Western Representations of the Muslim woman (Part three)

This imaging, also establishes dominant and subordinate relations of looking. Showing this anonymous woman fixed in her place from behind testifies to a tenuous, non-reciprocal link between the observer (the documentarist) and the observed (the veiled woman). In addition, this shot of the anonymous woman suggests that the presented situation reflects the everyday lives of Saudi women; this anonymous woman appears holding a bar and standing aloof from the modern scene of the city of Riyadh which suggests that Saudi women are imprisoned by the veil which hinders them from entering into the modern scene and forming a part of it. The woman is presented thus as typical of the universal “oppressed Saudi woman.” Through this power of surveillance, the documentarist constructs her subject who is unaware of the camera’s gaze, its panopticon, in negative term; she appears immobile, not modern, invisible and hence oppressed. Such a power of surveillance—such a power of judgment—privileges the documentarist’s perception and reminds us of Michel Foucault’s theorization of the “panopticon” which he describes as “a technology of power” designed for the purpose of surveillance. [17] Central to Foucault’s insight into panopticism is its power of surveillance and judgment. The observed, Foucault suggests, is always “the object of information, never a subject in communication.”[18] Foucault notes also that the panopticon does not necessarily means that subjects are to be seen without their recognition of the panoptic vision. Another important quality of the panoptic vision, Foucault notes, is the process of constructing its subjects in negative terms.[19]

In the light of these points, it could be argued that such a vision is apparent in many scenes in the film. As it will be demonstrated, on the surface, Saudi working women appear as speaking subjects; but in fact their voices are muted by the film language. Therefore, they are presented as objects of information and not subjects in communication. They are pictured in negative terms: those poor who are oppressed, docile, and unable to bring any change in society to advance their position. They are even presented as mentally aberrant for their ignorance of their subjugation.

In the following scene, the film tries to configure the veil as a sign of what the documentarist calls “a fundamentalist Islam.” The documentarist’s voice-over, which is juxtaposed on her image as she wears headscarf, states: “I have come to the most closed and conservative country in the Middle East. Here, fundamentalist Islam has more influence on society than anywhere else in the Arab world.” Later, the film’s surveillance camera presents different shots of veiled women unaware of the panoptic vision in different public spaces while the documentarist explains how they are oppressed by an imposed veil: she comments that the women must wear the abaya according to a dress code which she observes as “enforced by the religious police.” What is important to note here is that the film does not show Saudi working women’s opinion about their practice of veiling, but only the documentarist’s. In other words, the film begins by presenting these women’s practice of veiling according the documentarist’s perspective not the Saudi working women’s.

In another scene, the film pictures a news broadcaster, Salma, in her house. Expressing her self-perception, Salma says that “the women in our society are not marginalized anymore.” “Being a Muslim woman, means being modern,” Salma continues. She stresses that Islam does not oppress women or relegate them to backwardness; but rather, that Islam is the first religion that accords women their rights. She states that “Islam came first as far as women’s rights are concerned.”  However, this statement is superimposed, in English subtitles, on her image as she wears her abaya before leaving the house. Then, the camera cuts to show in long take shot many cars with only male drivers. The director’s voice-over is superimposed on this shot, stating: “looking at all men driving their cars, I find it hard to understand how Salma can see Islam as friendly to women.” This statement connects the ban on women driving and Islam without giving any explanation about what driving has to do with Islam. Most importantly, in this scene, the way sounds and visuals are orchestrated to implicitly say that Islam is a misogynist religion; Salma’s speech and the documentarist’s voice-over narration are superimposed on the images of men driving cars and Salma wearing her veil. She selects such images to be presented as raw material and mediates them by her statement that connects the practice of veiling and the ban on women driving with Islam’s relation to women as not friendly. She  does  not  give  Salma’s  opinions  about her practice of veiling and the  ban  on  women driving and  whether  Saudi  laws  perfectly  reflect  her  understanding  of  Islam;  in this sense, she  only tries to oppose Salma’s belief that Islam liberates women.

