In the discussion on FGE that I mentioned, one angry woman, who didn't understand why Western women's opposition to the practice was perceived as imperialist, challenged someone else's comment that "barbaric" was an offensive term. Why, she asked, did we consider "barbaric" to be imperialist and offensive?
The obvious answer is that we in the West, particularly but not exclusively white women, tend to use "barbaric" only to talk about "other" cultures. For example, we almost never call "barbaric" the mainstream forms of body modification, such as high heels. Partly, this is because when we compare high heels to, say, foot binding, we feel safe in the knowledge that high heels only deform the foot and leg a little, and they may slow some women down, but they at least leave her mobile. So, we see high heels on a spectrum, and on the spectrum, they're not so bad.
We also tend to see mainstream forms of body modification as, well, mainstream - fairly safe, fairly accepted (except by radical feminists, bless their hearts, who remind us of what these practices actually do to our bodies), things that don't make us gasp. Pierced ears, for example. Tattoos. Many plastic surgeries are quickly becoming these kinds of accepted practices, such as breast augmentations and lifts and reshapings, or stomach "tucks", or face lifts. Many of these things hurt (a lot or a little), but the person having them done recovers, and our perception is that they are not life-threatening (though certain plastic surgeries that are common, like liposuction, are) nor do they impede sexual pleasure (though breast surgeries frequently result in significant loss of sensation). When it comes to more extreme types of body modification, things that are not so mainstream - like tongue-splitting, for example, or even, for many, spreaders in ear piercings - we are quick to say "barbaric!" because it doesn't describe many of us, or our family members, or our friends.
Against footbinding and FGE, these procedures look tame.
IGM (Intersex Genital Mutilation), performed on nonconsenting infants and children, and male circumcision, also performed on nonconsenting infants and frequently without anesthetic, are not really taken seriously by some feminists. Many pooh-pooh objections to these practices as a waste of time, when there are more serious issues, like FGE, to address. Some point out that IGM (they often don't call it this - they feel that using this terminology diminishes the brutality of FGM) only affects a very small percentage ofthe population. And often, it is pointed out that male circumcision doesn't have lasting negative effects, or if it does (loss of some, but not most, sensation), they are minor.
Maybe it's time now to define "barbaric".
From Merriam-Webster:
"1 a: of, relating to, or characteristic of barbarians b: possessing or characteristic of a cultural level more complex than primitive savagery but less sophisticated than advanced civilization
2 a: marked by a lack of restraint : wild b: having a bizarre, primitive, or unsophisticated quality."
So "barbaric" means primitive, wild, unsophisticated, savage. These are terms that have historically, repeatedly and EXCLUSIVELY been used to refer to people of color and poor people.
And yet - we use them to talk about a certain level of brutality, right? While we refuse to see the brutality within our own culture.
I could post pictures of IGM to prove a point - or, for that matter, videos of plastic surgeries - but I won't.
Finally, I'd like to suggest that "barbaric," in addition to being a racist term, is also offensive in that it comes from "barbarian." Terry Jones (yes, THAT Terry Jones) writes in his book, Barbarians: An Alternative Roman History:
"Nobody ever called themselves 'barbarians'. It's not that sort of word. It's a word used about other people. In fact, it's a form of otherness. It has been used by the Ancient Greeks to describe non-Greek people whose language they couldn't understand and who therefore seemed to babble unintelligibly...The Romans adopted the Greek word and used it to label (and usually libel) the people who surrounded their own world.
Once the term had the might and majesty of Rome behind it, the Roman interpretation became the only one that counted, and the peoples whom they called Barbarians became forever branded - be they Spaniards, Britons, Gauls, Germans, Scythians, Persians or Syrians. And of course 'barbarian' has become a by-word for the very opposite of everything we consider civilized. In contrast to the Romans, the Barbarians were lacking in refinement, primitive, ignorant, brutal, rapacious, destructive and cruel.
...
We actually owe far more to the so-called 'barbarians' than we do to the men in togas. And that fact that we still think of the Celts, the Huns, the Vandals, the Goths, the Visigoths and so on as 'barbarians' means that we have all fallen hook, line and sinker for Roman propaganda...Now, however, we are beginning to realize that the story of a descent from the light of Rome to the darkness of Barbarian dominion is completely false."
So let's just examine our subject positions, shall we, when we invoke words like "barbaric" and use them, both to slander ancient civilizations as well as contemporary cultures? Perhaps there is more accurate and honest, and less imperialist, language we can use to mount a critique that will help save women's and children's bodies. Perhaps there are better ways to be allies than by pointing out how wild and savage those "other" cultures are.
