The Double Bind of the Useful Infidels: Feminist Meredith Tax on the Red-Green Alliance

One of the few – alas! – feminists to defend feminist principles against Islamism rather than fold before the (incomprehensible) PC claims of Islamism (see also Phyllis Chesler and Gita Sahgal). H/T: Steve Antler

Just to give you an idea of how insane this has become, our Secretary of State and First Lady were about to give an award for courage to a Muslim woman whose anti-American and anti-Semitic credentials are impeccable.

In the meantime, rather than dwell on the murky depths, let’s ascend to the heights of courage (alas that denouncing Islamist misogyny should be the heights of courage in our age), namely Tax’s work.

Double Bind: tied up in knots on the left

MEREDITH TAX5 February 2013

I have spent the last twenty years working on issues of women and religious censorship.  As a feminist activist in International PEN and then in Women’s WORLD, I couldn’t help noticing that increasing numbers of women writers were being targeted by fundamentalists. Not all these fundamentalists were Islamists; some were Christians, Jews, or Hindus.  In fact, one of my own books was targeted by the Christian Coalition in the US.

Nobody on the left ever objected when I criticized Christian or Jewish fundamentalism.  But when I did defence work for censored Muslim feminists, people would look at me sideways, as if to say, who are you to talk about this?  This tendency has become much more marked since 9/11 and the “war on terror.”

Telling detail here. Jihadis attack us and the “Left” jumps to the defense of the very ideology that inspires them (i.e., the goal of a global Caliphate). Who’d have expected so many useful infidels after 9-11?

Today on the left and in some academic circles [tautology? - rl], people responding to attacks on Muslim feminists in other countries are likely to be accused of reinforcing the “victim-savage-saviour” framework or preparing for the next US invasion.  This puts anyone working with actual women’s human rights defenders in places like North Africa or Pakistan in an impossible situation.

Welcome to the world of anti-Zionist delirium.

Human rights defenders are supposed to protect the rights of those oppressed by the state or by non-state actors. They must also defend the rights of women (which may be violated by the state as well as by non-state actors).  But what happens when people who are mistreated by the state violate the rights of women?

Or, as in the case of Samira Ibrahim, aggressed by the Egyptian State, but ferociously anti-Semitic and anti-American… or is that okay?

Can one fight their violations while at the same defending their rights against state power?  How?

This political terrain is tied up in so many knots it amounts to what Gregory Bateson called a “double bind” in “Toward a theory of schizophrenia”  – a double bind results when people are given conflicting instructions so that in obeying one set of orders, they must violate the other.

Last year’s debate around Mona Eltahawy’s article on the oppression of women in the Middle East, called  “Why do they hate us?”  is a recent example of this double bind. As Parastou Houssori, who teaches international refugee law at the University of Cairo, observed:

Some of the other criticisms of El Tahawy’s piece illustrate the dilemma of the “double bind” that African-American and other feminists have also faced. For instance, when they write about their experiences, African-American feminists often find themselves caught between confronting the patriarchy within African-American communities, and defending their African-American brothers from the broader racism that exists in American society. Similarly, women who identify as Islamic feminists often find themselves in this bind, as they try to reconcile their feminism and religious identity, and also defend their religion from Islamophobia.

This double bind cannot be resolved by retreating into silence or becoming immobilized. In international law, it can be addressed by emphasizing that non-state actors must not violate rights, and by integrating equality and non-discrimination more fully into human rights work.  But on the political level, one can only proceed by thinking one’s way through a maze of taboos, injunctions and received ideas – and also being willing to face backlash and censorship.

This raises the cultural issue as well. In cultures like both the African-American and Islamist the elements of both patriarchy and racism are even more pronounced than in white/Western culture, an embarrassing dilemma for underdogmatists. This raises the unhappy acknowledgment that the dominant (hegemonic) culture in the world today supports human rights in ways that the oppressed third world not only does not, but will not. It leads to the Human Rights Complex that Charles Jacobs first identified in his fight for the rights of southern Sudanese in the 1990s.

Gita Sahgal, founding head of the gender unit at Amnesty International, found this out three years ago when she left Amnesty after publicly raising objections to its alliance with Cageprisoners, a UK organization set up to defend prisoners at Guantanamo. People around the world came to Gita’s defenseand have now formed the Centre for Secular Space in order to strengthen secular voices, oppose fundamentalism, and promote universality in human rights. The questions we raise are critical to the left:

In a period of right wing attacks on Muslims – or people thought to be Muslims [and people thought to be right-wing -rl] – how does one respond to human rights violations by the Muslim right without feeding hate campaigns?

