This was written by Mandy van Deven and originally appeared at Bitch Magazine.
Poster 4 Tomorrow is a project based out of France that was founded this year to encourage artists to advocate “on behalf of those who don’t enjoy the same freedom of expression that you do” by designing posters that pronounce an explicitly political sentiment regarding the universal right to free speech. Right away this struck me as problematic. In order to truly work from a praxis of liberation, one must struggle with not for those who are oppressed, as speaking for the oppressed simply reifies their dehumanization (and by extension one’s own) and contributes to the oppressed persons’ being prevented from having an autonomous public voice. Replacing one master with another (albeit one who seems well-intended) is not a solution.
Furthermore, the 100 posters that have been chosen (by a conspicuously male-heavy, largely Western jury) from the 1,834 entries have an interesting recurring sentiment in the designs that jumped out at me: women who wear hijab are not free to speak.
But a number of Muslim women’s rights advocates who wear the veil beg to differ, and they are speaking just fine for themselves. Indirectly attacking women who wear hijab–whether by choice or not–is counter-intuitive to the promotion of freedom of speech and expression, as it positions veiled women in a double bind of silence whereby they are declared as having been duped by their culture or faith (and are, therefore, unfit to speak) and denies them agency in shaping their own lives. This sentiment is one of arrogance and domination, not one of solidarity.
Perhaps Poster 4 Tomorrow should take a cue from Hamid Dabashi about what solidarity might look like. At the very least they should lay off the paternalism and false generosity that serves to shift themselves–not the people they “speak for”–in a position of authority.
Tags: freedom of speech, hijab, Muslim women, Poster 4 Tomorrow, western feminists
If they are meant to be advocates, then surely propogating stereotypes is just a slap in their own face? Surely being impartial and non-judgemental goes hand in hand with advocacy work?
YIKES. The first two posters are so explicitly White-centric and White supremecist…
In what universe is a White person speaking for and writing over a (gagged?) Black person a good illustration of “FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION”??
“Surely being impartial and non-judgemental goes hand in hand with advocacy work?” Ideally, Sumera. Unfortunately I’ve seen just as much racism/sexism/classism/paternalism within non-profits and among “progressive activists” as within mainstream society.
This article expresses an important idea. The “helping” assumptions of white-western universal enlightenment thought can act as a “progressive” wing of imperialist culture. This article made me think immediately of Egypt as example: http://tinyurl.com/y8mtyys The voices of women who feel *silenced* by anti-hijab ordinances by the US-friendly Mubarak state counteract the universalist assumptions of white secularists who insist on a single road to womens’ liberation.
Thanks for this informative article. I agree it’s very problematic that they feel they must speak up “for” someone rather than “with” them. And what’s with all these images of “silenced and veiled” Muslim women being chosen? Do the judges seriously think there are no other women in the world who need to be spoken up “for”?Like women in China and North Korea for example? How lazy and unoriginal!
I continue to find it fascinating that western liberal sentiments in regard to the women in the Middle East (and/or Muslim women in the West) is wholly dependent on their imagined silence.
A few weeks ago I suggested to a group of white western feminists that if they were so concerned with the position of Muslim women (vis a vis the veil–yawn) then perhaps they might actually ask Muslim feminists what they thought about the practice… and then listen to the range of their responses before advocating on their behalf. This suggestion was met with fury and the insistence, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary, that such women are literally incapable of speaking for themselves. They argued passionately that “we” must speak FOR “them.”
It seems clear that Western discourses on the Right AND Left depend on the silence of Muslim and Arab subjects, especially women.
Nicely written here. I like the critique of the paternalistic and insulting flaw in the entire setup.
Patronising posters yes, why not just be honest and explain that in western culture only guilty people cover their faces. This simple honesty would do more than fake paternalism. When people ask me why some women cover I say why not ask them? But most of the women who cover won’t talk to strange men so the men ask the girls who don’t.
I would never cover my face unless a man expressly forbade it. Like most people I don’t like being told what to do.;)
If you don’t show your face No-one can tell if you’re smiling or not so they end up not talking to you. Which is a bit sectarian. If in the West it’s worth mixing a bit – or just wave and nod. But at least try to talk to the locals. If not in the West it’s not our business ;)