Women
and Gender in Middle East Studies: Trends, Prospects & Challenges
Simona Sharoni
In the past two decades, there has been growing interest
in the study of women and gender issues in the Middle East, reflected
in the greater number of books, journal articles, dissertations and
conference panels devoted to such topics.1 As a
result, many scholars in Middle East studies have come to view the
study of women and gender in the Middle East as a field in and of
itself.2 Elizabeth Fernea's 1986 presidential address
to the Middle East Studies Association (MESA) is considered a milestone
in the evolution of Middle East women's studies as a distinct field
of inquiry.3 Marking the occasion of MESA's 20th
anniversary as well as the founding meeting of the Association of
Middle Eastern Women's Studies (AMEWS), Fernea gave an optimistic
account of the contribution of women's studies to all areas of Middle
East studies. She concluded that women's studies, like Middle East
studies, has come of age as a field. It has not only carried us, as
ethnocentric Westerners, into previously unexplored areas of the world
which we thought we knew, but it has also opened new areas of inquiry
for ourselves and our students.4
Critics, however, have argued that the greater visibility of scholarship
on women and gender issues in the Middle East does not necessarily
signify a conclusive triumph nor a qualitative transformation in
gender awareness within the field. In 1988, less than two years
after Fernea's address, the MESA Bulletin published an article
by Margot Badran that offered a more cautious review of the emerging
field of Middle East women's studies and critically examined the
potential for, and obstacles to, its institutionalization.5
Badran challenged the widely held view that Middle East women's
studies emerged as a distinct field only in the late 1970s with
the publication of Elizabeth Fernea and Basima Bezirgan's Middle
Eastern Muslim Women Speak and Lois Beck and Nikki Keddie's
Women in the Muslim World.6 In contrast,
she pointed out that "a generation earlier, foreshadowing the creation
of the new field, Zahiyya Dughan, a Lebanese delegate to the Arab
Women's Conference in Cairo in 1944, called upon Arab universities
to accord the intellectual and literary heritage of Arab women a
place in the curriculum by creating chairs for the study of women's
writing."7
In addition to placing the development of Middle East women's studies
in the Western academy in the broader context of Arab women's scholarship
and activism, Badran's article assessed the representation of women's
studies and gender issues at MESA conferences. She pointed out that
the first papers on women and gender issues at MESA--12 papers and
two panels--were delivered in 1973 and that, following a slight
increase in 1974, the number of panels stayed the same in 1975.
Despite this fairly impressive beginning, Badran described a "slump
period from 1976 through 1983 when the number of papers diminished."8
In 1984, however, there was a dramatic increase in papers on women
and gender issues (37), yet the number dropped to 19 in 1985. Badran
used these numbers to illustrate her more cautious argument about
the persistent challenges facing scholars working in this field.
She concluded that "the study of women remains marginal within Middle
East studies, while women's studies still remain largely centered
on the West."9
Given these contrasting views, it is helpful to examine what has
changed in the representation of women and gender issues in Middle
East studies over the past decade as documented in MESA conference
programs, membership directories and graduate and undergraduate
course listings. As the table below demonstrates, whereas the number
of panels devoted solely to women and/or gender issues has not changed
dramatically in the past decade, there has been a slight increase
in the percentage.10 Perhaps the most interesting
trend highlighted in the table involves the increase in the number
of women and gender papers on non-gender panels. This number has
steadily grown in the past decade from four papers in 1986 to 28
in 1997, indicating an increase in the overall representation of
women and gender issues on the conference program. This accomplishment
reflects a conscious attempt by scholars to present their work on
general panels in order "to have gender issues become a fully integrated
part of academic inquiry."11 Indeed, there has
been a noticeable increase in the number of scholars who included
women and/or gender issues in their research interests. In the 1996
MESA directory, for example, 381 members mentioned these issues,
compared to 150 in 1992 and only 79 in 1986.12
These numbers lend some support to the optimistic claim that women
and gender issues are moving closer to the center of the research
and teaching agenda in Middle East studies. But if this is indeed
the case, one would also expect to find a large number of course
offerings on women and gender issues in the Middle East. Yet, the
1995-1996 MESA Directory of Graduate and Undergraduate Programs
and Courses lists only 46 courses with women and or gender issues
in the title offered in North American institutions and four in
other parts of the world. In other words, the vast majority of the
full-time faculty who listed women and gender issues as one of their
research interests do not teach a course on these issues. It is
possible, however, that many have integrated these issues into other
courses on the region, and that additional courses on these issues
are occasionally taught under the category of "special topics."
Nevertheless, the overall picture suggests that the project of integrating
women and gender issues into the Middle East studies curriculum
is far from complete.
