islam does not differentiate between the nature of
the sexes: "Oh mankind! Reverence your Guardian - Lord who created you from a single person and created of like nature his mate!!..." (Sûrah IV verse I) To deny any sense of human nature is of
course absurd. We cannot however treat nature as completely given without
any understanding of normative forces and the socialization process, which
are essentially both historic and cultural. Many accounts of human nature
have appealed directly to biology and it becomes problematic to
distinguish between natural behavior and social behavior, as the human
being is a social being. An important task is to be able to construct an
adequate theory of human nature while at the same time rejecting
biological determinism. To take into consideration various
interpretations of human nature one cannot ignore that these concepts are
heavily gendered. Firstly, ideals of human potentiality have often been
viewed in terms of masculine characteristics, in the sense that they
exclude those qualities termed as feminine. Hence, women are seen as
incapable of excellence and self-realization, they are merely viewed as
extensions to the male. Secondly, some theories of human nature
have suggested that the constraints operating on human nature are
different and that these constraints account for both differences in
social roles and psychological characteristics of the sexes. Finally, in
the hierarchy of human nature, while the masculine characteristics are at
the highest scale, female characteristics are at the lowest. Most ethical evaluation of human nature in
Western philosophy have inherent within them a dualism which reflects in
some way or another, the dualism of good and evil. This dualism is
hierarchical. In this hierarchy, good is assumed to be an absolute and
eternal objective existence it is thought to exist in a way that is not
reachable through ordinary sense experience. Because of this it is
concluded that the good can be known only through the conceptualizing part
of the person (usually called the mind), not by feeling or emotional part
of the person (usually called the body). This connection between the notions of good
as objective and universal, and the notion of the superiority of the mind
over the body, is an important one, for the following reasons:- Since 'good' is conceived of as an ethical
or moral good, one should know 'good' in order to act in accordance with
it. By what means is this objective and universal good to be known? Our
everyday awareness is of things which change, develop and die. Good,
however is unchanging, objective and universal hence these ordinary
perceptions and feelings cannot be relied upon to provide us with a
knowledge of good. Conceptual relationships, on the other
hand, as these relationships appear in mathematics and logic seem to be
permanent and unchanging. For example two plus two equals four seems to be
permanent, which no amount of experience can ever change. Thus, if good is
the unchanging and permanent it can only be known by means of these
unchanging and permanent conceptual relationships. The conceptualizing
part of the person is called the mind and operates in terms of
rationality, the feeling, emotional, perceiving part of the person is
considered the body. In this framework the mind and the body
become essentially separated, for they serve separate functions. These
functions placed within the dualistic framework come to be expressed in
terms of a relationship of superiority and inferiority. Only the mind can
know goodness, the body is irrelevant to goodness or detracts from it. The
mind should thus control the body. In this dualistic framework, human
beings have a dual nature, their rationality (mind) is closer to good and
their animality (body) is closer to evil. People are judged in accordance
to the degree of rationality manifest within them Women are denied
rationality as they are said to be "not fully in control of
themselves." In this hierarchy, man (male) stands closer to good than
the rest of nature, as a result of his rationality. Woman stands closer to evil, her behavior
is unfree and determined to the extent that she acts out of a sense of
emotion, she is identified with the body. Since that which is good should
control that which is evil, it follows that man should control and
regulate women. In the same way as the mind should control the body. We have come to inherit this dualistic
framework although it is contradictory to Quranic teachings as a means of
justification for the oppression of women. The Qur'an does not support a
specific stereotype role for its characters, male or female. Many popular
and dominant ideas about the role of women do not have sanctions from the
Qur’an, pointing these out, causes problems not so much with the logical
analysis of the texts, but within the application of these ideas in the
context in which Muslim societies operate. There is no inherent value placed on man
and woman, there is no arbitrary preordained and eternal system of
hierarchy. The Qur'an does not strictly delineate the role of women and
the role of men to such an extent as to propose only a single possible
outcome for each gender. From a Quranic perspective the difference
between the sexes is not reducible to anatomy or biology, but in terms of
a microcosmic reflection of a higher reality. The view of male and female
differences, in terms of a dualism, is not Islamic. Islam provides the
framework for a polarity which is not hierarchical, but based on mutual
fulfillment. Female nature within this perspective is held at a high value
and as necessary and integral to the nature of man. The relationship
between the sexes is not hierarchical but rather mutually interdependent.
It is through the unity of these two aspects that one attains inner
contentment. Nowadays, Muslim apologists also bring forth all sorts of sociological consideration with a view to answering certain western inspired objections. Answers to the questions that are about gender relations can only be answered through the deeper reason that the intellectual Islamic tradition addresses. |