An Open Discussion - Zainab Bahrani's Approach to Women

[us4-he2-gal2]

Considering / Weighing Bahrani

Hey e n e n u r u:












This post is unusual in some respects, for example, I write it with intention of inviting a discussion of the positions of a scholar. Normally my posts are fairly self containing. While people may not generally realize it, there a methodological battleground in ANE studies, on the one side are the positivists (read: traditional) scholars, on the other are the theoreticians (who may espouse postmodern or feminist methodologies). In a class I am taking on Babylonian Society and Economy, I read the first chapter of Zainab Bahrani's 2011 book Women in Babylon: Gender and Representation in Mesopotamia. I intentionally will not offer biographical comments about who Bahrani is, because it is the content of her ideas that should be emphasized in a post like this. Without indicating what my position is, below I have presented a series of statements from that chapter with which people may discuss, agree or disagree with, debate, react to, etc. All statements are direct quotes accompanied by my attempt to contextual the statements. For full context, one may consider reading the chapter here. Pick a side and have at it - these things matter!

Bahrani's Theoretical Approach

Statement 1 - Definition of Approach (p. 7): "The approach I propose to take is in effect an intersection of feminist and postmodern concerns, and historical, art historical, and archaeological questions."

Biology and Gender

Statement 2a - The perception that men and women occupy different zones of activity (a) the public/work world and b) the private/domestic world, respectively), and that these different zones correlate to biological differences, is entirely mistaken (p.9, paragraph 1): "However, as we shall see, the very notion that biology is what underwrites the definition of ‘man’ or ‘woman’ is in itself historically defined and variable. It is certainly not absolute or universal as a means of viewing a sexual world order. Conceptions of biological difference vary both across cultures and within cultures across time."

Statement 2b - What is the feminist alternative to the view gender division disputed in 3a? (p.9 paragraph 3): "Against such naturalistic or essentialising conceptions of sexual divisions, some feminists have argued that the division between public and private is in itself a gendered structure in which women and men come to be identified with differing spaces and activities and thus also certain ethics and values."

Statement 2c - Bahrain's operating assumptions about gender (p. 11 paragraph 11): "For my own purposes in this book, I shall point out at the outset that I work here with the belief that sex and gender are culturally constructed; that is, that they are socially determined discursive constructions that take on the qualities of the natural."

Women's history and Androcentricity

Statement 3a - How Women's History is commonly perceived (note the word 'androcentric' means "focused on men") (p.8, paragraph 2): Women’s history has been taken to refer to a narrative of the acts of women within the larger narrative of world history, or human history, the latter being presumably – by definition – a history of men. Women’s history is therefore often put forth as a parallel and oppositional history to the androcentric one. At times, women’s history has simply been taken to mean any historical approach or methodology whatsoever as long as it is written or taught by female scholars."


Statement 3b - The objectives of Women's history are misunderstood and this is due to assumptions about gender (p. 10 paragraph 1): "The misunderstanding and definitions of [women's history] are perhaps all a result of androcentric norms, and essentialising conceptions of women and men as gender categories."

Epistemology (Theory of Knowledge):

Statement 4a - Contemporary feminist theory (heavily indebted to post-modernism and its 'deconstructist' approach) is endorsed by Bahrani. She describes contemporary feminist theory as follows (p. 13 paragraph 3): "It is a theoretical stance based on the belief that all knowledges, including those that define the body, sexuality and normative gender roles are produced rather than found by scholarship."


Statement 4b - Concerning whether or not there is a point to accumulating more knowledge (given that it is constructed not found) Bahrani answers in the negative (p. 26 paragraph 2): "Historical knowledge is therefore in a flux. It is not a stable database to which we can add more and more information towards a greater truthful picture. It is a knowledge that needs to be constantly reassessed, reanalysed, and interrogated."

Current ANE focus VS Proposed ANE focus

Statement 5a - How ANE scholars go wrong in studying women in the ANE (p. 10 paragraph 3): "Often, practitioners of ancient Near Eastern studies assume that to study women in the historical or archaeological record is the same as studying any other given object: one amasses the information, catalogues every extant mention of this object, records data from archaeological contexts, and the record is then complete, tidy, and accurate. The very different and complex nature of amassing such information
when the object of study is ‘Woman’ is not usually confronted, or indeed even recognised."


Statement 5b - Where feminist approaches differ from those of traditional scholarship described in 5a (p. 10 paragraph 3): "Contemporary feminist history, on the other hand, is concerned with this problematic of accessing ‘Woman’ in any historical account. Rather than simply finding ‘Woman’ in history, it attempts to find what ‘Woman’ means in that historical record."

[us4-he2-gal2]

Okay, no one putting their two cents in on this one. I suppose some readers may not have much attention for social matters or for the gender wars - in other cases, some readers may be card-carrying feminists. In either case it is, to my mind, a mistake not to take a stand against the sort of agenda evident in the chapter under consideration.





So I will take it upon myself to discuss and refute the above positions since I strongly disagree with them. Let me clearly state that should you be a card-carrying feminist, this does not mean you must support Bahrani's position. Why? Because there is not one, not two, but three different schools of feminism. It is a huge mistake to conflate three schools, they do not come with the same set of proposals, and this is spelled out chapter 1 of the work under consideration.

1st wave feminism: like most modern North American men and women, I support 1st wave feminist principals: I believe women should have the option of participating fully in public life (i.e. the work world), without limits.

2nd wave feminism: 2nd wave feminism rejects biology because it seems expedient to their message to do so. One could argue that men and women should be treated the exact same because it is morally right to behave that way; instead, this movement chooses to argue that there are no biological differences between men and women. To say 'there are biological differences' does not in itself imply that one gender is better than the other, it implies that one comprehends the principals of biology. The feminist movement begins to reject science at this point.