This problem may be related to the challenges facing Middle East
studies more generally due to its interdisciplinary nature. Despite
the lip-service paid to interdisciplinary scholarship and teaching,
curriculum changes occur primarily at the departmental level. Thus,
scholars who teach in institutions without Middle East studies programs
encounter the double challenge of developing and teaching Middle
East courses as well as pushing for the integration of women and
gender issues into their discipline's curriculum. Some disciplines
are more hospitable to the integration of women and gender issues
into their undergraduate and graduate curricula than others. Topping
the list of home disciplines for those scholars who declared women
and gender studies among their research interests are anthropology
with 74 scholars, history with 72, political science with 35, literature
with 32, sociology with 30, Middle East/Near East studies with 21
and women's studies with 20 scholars.
Badran concluded her 1988 article with the recommendation "to
accelerate the institutionalization of Middle East women's studies
within the context of Middle East studies."13
Yet the efforts of the past two decades have not transformed curricula.
Since there are many more scholars interested in these issues today
compared to a decade ago, we should step up our efforts to integrate
women and gender studies into the curricula both within our home
departments and in interdisciplinary programs, such as women's studies,
cultural studies and general education. Whenever possible these
efforts should be related to existing university initiatives designed
to diversify and internationalize the curriculum.
One cannot overemphasize the importance of cultivating the relationship
between scholars interested in women and gender studies in the Middle
East and women and gender studies programs in general. On a pragmatic
level, in addition to being natural allies in struggles concerning
curriculum transformation, women's studies programs have served
as support systems for scholars working on women and gender issues
in the Middle East and have been indispensable in several tenure
battles of feminist scholars. On a theoretical level, it is imperative
that we keep up with debates within feminist theory as well as with
the expansive body of literature on women and gender studies in
other parts of the world. On a political level, we should take advantage
of the relative space that exists in most women's studies programs
to raise critical and provocative questions concerning such issues
as the representation of non-Western women and the cultural origins
of certain gender practices. Since media representations of women
and gender practices in the Middle East tend to be sensationalist
and stereotypical, it is our task to counter these simplistic portrayals
with more nuanced images and sophisticated analyses.
Similar initiatives are necessary within the field of Middle East
studies. Scholars who write on women and gender issues have been
at the forefront of theoretical, methodological and political debates
in the field and it is important that we not only continue to participate
in these discussions but also that we play a more active role in
defining the terms of such debates. This implies moving beyond the
"add women and stir" approach to an emphasis on gender analysis
as a way to unravel structured inequalities, power asymmetries and
patterns of inclusion and exclusion. This agenda would transform
the field of Middle East studies so that women and gender issues
become central rather than marginal. Toward this end, we must make
explicit the gendered nature of the field and its theoretical, methodological
and political underpinnings. On a more pragmatic level this project
implies asking such questions as why only two women have been chosen
since 1986 to be MESA's Annual Meeting Visiting Scholars and why
the 1993 MESA conference was the only time in the past decade that
women and gender issues were featured on special plenary sessions.14
These questions are not designed to spoil the celebration of the
important gains we have made in a relatively short time but rather
to point out that critical issues concerning the integration of
women and gender studies within Middle East studies remain. To overcome
the challenges facing us we must explore new ways to make Middle
East studies more hospitable to feminist and gender analysis and
to make our scholarship more relevant to the daily struggles of
ordinary women and men in the Middle East.
Simona Sharoni, assistant
professor of peace and conflict resolution at American University,
is author of Gender and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: The
Politics of Women's Resistance (Syracuse: Syracuse University
Press, 1995). The author wishes to thank her research assistant, Nobue
Onishi, for her invaluable contribution to this project and Steve
Niva for his useful comments and careful editing.
Endnotes
1 A library search using "women," "gender" and
"Middle East" as key words shows that almost 100 books and over 275
journal articles, including book reviews, have been published on these
topics in the past decade. This number includes only English language
publication and does not include contributions to edited volumes,
dealing either with the Middle East or with women and gender issues
in other parts of the world. Another interesting trend involves the
growing number of doctoral dissertations on the topic.
2 See for example Beth Baron, "A Field Matures:
Recent Literature on Women in the Middle East," Middle Eastern
Studies 32/3 (July 1996), pp. 172-86.
3 During the first two decades the discourse
has stressed mostly "women," and "women's studies." In the past
decade, however, the word "gender" has become more central to these
debates. This development has been influenced by similar trends
in women's studies.
4 Elizabeth Fernea, "MESA Presidential Address,
1986," MESA Bulletin 21 (1987), p. 7.
5 Margot Badran, "The Institutionalization
of Middle East Women's Studies in the United States," MESA Bulletin
22 (1988), pp. 9-18. The article was the basis of a presentation
at the 1987 MESA conference as part of a panel titled "Studying
Middle Eastern Women: The First Two Decades," chaired by Elizabeth
Fernea. This panel, brought together participants on the 1974 MESA
panel, titled "Middle East Women," also chaired by Elizabeth Fernea,
in an attempt to review interim developments in Middle East women's
studies.
