Faranak Farid – Feminist School – September 1, 2009
 |
| Faranak Farid |
A man and a woman are fighting in the street, a crowd gathers, but no one intervenes. After the fight calms down a little, when some people realize the situation, they say, “We thought you were husband and wife; otherwise, we would have intervened!”
As seen in this scene, unfortunately, disputes and fights between a man and a woman are still considered a private matter because they occur within a domain that is perceived as sacred and should not be easily interfered with. As a result, it remains free from outside intervention. Sociologists describe this concept of boundary or domain, often used in reference to animals, as varying naturally depending on the species. However, in humans, it has its own function, and through familial relationships within this private sphere, most violence occurs, giving rise to the concept of domestic violence. Reflecting on this, I am inclined to examine the issue from a different perspective.
"The division between public and private spheres in society is inherently a political process that is both influenced by and influencing power relations, particularly those related to gender, race, and class." (Donna Sullivan) However, feminist efforts have made significant progress in this area by bringing out of the private realm and into the public eye issues that were once unreachable, and in some cases, considered sacred. While the family is referred to as the smallest and most essential unit of society, in many cases, it is treated separately, and its issues are resolved within its confines, often under the authority of the man. Feminism’s effort to break down the boundaries of this private realm and bring it into the public space, thus avoiding subjective and male-dominated responses, is noteworthy. Violence against women and children is no longer considered a private matter and is even subject to legal action. However, for such issues to become public and for deeply ingrained customs to be shaken, a lot of work remains. Sometimes, custom, habit, religious law, tradition, and legal systems are so biased towards men that they justify acts like the killing of children by fathers, the murder of women by their husbands, or honor killings.
The woman, who is the partner, spouse, and companion of the man, and carries qualities such as sacrifice, kindness, and loyalty to her husband and children, is often accused of "changing" and no longer being the quiet woman who once endured hardship for the sake of maintaining the family structure and caring for her children. She may even be accused of being influenced by others who supposedly persuaded her to abandon her role in the family. Why should a patient, good woman ever claim her rights? Suddenly, strangers and acquaintances become suspicious, and the man becomes wary of their possible intentions. Even if the man's close ones side with the woman, they are dismissed for interfering in the private matters of the couple, within the domain of the man’s authority—something he openly asserts. It seems that the woman is perceived as not only lacking authority but also lacking judgment and intellect, and it is believed that others have made decisions for her, encouraging her to take actions she couldn’t have otherwise taken alone.
Derrida points out that "in binary oppositions such as man/woman, human/animal, good/evil, which Western metaphysics has relied upon since Plato, one term is always in a superior or preferred position, while the other is regarded as inferior and marginalized." Derrida advocates for "decentering" any center when identifying hierarchical structures. The nature of these binary oppositions is certainly not identical across societies, and the desire for the superiority of one part over the other differs according to the social conditions of those societies. However, the important point is that these categories, once they settle in our minds, often define and stabilize our perspective on everything, leaving no room for further reflection because everything has been pre-determined. The mental lock in individual beliefs and the degree of intellectual rigidity within society are influential factors in the persistence of these views.
In binary oppositions like adult/child, rich/poor, man/woman, urban/rural, Persian speaker/non-Persian speaker, leader/people, state/nation... if each of these pairs is viewed as a fraction with the top and bottom parts, everything will have a hierarchical structure. Our thoughts and emotions will naturally guide us to favor the dominant side, whether consciously or unconsciously. Any movement in the lower part of the fraction will be seen as suspicious, attempting to upset familiar customs and societal order! The child becomes rebellious, the woman becomes promiscuous, the non-Persian becomes a separatist, the rural person becomes an invader of cities, and the worker becomes a revolutionary!
It is through the "interaction" of these elements that the hierarchical system of society is formed—or, as experts call it in more democratic societies, its cylindrical form—determining the ranks of citizens and placing them on their shoulders! Society divides into the in-group and the out-group, with citizens classified as first class, second class, and so on.
Now, after a brief explanation of this, and without delving into the complex interactions and oppositions of these elements, we can return to the earlier topic. The mass production of the mentality of guardianship and dominance over subordinates, and its extension to society at large, leads to the same consequences. That is, when a nation protests against domination, lack of participation in power, and the unequal distribution of wealth, or demands democracy and the respect of its rights, it is portrayed as a disruptor of public order and national security. It’s as if this order and security are not meant to protect the lives and rights of society’s members, but are abstract and unreal, and it should never be asked what good order and security are without freedom. The excuse of protecting the sanctity of the family and national security (the former to prevent the assertion of women's rights, and the latter to prevent the assertion of the people’s rights) serves to maintain the hierarchical structure that creates the "wrongdoer" in the second case and the "disruptor of private order" in the first.
Just as feminism has done for the family, new human rights standards and activists, along with relevant organizations (albeit imperfectly), have done for nations and countries. Just as the family is not separate from society, a country is not separate from the global community. We have always witnessed the awakening conscience of the global community in response to certain injustices, provided that accurate information is disseminated—though this doesn’t always happen! The more restricted the domain, the more difficult it becomes to access, the more persistent the accusations, and the harder it is to let the truths leak out. Just as a family becomes more male-dominated, the man’s authority within the home grows, and the chances of other members resolving the issues within become increasingly impossible. Similarly, in the national sphere, the more the oppression of minority groups is institutionalized and the society becomes more closed, the more biased the media's neglect of such issues becomes, and the solidarity with these oppressed groups becomes subject to severe punishment. Throughout this period of widespread repression of oppressed ethnic groups, the media has hardly reflected the scale of the repression, and consequently, the media has paid little attention.
In the international arena, the more authoritarian the government, the harder it is to transfer accurate news from there, the less impact the citizens' activities have, the higher the costs, and the less effective international efforts to secure the rights of the people in that country will be.
As mentioned regarding the family, in times of tension, family members no longer have the same intimacy. In times of crisis, protesting citizens are seen as agents of foreign influence, disturbing public opinion. Anyone who supports or disseminates their news is accused of interfering in the country’s internal affairs—even the UN Secretary-General is not exempt from this label! [However, when it aligns with our position, global opinion, aid, and assistance are often accepted. For example, in cases of floods, earthquakes, or when the UN issues a statement against a country that disagrees with our policies or when nations protest something we also agree with. But such protest or criticism should not be directed against us, as we are the exception.] Again, in this second case, we see the same projection and denial of intellect—here, the denial of collective reason—just as we see in family disputes. It’s as if the citizens have no political or social reasoning of their own and always take their cues from outside the borders or from traitorous individuals. But even if this were the case, why should the political and social intelligence of the nation remain undeveloped, so that at the slightest opportunity, it becomes an instrument of foreign powers?
Therefore, whether we consider the protester connected to foreign influences or detached from them, it is certain that the treatment of women—who are the largest minority—serves as an important measure of democratic behavior in a society. Misogyny and democracy cannot coexist in the same place, just as the rejection of minorities and the pursuit of democracy cannot.
The link to the original text in Persian on the Feminist School website.