3rd wave feminism: 3rd wave feminism embraces post-modernism and various forms of anti-rational philosophy. They adopt a nihilistic epistemology ("theory of knowledge"). According to this theory of knowledge, all knowledge is socially constructed - read further, and it will inevitably be suggested that current knowledge contributes to a bigoted, patriarchal view of the world - and therefore, this knowledge (Academia to date) cannot be objective, cannot be describing anything outside of the researchers own head. Only post-modernist and feminist writers can avoid contributing to the mass of bigoted writing which deceives all its readers into thinking it is fair and scientific.





If you aren't aware of these distinct schools of feminism, I suggest giving these matters more thought before deciding what you accept and agree with. Let me make this clear: if you care about women and applaud their rise in academia (by the way, women are now the majority of university level graduates in the West by a significant margin), you don't need to throw science and biology under the bus to show your enthusiasm.


While I endorse first wave feminism, as does almost every Western citizen, I firmly and categorically reject second and third wave because these waves oppose biology and science. A person is not bigoted who refuses to waver in their support of science - for science is not a belief system, it is the fundamental set of methodologies whereby modern Western man (male or female) searches for objective truth. Most still value objective truth, whether it is consciously considered or not. The search for objective truth, incidentally, has been the underlying academic enterprise for centuries, but this is now under sustained and heavy attack by ideologues. These ideologues devour entire fields of research and creep steadily further and further into other fields, one such wayward intellectual is, and there is no doubt in my mind about it, Zainab Bahrani.

Specific Refutations:

Statement 2c - Bahrain's operating assumptions about gender (p. 11 paragraph 11): "For my own purposes in this book, I shall point out at the outset that I work here with the belief that sex and gender are culturally constructed; that is, that they are socially determined discursive constructions that take on the qualities of the natural."


- In this statement, Bahrani spells out her disdain for biology. According to conventional academic thought, still the predominant thought (although under constant assault), biology does in fact have a major influence on sex differences. That is, even if a man and women raised themselves in a jungle somewhere, free of any cultural / societal influence, biology suggests they would have differences: obviously, the man would die about 5-10 years before the woman; the man would have different height and musculature; the woman's body would be ideally suited for the caring of offspring (even if she choose to hunt animals instead as a modern woman might). The man's earlier death wouldn't be the result of societal conditioning, it would be the result of something scientists (crazy as they are) call biology.

For an important discussion of the essentials of sex differences and sex roles, I suggest the following lecture by Harvard cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker. Because it has become intellectual fashionable to declare that objective biological truth is scary and unfair, the lecture is entitled "The Truth Cannot Be Sexist":

www.youtube.com/watch?v=n691pLhQBkw

___________________________________________________

Statement 3a - How Women's History is commonly perceived (note the word 'androcentric' means "focused on men") (p.8, paragraph 2): Women’s history has been taken to refer to a narrative of the acts of women within the larger narrative of world history, or human history, the latter being presumably – by definition – a history of men. Women’s history is therefore often put forth as a parallel and oppositional history to the androcentric one. At times, women’s history has simply been taken to mean any historical approach or methodology whatsoever as long as it is written or taught by female scholars.



Bahrani here claims that history is "by definition" a history of men. This does hold true in the Mesopotamian records, at least, should one read the essential texts, one would agree that women are hardly ever mentioned. The question, really, is what do we make of this fact? I find terms like 'androcentric' to be conspiratorial in tone, implying that there was some intentional campaign in the ancient past to not write about or document women. This plays well to 3rd wave feminism's constant need to embellish victim narratives or imply bigotry. What it doesn't do is attempt to rationally contextualize the phenomenon at hand - by contrast, a good example of rational explanation was provided by Bridgette Lion (2011, The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Literature, p. 207):

"The majority of letters were exchanged between men, because men much more than women were expected to travel, particularly because of their profession (administrators, merchants). Men, rather than women, managed property particularly real estate, so most contracts were concluded between men and also written by men."

___________________________________________________

Statement 4a - Contemporary feminist theory (heavily indebted to post-modernism and its 'deconstructist' approach) is endorsed by Bahrani. She describes contemporary feminist theory as follows (p. 13 paragraph 3): "It is a theoretical stance based on the belief that all knowledges, including those that define the body, sexuality and normative gender roles are produced rather than found by scholarship."


This statement, that knowledge is produced rather than found by scohlarship, attempts to invalidate the methodologies which prioritize the search for objective truth (read: all conventional scholarship). Why? To push ideological agendas, to rip holes in solid academic methodology and to create jobs for theorists who secretly - who openly - detest the principals of the academic institutions they seek to dominate. These agendas stem from the post-modernists, anti-West French intellectuals from the 1960s, and their thought seems intellectually inbred to me in a similar manner to the way that abstract art is artistically inbred. These movements lead to nothing but chaos, confusion and weakness.

[rynathee]

Thank you so much for posting this. It's a very serious issue that seems to be gaining more and more traction, which really needs to be addressed and countered somehow, especially in academics. It seems like the stance/viewpoints of feminism (2nd/3rd wave) is intensifying, doubling down on its ridiculous claims. Like a frenzied madness has claimed these feminists and reduced their ability for rational thought and critical analysis. Victimization has become an undertaking in zealotry for them. The ideology if identity politics is poisoning many facets of society today and it will continue unless it is fought with loud voices of reason.
When science is denied and thrown out the window as heresy, we're all in trouble.

[us4-he2-gal2]

Oh well, it is good to see someone thinks along similar lines. It is a political and ideological issue to some extent, so there is no guarantee people will agree with me, even on my own forum. I was never one to pay much attention to the culture wars, until it became clear to me that ideologues threaten the core underlying academic charter of the university. I take that personally.