The documentarist’s voice-over commentary, which reflects her biased opinion against Islam and Muslim women, is made to be more effective and powerful than Salma’s remarks, since it is supported by images that are presented to undermine Salma’s viewpoints. Salma is silenced by the filmic language articulated by visual and audio elements, highlighting simplistic equation. Most importantly, such a depiction may lead the viewer to believe that Salma supports the ban on women driving as intrinsic to Islam. Consequently, Salma’s perception of her own reality is falsified and it is the documentarist (not Salma) who is presented as the one who understands and represents Salma’s reality. 

To be continued HERE

---

[17] See Michel Foucault, “The Eye of Power,” in C. Gordon, ed. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977 (New York: Pantheon, 1980).

[18] Michel  Foucault, “Discipline and Punish, Panopticism,” in Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans, Alan Sheridan( New York: Vintage Books, 1977), p. 200.

[19] Ibid., p. 210.

Works Cited

Alloula, Malik. The Colonial Harem. Trans. Myran Godzich and Wlad Godzich Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1986.

Sergiu Bălan, “M. Foucault's View on Power Relations.” Accessed May 20, 2014. http://cogito.ucdc.ro/nr_2v2/M.%20FOUCAULT'S%20VIEW%20ON%20POWER%20RELATIONS.pdf.

Bazin, Andre. “The Evolution of the Language of Cinema.” In Film Theory and Criticism, Sixth Edn. Eds. Leo Braudy and  Marshall Cohen, 41-53. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Bernstein, Matthew. “Introduction.” In Visions of the East: Orientalism in Films. Eds.  Matthew Bernstein and Gaylyn Studlar, 1-18. London: I. B. Tauris Publishers, 1997.

Chapman, Jane L. Issues in Contemporary Documentary. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2009.

Foucault, Michel. “Discipline and Punish, Panopticism.” In Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Trans. Alan Sheridan, 195-228. New York: Vintage Books, 1977.

———. “The Eye of Power.” In Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977. Eds. C. Gordon, 146-165. New York: Pantheon, 1980.

———.“Of Other Spaces: Utopias and Heterotopias.” Accessed April 25, 2014. http://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/foucault1.pdf

Hall, Stuart. “The Work of Representation.” In Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. Ed.  Stuart Hall, 13-74. London: Sage Publication, 2003.

———. “Representation and the Media.” A lecture shot at the Studios of the University of Westminster. Accessed May 15, 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTzMsPqssOY.

Mcleod, John. Beginning Postcolonialism. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000.

Mills, Sara. Discourse of Difference: An Analysis of Women’s Travel Writing and Colonialism. London: Routledge, 1991.

Minh-ha, Trinh. “Not You/Like You: Postcolonial Women and the Identity and Difference.” In Dangerous Liaisons: Gender, Nation, and Postcolonial Perspectives. Eds. Anne McClintock, Aamir Mufti, and Ella Shohat, 90-107. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997.

Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. “Under Western Eyes.” In Third World Women and the Politics of Feminism. Eds. Chandra Mohanty, Ann Russo and Lourdes Torres, 51-80 . Bloomington: Indian University Press, 1991.

 Nelmes, Jill.  An Introduction to Film Studies. London: Routledge, 2003.

Nichols, Bill. Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991.

———. Blurred Boundaries: Questions of Meaning in Contemporary Culture. United States: Library of Congress Cataloging, 1994.

———. Introduction to Documentary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2001.

———. “The Question of Evidence, the Power of Rhetoric and Documentary Film,” in Rethinking Documentary: New Perspectives, New Practices. Eds. Thomas Austin and Wilma de Jong, 29-38. England: Open University Press, 2008.

Pratt, Mary Luise. Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation. London: Routledge, 1992.

Renov, Michael. The Subject of Documentary. Minneapolis: the University of Minnesota Press, 2004.

Santas, Constantine.  Responding to Film: A Text Guide for Students of Cinema Art. Chicago: Burnham Inc. Publishers, 2002.

Zawawi, Suzan. ‘A Dutch Crew Here to Debunk a Stereotype.’ Saudi Gazette, 11 Sept. 2005. Accessed  May  10,  2011. http://icarusfilms.com/new2006/sau.html