This comes back to the dilemma that faced someone like David Cook who, in his book documenting the revolting hate-mongering of Islamic apocalyptic, found his book rejected by the first publisher because readers thought it was “hate-speech.” Does documenting hate-speech constitute hate-speech? Does denouncing Islamic hate-speech make one a Muslim?

When the US invokes the oppression of Muslim women to sanctify war, how do we practice feminist solidarity without strengthening Orientalism and neocolonialism?

Why “sanctify” rather than “justify”? And is this sentence inspired by the meme “War is not the Answer“?

When the US targets jihadis for assassination by drone, should human rights defenders worry about violations perpetrated by those  same jihadis or focus on violations by the state?

What do we mean by the Muslim right?  I define it as: “a range of transnational political movements that mobilize identity politics towards the goal of a theocratic state. It consists of those the media call ‘moderate Islamists’ who aim to reach this goal gradually by electoral and educational means; extremist parties and groups called ‘salafis’ that may run for office but also try to enforce some version of Sharia law through street violence; and a much smaller militant wing of salafi-jihadis that endorses military means and practices violence against civilians. The goal of all political Islamists, whatever means they may prefer, is a state founded upon a version of Sharia law that systematically discriminates against women along with sexual and religious minorities.”

Nice. One of the few not to argue that “moderate” Islamism is somehow qualitatively different from the more extreme versions.

Starting from there, Double Bind discusses salafi-jihadi history, ideas, and organizational methods with particular attention to Cageprisoners, making the case that it is actually a public relations organization for jihadis. The book looks at the practice of the Anglo-American antiwar movement and challenges what I believe are five wrong ideas about the Muslim right: that it is anti-imperialist; that “defence of Muslim lands” is comparable to national liberation struggles; that the problem is “Islamophobia;” that terrorism is justified by revolutionary necessity; and that any feminist who criticizes the Muslim right is an Orientalist ally of US imperialism.

Outstanding. Can one compare this clarity of mind to someone who keeps her head in the midst of a ferocious (cognitive) battle?

Some on the left have accepted the world view of the Muslim right, which defines political goals in religious terms, to the extent that they see the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Mali as attacks on Muslims. Take, for instance, Glenn Greenwald [one of the finest examples of a useful infidel in the throes of Tax’s “double bind” – rl]:

“As French war planes bomb Mali, there is one simple statistic that provides the key context: this west African nation of 15 million people is the eighth country in which western powers – over the last four years alone – have bombed and killed Muslims – after Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and the Philippines (that does not count the numerous lethal tyrannies propped up by the west in that region). For obvious reasons, the rhetoric that the west is not at war with the Islamic world grows increasingly hollow with each new expansion of this militarism.”

By adopting a religious framework, Greenwald obscures the geopolitical reasons for the conflicts he names and ignores the fact that most of them involve Muslims killing other Muslims—in the case of Mali, Sunni salafi-jihadis imposing their version of Islam on Sufis.  Like people who see Taliban activity in Pakistan largely as a reaction against drones, leftists who frame the issues in Mali solely in terms of Western imperialism deny the agency of the people living there, who have been voting with their feet by fleeing jihadi-controlled areas in droves.

And, as many (on the alleged “right”) have pointed out, this denial of agency is actually a form of reverse racism. Most recent and brilliant denunciation of this racism: Pat Condell.

Leftists often hold back from talking about the Muslim right because they are afraid that doing so will strengthen Western racists and nativists. But surely we have to oppose all varieties of right wing politics. Of course we must stand up to demagogues who characterize every Muslim as a potential terrorist and try to whip up violence against civilians. In my view, these people are fascists. But the fact that we have a problem with white fascists in the US or UK should not lead us to overlook the fact that other parts of the world have problems of their own with fascist movements, some of which claim to be the only true Muslims and try to enforce their version of Islam through violence.

Note that the percentage of “right-wing fascists” in the Muslim world far exceeds those in the West (part of that cultural evolution the West has gone through), thus making silence over Islamofascism in order not to encourage Western fascism a self-destructive allocation of resources.

Add in the fact that a number of jihadis come from Canada, the UK or the US, and it becomes apparent that we cannot think only in terms of domestic political struggles when we live in a globalized world.

Rather than framing the world situation as a war between US imperialism and Islamist freedom fighters, Double Bind sees a complicated dialectic between terrorism and counter-terrorism with the possibility of an emerging conservative front in which Washington and the Muslim Brotherhood are as likely to be allies as adversaries, and both are opposed by popular democratic movements. Instead of sanitizing and protecting the Muslim right in the name of fighting colonialism and imperialism, we propose a strategy of solidarity with actual popular movements of democrats, trade unionists, religious and sexual minorities and feminists struggling in the Global South against both neo-liberalism and religious fundamentalism.