6 Elizabeth Warnock Fernea and Basima Quattan
Bezirgan, eds., Middle Eastern Women Speak (Austin: University
of Texas Press, 1977); Lois Beck and Nikki Keddie, eds., Women
in the Muslim World (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1978).
7 Badran, ibid., p. 9.
8 Ibid, p. 11.
9 Ibid, p. 9.
10 The table reflects the total number of
panels and papers on women and gender presented at MESA from 1986
through 1997. Papers on the first panel dealing with sexuality (1997
conference) were also included in this category. The table distinguishes
between panels that focus solely on women and gender issues and
general panels that include one or more papers on women and/or gender
issues. Papers and panels were classified based on their titles.
I am aware, however, that there may have been papers which addressed
gender issues without stating this in the title.
11 Correspondence with Eleanor Doumato,
editor of the AMEWS Review, October 26, 1997.
12 A closer examination of the profile of
scholars interested in women and/or gender issues, featured in the
1996 MESA membership directory, reveals that 237 hold permanent
academic positions, 118 are graduate students and 26 are professionals
working in the field but not in academic institutions. The 1986
numbers are taken from Badran, ibid., p. 14.
13 Badran, ibid., p. 17.
14 Deniz Kandiyoti was the visiting scholar
in 1993 and Hanan al-Shaykh in 1994.
Americans got a crash course on Yemen for Christmas.
That’s
because we’ve wanted to know more about the little-known, dirt-poor
country in southwestern Arabia where the “underwear bomber” who
tried to blow up a plane—bound for Detroit from Nigeria on
Christmas Day—says he was trained. President Barack Obama says,
correctly, that “large chunks” of Yemen “are not
fully under government control.” So it seems to make sense
to strengthen the Yemeni government, to get at “al-Qaeda in
the Arabian Peninsula,” as the local gang of Islamist extremists
is known. Full Story>>
Bethlehem,
Palestine is a special place to celebrate Christmas. It’s
home to the Church of the Nativity and the field where shepherds, tending
their flocks by night, spotted the star heralding Jesus’ birth.
But apart from the historical mystique, here in Bethlehem we celebrate
Christmas much like Christians throughout the world. We hang lights
from the rooftops. We erect a tree in Manger Square. We host a Christmas
market. Our children carol and perform Christmas pageants. Christmas
in Bethlehem, as elsewhere, is a time for family, peace, love and joy. Full
Story>>
For
the past two months, President Barack Obama has been weighing Gen.
Stanley McChrystal’s request to send an additional 40,000 troops
to Afghanistan to “disrupt, dismantle and defeat” al-Qaeda.
That same effort, according to Obama, entails ensuring that the Taliban
can’t regain control of the country. But a military strategy
alone won’t beat al-Qaeda or the Taliban. Achieving lasting
stability in Afghanistan will require national political reconciliation,
the establishment of a functioning, accountable political system,
and a credible government. In this respect, the outcome of Afghanistan’s
presidential election, marred by cheating, was a step in the wrong
direction. Full
story>>
So
much is still unknown about the shooting at Fort Hood Army base and
the motives of the alleged shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan, but still
I have that same queasy feeling in my stomach that I've had before:
this will not be good for Muslims. Full
Story>>
Morocco
serves as the backdrop for such Hollywood blockbusters as Gladiator,
Black Hawk Down and Body of Lies. The country’s breathtaking
landscapes and gritty urban neighbourhoods are the perfect setting
for Hollywood’s imagination.
Unbeknown
to most filmgoers, however, is that Morocco is embroiled in one of
Africa’s oldest conflicts - the dispute over Western
Sahara. This month the UN Security Council is expected to take up the
dispute once more, providing US President Barack Obama with an opportunity
to assert genuine leadership in resolving this conflict. But there’s
no sign that the new administration is paying adequate attention. Full
Story>>
Shortly
before assuming office, President Barack Obama was handed a missive
signed by such Washington luminaries as ex-national security advisers
Zbigniew Brezezinski and Brent Scowcroft, urging him to “explore
the possibility” of direct contact with Hamas. One month after
he entered the White House, Obama received an epistle from Ahmad Yousef,
a Gaza-based spokesman for the Islamist movement, making the same recommendation. “There
can be no peace without Hamas,” Yousef told the New York Times
when asked about the letter's contents. “We congratulated Mr.
Obama on his presidency and reminded him that he should live up to
his promise to bring real change to the region.”