12 comments:
I raised the example of suttee in my comment precisely because it is an example that comes from roughly my own culture (i.e. South Asian Hindu), though I don't know whether it was practiced in the specific area of the country from which my family originates.
If you want to exclude the word "barbaric" specifically because of its linguistic origin (one common to a huge range of Indo-European languages -- Sanskrit also has "barbara" to mean "stammering), that's fine.
But it's simply inaccurate to say that people presently use the word ONLY to describe that which is alien to themselves. It's also certainly used to describe industrialized practices; opponents of the death penalty, both in the U.S. and overseas, frequently describe the U.S. practice as "barbaric." Former IL Gov. George Ryan described his own state's use of execution as "barbaric" after he gave clemency to every death row inmate.
Barbaric is not a term that is used exclusively to talk about others. I and most death penalty opponents that I know use the term frequently to describe the death penalty in the US. It is used to describe prison conditions. It is certainly invoked by some to describe the practice of male circumcision.
I think the reason people call FGM barbaric and don't apply that term to high heels, tattoos, and piercings is not just that the latter practices are "mainstream" and practiced here, it's that they do seem to be safer and milder, and most importantly that they are generally done to adults who voluntarily submit to these things. If it were common practice to hold down a child and give him/her a mandatory tattoo, I bet some would call the practice barbaric. All of the things you list, including plastic surgery, are optional procedures and it is easy to opt out of any/all of them - even the high heels.
As for us only pointing the "barbaric" label at those who are not our friends/family/etc. To some extent this is a chicken and egg argument. If we think a practice is cruel, painful, and dangerous, we are going to be talking our friends and family members out of it, and we are not going to be associated with people who engage in it regularly.
PG - But the reason the word is used is specifically to denote primitive, wild cultures. So if one calls the death penalty barbaric, one is simply saying that this is something those heathen savages would do. In the instance of FGE - and yes, this is the term many African feminists who OPPOSE the practice use - we're simply saying that to a group of people who have themselves been called heathen savages.
Anon - you are certainly right re. the safety and the voluntary nature of the practices we don't tend to raise objection to (though tongue-splitting, I think, is both relatively safe and voluntary, and still perceived as "barbaric," which tells us something about the meaning of the word). But again, you're assuming that by challenging certain imperialist language I am condoning or at least not actively opposing certain practices, and that's not at all the case.
But if barbarism is what we expect only of "heathen savages," why would it be intended in a shaming way when used toward precisely the people you say the imperialist mindset considers to be heathen savages? It's like telling a 5 year old playing princess that she's being "girly" -- if this is precisely what the speaker expects of the 5 year old, there's not much opprobrium contained in the word.
I think you're missing the fact that today, there are no societies of whom a degree of respect for others and self-determination for the individual is not expected. The mainstream Western idea is no longer, "Oh well, one can expect nothing but barbarism from Africans"; it is "Barbaric practices do not belong anywhere." To that extent, I think it has been greatly detached in usage from meaning, "That's what the 'savages' would do." Indeed, with regard to the death penalty and U.S. prison conditions, it's absurd to say that's what "savages" would do, considering that both lethal injection and the modern prison require legal process, medical technology, and other things rarely associated with the heathen savages.
But if barbarism is what we expect only of "heathen savages," why would it be intended in a shaming way when used toward precisely the people you say the imperialist mindset considers to be heathen savages? It's like telling a 5 year old playing princess that she's being "girly" -- if this is precisely what the speaker expects of the 5 year old, there's not much opprobrium contained in the word.
Actually, there IS quite a bit of opprobrium contained in the word, which is why many feminists would generally object to calling that child's play "girly." You're essentially saying that if you already think that someone is primitive, then calling them that is no longer insulting. In this case, it's the very definition of imperialist behavior.
I think you're missing the fact that today, there are no societies of whom a degree of respect for others and self-determination for the individual is not expected. The mainstream Western idea is no longer, "Oh well, one can expect nothing but barbarism from Africans"; it is "Barbaric practices do not belong anywhere."
Well, first, it would be lovely if that were true, but I don't think that it is. And second, I'm saying there's a problem with the word itself. It doesn't get better. In the case of "Barbaric practices do not belong anywhere," the point is still that "wild, primitive, tribal practices do not belong anywhere" rather than "violent practices do not belong anywhere" or "brutal practices do not belong anywhere."
To that extent, I think it has been greatly detached in usage from meaning, "That's what the 'savages' would do." Indeed, with regard to the death penalty and U.S. prison conditions, it's absurd to say that's what "savages" would do, considering that both lethal injection and the modern prison require legal process, medical technology, and other things rarely associated with the heathen savages.
But in fact, that's the whole point of calling such practices "savage." The reason "barbaric" is used in the case of the death penalty is to make an argument about "civilized" and "uncivilized" cultures, and those kinds of arguments have always been about race (and gender).
