by Guest Contributor Mimi, originally published at Threadbared

Because this is a fashion plus politics blog, I want to post some very brief thoughts about the protests rocking Iran after what some observers are calling a fraudulent election, reinstalling President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against his main opposition, moderate reformer Mir Hossein Mousavi. (For news about the election and protests, The New York Times’ The Lede News Blog is frequently updated. For more analysis, check out Juan Cole.)
A glance at the Western media coverage from before and after the election reveals an overwhelming visual trope — the color photograph of a young and often beautiful Iranian woman wearing a colorful headscarf, usually pinned far back from her forehead to frame a sweep of dark hair. Such an image condenses a wealth of historical references, political struggles, and aesthetic judgments, because the hijab does. As Minoo Moallem argues in her book Between Warrior Brother and Veiled Sister: Islamic Fundamentalism and the Politics of Patriarchy in Iran, both pre- and postrevolutionary discourses commemorate specific bodies –whose clothing practices play a large part— to create forms and norms of gendered citizenship, both national and transnational. What Moallem calls the civic body becomes the site of political performances in the particular contexts of modern nationalist and fundamentalist movements.

This particular image being disseminated throughout the Western press right now is no exception — we are meant to understand the looseness of the scarf, the amount of hair she shows, as political acts, manifesting a desire for Western-style democracy. But this shorthand is too simplistic, too easy. As Moallem argues, Islamic nationalism and fundamentalism are not premodern remnants but themselves “by-products of modernity.” As such, the image of the Iranian woman in her loose headscarf is not a straightforward arrow from Islamic backwardness to liberal progress, but a nuanced and multi-dimensional map of political discourse and struggle.
In her book, Moallem writes, “while I am interested in the production of the civic body, I want to show its instability over time in Iran.” We can see this instability in the histories of forced unveiling and forced veiling that mark particular historical and political moments in Iran. Very briefly, and no doubt simplistically, the pro-Western Reza Shah banned the veil in 1936 in a broad modernization effort, authorizing police to forcibly unveil women in the street. Women donned the veil during the lead-up to the revolution as a visible act of defiance against the Shah’s corrupt and brutal rule. After 1979, the broad coalition that had briefly united against the Shah was destroyed by the conservative Shia cleric Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, resulting in a fundamentalist regime that, among other things, enforced veiling for women. As such, Moallem argues, forced unveiling and forced veiling are not dissimilar disciplinary practices that regulate the feminine body as a civic body subjected to the order of the visible. Moallem observes,
“My grandmother’s body –like my own later– was marked by corporeal inscriptions of citizenship. Both of us shared an incorporated traumatic memory of citizenship in the modern nation-state. She was forced to unveil; I was forced to veil. Living in different times, we were obliged by our fellow countrymen respectively to reject and adopt veiling. Our bodies were othered by civic necessity.” (Between Warrior Brother and Veiled Sister, 69)
This is the barest intimation of the complicated history of the civic body we are seeing in photographs from Tehran now — in which the young woman with the scarf tied loosely, the lock of hair curling against her cheek or forehead, is made to stand for both this history and also for so much more. As such I would issue two cautions. The first, we cannot necessarily know from how a woman ties her headscarf what the shape of her politics might be. And second, we might commit further violence (refusing her complex personhood, for instance) in assuming that we can.
But because the hijab is so often made to stand as a visual shorthand for Islamic oppression in the West, I wanted to reference its specificity as a political performance of a particular feminine civic body in Iran (which would be different than its history in, say, Turkey, where some female Muslim university students are demanding their rights to education against the state ban on headscarves in public schools and government buildings) in order to render these photographs that much more complex, and the emerging political situation that much more nuanced, in this moment.

(Image Credits: New York Times, Huffington Post, Getty)
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

#1 by mcp on June 20, 2009 - 11:12 am
With all due respect, I have to question the tone-deafness – perhaps even narcissism – of this post. On the eve of Iranians taking to the streets to face beatings, prison, and death, the key issue to write on is … the headscarf in Western media photos? I wonder why this is the issue you choose to take up as things ratchet up in the Iranian streets.
I say this to underscore what concerns me about so many American “radicals,” who, in trying to be radical and critical, end up reproducing the colonial gaze. You’re trying to do the opposite, I know, but in so doing you move the Westerners’ perception back to the center. In general, I find this mode of analysis to be inadvertently, and tragically, colonial, but all too common. Preoccupation with the colonizer’s/imperialist’s gaze is akin to complicity. Fanon’s work has made this clear.
So many other issues to be discussed. Why this election for Iranians? What populations with what values are in the streets? What does it mean that the two options are a dull militarist (A.) and a mass murderer (M.)? What do Iranians want and where is the society going? Is this election an anomaly or something bigger? How do generational divisions factor, if at all? Rural/urban issues? And so on. All are in the media, with terribly un-nuanced views.
Why not take on these issues? Such issues require you/us to reorient the discussion away from how we are talking about them, to how they are talking about themselves. You hint at that here with some talk of how women live complex lives in relation to the headscarf (an old analysis at this point). But, still, in this time of intense crisis, violence, and collective decision, you turn the gaze back to the West’s talking about the West. Critique of the West, Fanon has long since taught us, is still talking about the West. As a Westerner, I fear this is repetition of narcissism, best intentions otherwise.