Good luck when you and your trade-unionist allies in the Arab world (never a considerable group for cultural reasons) realize that the Zionists are, by your definition, among the most progressive movements in the world (a fortiori in the Middle East).

Secular space is central to this strategy.  Since the end of the Cold War, secular spaces all over the world have come under siege by various forms of fundamentalism, and the instrumentalization of religion for political gain has become a problem in regions as varied as Africa, Central Asia, Eastern Europe, the MENA region, North America, South America, South Asia, and Western Europe.  In all these places, religious identity politics has muddied discussion of class, labour, racism and discrimination against women and sexual minorities.

Democratic governance is based on the idea that the authority of the state is delegated by the people rather than coming from God.  The separation of the state from religion is central to democracy because gender, religious minority and sexual rights become issues whenever human rights are limited by religion, culture, or political expediency. Thus secular space is essential to the development of democratic popular movements that can oppose both neoliberalism and fundamentalism. To move forward, we need a strategy that combines solidarity with defence of secular space.

This is a crucial issue, and one that protects religion as well. By and large, various forms of fundamentalism have viewed secular space as hostile to religion. This is not without reason, since many advocates of secular space are aggressive atheists (Hitchens, Dawkins, et al.). In fact, secular space is the best friend of demotic religiosity in that it provides protection from theocratic impositions, and brings out the best (i.e., least coercive, most persuasive) in religion. The best thing that can happen to any religion that claims to express a profound truth about the relationship between God and human beings, is that the power to coerce belief be taken from them, and they have to focus exclusively on their ability to persuade by example. Had Christianity held fast to that insight back when it first came into state power (later Roman Empire, early Middle Ages), then the history of the West and the world might have been very different.

It’s never too late to grow up. Thank you Meredith Tax.

Double Bind: The Muslim Right, the Anglo-American Left, and Universal Human Rights will be launched by a panel at Toynbee Hall in London on 11 February 2013.

5 Responses to The Double Bind of the Useful Infidels: Feminist Meredith Tax on the Red-Green Alliance

  1. “a double bind results when people are given conflicting instructions so that in obeying one set of orders, they must violate the other.”

    There doesn’t seem to be much of a conceptual problem in disentangling the bind: the one set of orders amounts to, say, “protect Muslim women’s rights”. The other set of orders amounts to “protect the Muslim public from the oppression of their corresponding state (or from US imperialism or from some equally colonial and fictitious boogeyman)”.

    We can do both at the same time. We can condemn Ahmed for beating his wife daily under the auspices of his religion, and we can condemn Ahmed’s state (or the US, if we feel bitchy enough) if they violate Ahmed’s rights.

    So what seems to be the problem?

    “But on the political level, one can only proceed by thinking one’s way through a maze of taboos, injunctions and received ideas – and also being willing to face backlash and censorship.”

    So that’s the real problem.

    The progressives/Leftists dominating Academia (and therefore influencing the media) are bulling intellectually and morally through censorship and criticism anyone who speaks out when the first set of instructions (the one that pertains to women’s rights) is abandoned.

    They don’t want to attack anyone that is not a white westerner because the moral trophy belongs only to the self-denigrating ones – that’s the post-modern version of saying “i am frustrated and i hate my society”. And she who dares to attack Ahmed is considered fair game for counter attack.

    Does this mean that post-modern masochism can turn sadistic too?

    • akmofo says:

      Again, none of the behavioral theories make sense, because none of the behavior theories take into account the real source of the behavior. The real source of the behavior is money and corruption. When you start to understand why such and such person is in such and such a position, and why they were put there, and where the source of the funding comes from and why, you will be better equipped to produce a theory that fits reality. As it is, it is really quite amusing the intellectual contortions one goes through to try to make sense of things by trying to ignore the most obvious and pertinent.

  2. Dr Landes said:

    “Nice. One of the few not to argue that “moderate” Islamism is somehow qualitatively different from the more extreme versions.”

    But, Dr Landes, they are different:

    http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/7063.htm

    “International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS)Attacks UN For Promoting Resolutions Banning Polygamy, Underage Marriage, Marital Rape, Promotion Of Gender Equality”.

    As we can see, the moderate Muslims merely issued a declaration to the UN in favor of women slavery.

    The extreme versions of Muslims would have bombed the UN in their attempt to maintain their female subjects under strict control.

    I am afraid that Islamophobia is getting the best of us, to the extent of not being able to draw valid and consequential distinctions that make a real difference for women – i mean, it’s really important for a Muslim girl who is going to be the one to rape her: an extremist, or just a moderate Muslim? (yes, i am hinting that if it is the moderate Muslim that does the job then the girl will be much more satisfied, or at least should be more satisfied, and if she doesn’t understand why she could always ask Chomsky, or Judith Butler).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>