I think it's just empirically true that people do now use "barbaric" to talk about our own culture (the death penalty point being the noted example on this thread). The fall back position you adopt, that when we say "barbaric" pointing at ourselves, we're saying "that's the sort of thing those Other Savages do, not enlightened folks like us" is stronger, but I think still misses the mark, and it's because it misstates who the who the "Other Savages" are. Simply put, I don't think they're cross-cultural, I think they're cross-temporal.
As you pointed out, the "barbarians" are the ancestors of many of us here in America. The claim of "barbarism" thus can be seen as (and I think more likely is) a claim about where we as a culture are versus what we were -- and to borrow from PG, where we expect everyone as a culture to be. For example, water boarding is said to be (and is) barbaric not because it brings to mind some mythical African savage, but because it brings to mind some very real Spanish inquistor. Those, as much as anyone else, are our barbarians, and they are part of our cultural heritage. The goal isn't to contrast us from another culture, it's to contrast where we want to be from where we thought we'd gotten away from. On a global scale, we're trying to say we think the whole world has gotten away from (among other things) torturing people -- or thinking its okay to.
Here again, the word "barbarian" is not really about "race or gender" at all, even though the broader context its been used in over the past several centuries certainly has operated in that frame. The Greco-Roman use of "barbarian" was not racialized -- anyone of any background who could participate in Roman society and play by the rules was included. Ethnocentric, sure, but not racialized (George Fredrickson, Racism: A Short History [Princeton UP 2002] has more on this). In the modern context, the word connotes less people of this or that culture and more people who refuse to play by the moral rules of modern society -- a label that applies just as much to the "barbaric" inquistors in Spain as it does to the "barbaric" water boarders in CIA black sites as it does to the barbaric people practicing FG(M/C/E/S) in Africa.
Finally, on the meta-point of the post that nobody sees (current) practices on themselves as "barbaric", I think that cross-cuts intriguingly with the argument in my post about why we can't always simply say "name your own oppression." As we're learning with the "gray rape" phenomena, people don't always want to "name their reality" in a way consonant with the oppression they experience, because they don't want to see themselves as the type of person who is or can be brutalized, victimized, or abused. But while I think its a good idea to take a close look at how so-called "gray rape" may operate differently (in the event, in the recovery, in the prosecution) than other forms, I don't think it's a good move to actually rename it as something other than or external to rape. Regardless of whether people want to admit it to themselves, brutalization, victimization, and abuse happens, and I think ultimately more damage is done when it's not named as such than when it is.
Regardless of whether people want to admit it to themselves, brutalization, victimization, and abuse happens, and I think ultimately more damage is done when it's not named as such than when it is.
But the impact of doing this w/regard to FGE has been to make some in cultures who practice this see the whole issue as one of white imperialism. This makes it harder for women within these communities to work to oppose it. Again, it comes back to being an ally and how to do that. You aren't a very effective ally if you make the struggle harder. When people feel they are up against an imperialist force, they try *harder* to hang onto the things that make them distinct.
I know I didn't address all of your comment. I will come back later and do so.
Three points.
One, "Otherness" isn't unique to English. There are derogatory words in Chinese for non-Chinese, Japanese for non-Japanese, Sanskrit words for non-Brahmins, Arabic words for non-Arabs, etc. And pretty much round the world, the oppressed people's found their colonial overlords to be smelly, hairy, depraved, with revolting food habits.
Two, words change in meaning. What something meant to the Greeks and Romans is no longer what it means today. Barbaric today means "horrible" not as practiced by benighted souls in the non-west but usually as practices such as the death penalty, slavery or water-boarding that are beyond the pale of acceptable practice to *anyone* in the world.
Three, FGC is a public health problem here in the US. I'm sure you know, but it's practiced on women by women here in the US. I do think that it's important to impress on women that it's harmful and that there are methods of repair that will help women who have already have experienced it. I think the answer there is more culturally-aware clinicians, more than anything else.
MG
"Otherness" isn't unique to English.
True. No argument there. That doesn't make Western culture any less imperialist, however.
Two, words change in meaning.
Yes, they do. But that doesn't necessarily make them less offensive. Few people think about what they're saying when they say "the pot calling the kettle black" or "call a spade a spade," but that doesn't mean they aren't racist sayings.
Three, FGC is a public health problem here in the US. I'm sure you know, but it's practiced on women by women here in the US.
It's practiced on women by women in Africa, as well.
Simply put, I don't think they're cross-cultural, I think they're cross-temporal.