There
is no word, as yet, on how the foreign policy doyens' message was
received, but Yousef's occasioned a huffy US rebuke of the UN Relief
Works Agency, whose top official in Gaza, Karen Abu Zayd, passed the
letter to Sen. John Kerry while he was visiting the devastated territory
in mid-February. Even a single sealed envelope, it seems, creates the
appearance that the Obama administration is breaking with the US vow,
enunciated first under President George W. Bush, not to speak with
Hamas until it agrees to renounce violence, abide by previous Palestinian
agreements with Israel and recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Full
Story>>
It
has been quite a week. For the first time, the international community
indicted a sitting president of a sovereign state. Omar al-Bashir
of Sudan stands accused by the International Criminal Court in The
Hague of "crimes against humanity and war crimes" committed
in the course of the Khartoum regime's brutal suppression of the
revolt in the country's far western province of Darfur. Having indicted
two other figures associated with the regime in 2007, ICC prosecutor
Luis Moreno Ocampo began building a case against the man at the top,
and on Wednesday, the court issued a warrant for Bashir's arrest.
Full Story>>
Speaking
to his people on January 18, hours after Hamas responded to Israel’s
unilateral suspension of hostilities with a conditional ceasefire
of its own, the deposed Palestinian Authority prime minister Ismail
Haniyeh devoted several passages of his prepared text to the subject
of Palestinian national reconciliation. For perhaps the first time
since Hamas’s June 2007 seizure of power in the Gaza Strip,
an Islamist leader broached the topic of healing the Palestinian divide
without mentioning Mahmoud Abbas by name.
At
a press conference the following day convened by Abu Ubaida, the
spokesperson of the Martyr Izz al Din al Qassam Brigades, the Hamas
military wing, the movement went one step further. “The Resistance”,
Abu Ubaida intoned, “is the legitimate representative of the
Palestinian people”. Full Story>>
Three
weeks after the war on Gaza, Israel declared a unilateral ceasefire
but refused to terminate its so-called defensive operations. In response,
Hamas declared a ceasefire for one week, until the withdrawal of
Israeli troops has been completed. For many in the West, the ceasefire
might seem like an occasion to celebrate, for the cessation of military
hostilities on both sides will perhaps renew the peace process. But
there are reasons to be critical of this ceasefire, since it continues
the situation in which Israel acts unilaterally. What we are actually
witnessing is a new phase of the catastrophe in Gaza. While the characteristics
of this phase are not yet known, Israel's violence has become ever
more evident. And perhaps this is why Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
did not mention the word "peace" once in the speech he gave
to announce the ceasefire. The "peace process" might soon
be revealed as the other side of the coin to war -- its continuation
by other means -- that simultaneously feeds it. Full Story>>
Bob
Woodward’s four books chronicling the wars of President
George W. Bush are sensitive barometers of conventional wisdom in Washington.
Whereas the first volume, published in 2002 at the height of the self-righteous
nationalism gripping the capital after the September 11, 2001 attacks,
hailed Bush’s self-confidence in acting to protect the homeland,
the 2008 installment depicts the same man as cocksure and incurious.
This much is not news. More educational are Woodward’s hints
about the worldviews that will outlast this unpopular administration,
embedded in the organs of the national security state. Full
Story>>
The
Egyptian regime has once again succeeded in stifling freedom of speech,
this time not in Egypt, but in the US. Earlier this month, an Egyptian
court convicted a prominent Egyptian-American activist for his outspoken
criticism of the regime’s poor human
rights record in American public fora. The court accused Saad Eddin
Ibrahim, of "tarnishing Egypt's image" abroad. The conviction
referred primarily to writings he published in the foreign press; most
notably among them an August 2007 op-ed in the Washington Post in which
he criticized Egypt's human rights record and questioned the reasons
behind US aid to Egypt. Full
Story>>
Militant
Islam is under global scrutiny for clues to conditions that foster
its rise, and to strategies for reversing that growth. But the key
is not in Islamic doctrine, US foreign policy or formal ties to various
nations, as many analysts have asserted. It lies at the community
level, with clan and local leaders. Full
Story>>
Kurdish
parties have become kingmakers in Baghdad , and they know it. As
no federal government can work without them, they are pulling every
available political lever to expand the territory and resources they
control, trying to build the foundation of an independent Kurdish state.
But even more than territory, they need security. If everyone acts
quickly and wisely, that understanding could help resolve one of the
Iraq war’s thorniest issues. Full
Story>>
The
debate over the war in Iraq follows a yellowing script: The minute
someone suggests that the US move to withdraw its troops, war supporters
cry “Havoc!”
True to form, when no less a figure than Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki stated he wants a timeline for a US pullout, John McCain
summoned the specter of dire consequences. “I’ve always
said we’ll come home with honor and with victory and not through
a set timetable,” McCain said. In his major foreign policy speech
on July 15, Barack Obama affirmed his support for a withdrawal timetable,
adding that the US must “get out as carefully as we were careless
getting in.” Obama’s position is the correct one, but he,
like many other war critics, has done too little to counter the refrain
that withdrawal is simply
“cutting and running,” a recipe for disaster. Full
Story>>
