I had intended to write a series of blogs on religion and ethics soon after the 7th Wasatiyyah Conference in Cape Town on the 20th of May. But this was not to be as I began teaching a module on Jihad and violence at the University of Cape Town. I will report on this as well. For now, I continue my chosen blog journey on ethics, values and religions.
Shaheed's defense and graduation took place on the 10th of May, 2017. The thesis was based on field work in Mumbai on the good life as articulated around food, sacrifice, consumption and production. The cover on his thesis was a row of animal carcasses in the background, and a man sitting in the front. Shaheed was asked for a photograph by the University, which he supplied.
But Utrecht University chose a different photograph to announce the event (picture on the side). It was a photograph of a woman holding a cat on a lap, wearing a green dress and face cover.
The choice of this photograph rather than the one given by Shaheed revealed and obscured the moral life of Muslims. Firstly, the rejection of Shaheed's photograph says a lot of what is considered ethical with regard to animal rights and non-rights. Supermarkets are filled with meat, but the reality of the slaughter should be kept in the background.
On the other hand, the choice of this photo rather than the original one was perhaps an act kindness by the administration. Muslims already have a bad reputation! And the administration perhaps chose something more familiar and less jarring. This was surely more ethical. Holding a cat with tenderness was better than sitting in front of a row of animal carcasses. But then one has to ask, how moral is it to do something for another person? This choice was good for the image of Muslim society, but not so good in relation to the choice made by Shaheed? We have a contrast between ethics as freedom (Shaheed's choice), and a sense of the good (for the benefit of the Muslim image).
But I reflected on what this picture shows in relation to the history of public ethics and gender in the West since the advent of modernity. I read recently from Graeber that a major transformation took place on how ethics were removed from display under the impact of the Protestant Reformation. Men, in particular, had previously displayed their identity and values on their bodies, by the clothes and accessories that they wore. Then, under the impact of a pietistic tradition, this display was displaced with a dour exterior and an inner sense of rectitude and self-righteousness.
In contrast, women were expected to continue showing off their values, valuables and identities on their bodies.
So what does this picture show about Muslim ethics? On the one hand, it is revealing and concealing at the same time. It shows the values that Muslims hold dear. At the same time, it hides those values. A full cover from head to toe does not show anything, and everything. Unless, of course, the very act of concealing is a value. A women in niqab is a concealment by fact.
When one brings in the fact that this photo was chosen in Utrecht, Netherlands, then it seems that this says nothing about Muslim values. It displays a modern European tradition that frames women who show values or no values.
So, ethics and display are deeply connected. As ethics are personal and individual acts of kindness, generosity, etc, they can be entangled with public display and hypocrisy. This conundrum does not seem to have been addressed in the anthropology of ethics, but there is extensive discussion thereof in religious literature.
Shaheed's defense and graduation took place on the 10th of May, 2017. The thesis was based on field work in Mumbai on the good life as articulated around food, sacrifice, consumption and production. The cover on his thesis was a row of animal carcasses in the background, and a man sitting in the front. Shaheed was asked for a photograph by the University, which he supplied.
But Utrecht University chose a different photograph to announce the event (picture on the side). It was a photograph of a woman holding a cat on a lap, wearing a green dress and face cover.The choice of this photograph rather than the one given by Shaheed revealed and obscured the moral life of Muslims. Firstly, the rejection of Shaheed's photograph says a lot of what is considered ethical with regard to animal rights and non-rights. Supermarkets are filled with meat, but the reality of the slaughter should be kept in the background.
On the other hand, the choice of this photo rather than the original one was perhaps an act kindness by the administration. Muslims already have a bad reputation! And the administration perhaps chose something more familiar and less jarring. This was surely more ethical. Holding a cat with tenderness was better than sitting in front of a row of animal carcasses. But then one has to ask, how moral is it to do something for another person? This choice was good for the image of Muslim society, but not so good in relation to the choice made by Shaheed? We have a contrast between ethics as freedom (Shaheed's choice), and a sense of the good (for the benefit of the Muslim image).
But I reflected on what this picture shows in relation to the history of public ethics and gender in the West since the advent of modernity. I read recently from Graeber that a major transformation took place on how ethics were removed from display under the impact of the Protestant Reformation. Men, in particular, had previously displayed their identity and values on their bodies, by the clothes and accessories that they wore. Then, under the impact of a pietistic tradition, this display was displaced with a dour exterior and an inner sense of rectitude and self-righteousness.
In contrast, women were expected to continue showing off their values, valuables and identities on their bodies.
So what does this picture show about Muslim ethics? On the one hand, it is revealing and concealing at the same time. It shows the values that Muslims hold dear. At the same time, it hides those values. A full cover from head to toe does not show anything, and everything. Unless, of course, the very act of concealing is a value. A women in niqab is a concealment by fact.
When one brings in the fact that this photo was chosen in Utrecht, Netherlands, then it seems that this says nothing about Muslim values. It displays a modern European tradition that frames women who show values or no values.
So, ethics and display are deeply connected. As ethics are personal and individual acts of kindness, generosity, etc, they can be entangled with public display and hypocrisy. This conundrum does not seem to have been addressed in the anthropology of ethics, but there is extensive discussion thereof in religious literature.
No comments:
Post a Comment