But that also makes my point. You say:
The claim of "barbarism" thus can be seen as (and I think more likely is) a claim about where we as a culture are versus what we were -- and to borrow from PG, where we expect everyone as a culture to be....The goal isn't to contrast us from another culture, it's to contrast where we want to be from where we thought we'd gotten away from.
But what this really is about is "civilized" v. "uncivilized." And these discussions are historically about race and gender, with women and people of color as the wild ones who are uncivilized, who are living examples of what "we" once were. And that is how the word "barbaric" operates in discussions about FGE.
Case in point: "the moral rules of modern society" - what are these rules? Who follows them? Who believes that anyone follows them? Much of the world, in its encounters with so-called "moral modernity," does not experience any sort of moral behavior. Yet, we pat ourselves on the back and think we are an advanced civilization, despite what we to other parts of the world through our indifference and greed.
You wrote:
But what this really is about is "civilized" v. "uncivilized." And these discussions are historically about race and gender, with women and people of color as the wild ones who are uncivilized, who are living examples of what "we" once were. And that is how the word "barbaric" operates in discussions about FGE.
I think comdemning a practice as "uncivilized" carries with it the implicit assumption that the people practicing it are "civilized" and therefore ought not behave that way. That is, I think, exactly what's meant when the term barbaric is used to describe the death penalty or torture. And I'd argue that the same is true for FGM.
When you say that historically these discussions are about race and gender, what's your basis for that? Some of them are/were, but many are/were not - that has been pointed in several of the comments here.
Getting back to the original issue, in one of your responses, you ask why opponents of FGM would insist on terminology that actually makes it harder to stop the practice. Good question. But if your argument is one of pragmatism and strategy, why not just lead with that? We should call it FGE because that's going to be a more effective strategy. I think plenty of people using the term FGM would be receptive to that argument if it were well supported. On the other hand, I think telling people that using the term FGM is racist and imperialist behavior and that their insistence on using the term reveals their own blindness to these issues - not likely to be as persuasive. As you've seen, people who are taking the time to think carefully about this issue still come to the conclusion that (a) "name your own oppression" can be problematic and (b) "barbaric" is not a term used exclusively/primarily to talk about other races/cultures.
I think comdemning a practice as "uncivilized" carries with it the implicit assumption that the people practicing it are "civilized" and therefore ought not behave that way.
Along with a lot of racist baggage about what "civilized" means, and who gets to call whom "civilized" and "uncivilized". These are hardly neutral terms. They are terms assigned by the conquerors.
When you say that historically these discussions are about race and gender, what's your basis for that?
I was thinking of Ruth Benedict's work on racism, John Mohawk's Utopian Legacies, and Theodore Allen's The Invention of the White Race.
if your argument is one of pragmatism and strategy, why not just lead with that? We should call it FGE because that's going to be a more effective strategy.
Because that's actually not my argument. I mean, I think it's true that this is a more effective strategy, but my argument is about respect and about not being an Ugly American, not about the best way to get people to do what we want them to do.
I think plenty of people using the term FGM would be receptive to that argument if it were well supported. On the other hand, I think telling people that using the term FGM is racist and imperialist behavior and that their insistence on using the term reveals their own blindness to these issues - not likely to be as persuasive.
Which is too bad. I think that says a lot about those people's attitudes toward the people they're supposedly trying to help. They are effectively saying to African women, "you're not worth listening to. You should be listening to me." Not very feminist (and I am responding to discussions of this issue that occur in a feminist context - I am assuming, from your argument, that you are coming at this issue from a different context? It sounds like we have very different points of entry to this topic.).
As you've seen, people who are taking the time to think carefully about this issue still come to the conclusion that (a) "name your own oppression" can be problematic and (b) "barbaric" is not a term used exclusively/primarily to talk about other races/cultures.
*Some* people are coming to those conclusions. Others thanked me for the initial post. This is a topic that is addressed fairly often in feminist circles, and generally, white second wave feminists argue your position, and everyone else gets annoyed at them.
The fact that "name your own oppression" - which I never said - is what you are throwing back at me suggests that you have not read my argument very closely. "Name your own oppression" actually refers to something else entirely. What *I'm* talking about is following the lead of African women in dealing with an African problem (insofar as we're talking about this as an African problem). You are ignoring the notion that it might be respectful to do this and are instead doing exactly what I talked about in my earlier post - assuming that this position of respect is the same as cultural relativism, which is what "name your own oppression" refers to. It sounds to me like, for you, the ends justify the means. You're not so much concerned with whether or not one is or appears to be imperialist and racist, you seem to be saying, unless it would be more effective not to be. I think that you don't really get why I think imperialism and racism even enter into the equation. The way I see it, you are defending the very categories of thought that make imperialism possible. And yet, I think we probably would agree on a number of issues, so it's interesting that our basic world views are so far apart.
Post a Comment