My Final Paper: Globalization, Deterritorialization, and Gender

            Throughout the semester, I found myself interested in certain parallels between the Muslim faith and contemporary Christianity. So for my final paper, I addressed some of these parallels. Specifically, I looked at the tension between conservative and progressive in both religions. I argue that the underlying source of tension arises from a twofold source: the notion of deterritorialization and corresponding conceptualizations of "context;" and people's perspectives on gender relations.

            The first half of this source of tension, deterritorialization, is used by Arjun Appadurai in his book Modernity at Large. It refers to "the loosening of the holds between people, wealth, and territories" (p. 49). In my paper, I argue that conservative strains of Islam and Christianity tend to shun the idea of deterritorialization. This tendency arises from how they conceptualize "context." Conservative Muslims seem to view "context" as the history of Western (i.e. non-Muslim) colonization of Muslim regions (e.g. the letters by Maryam Jameelah. Also see my blog post from 3/3/12, titled "Jameelah and Esack"). Conservative Christians – within the US – see "context" as the Judeo-Christian ideology upon which the US founded. For both these conservative groups, "context" has geopolitical overtones. Thus they do not deterritorialize; they do not separate religion from territory.

            Progressives, on the other hand, do embrace deterritorialization. They tend to view "context" in a geopolitical way, but in a sociocultural way. To them, "context" refers to the socio-cultural-historical setting in which the Quran/Bible was written (e.g. Farid Esack, On Being a Muslim).

            Gender relations is the second half of the source of conservative/progressive tension. In both Islam and Christianity, conservatives tend to embrace traditional/patriarchal gender roles, whereas progressives have a more egalitarian/feminist mindset (e.g. the letters by Maryam Jameelah).

            I draw two major conclusions in my paper. The first is that both conservatives and progressives – in both Islam and Christianity – have mixed religious and political motives. In particular, people's views on deterritorialization and "context" inform their views on gender relations. For example, because Esack takes into account the patriarchal sociocultural setting in which the Quran was written, he concludes that certain passages that may seem patriarchal today were actually radically egalitarian to their original audience (ch. 5). He argues that we should maintain the same spirit of movement – thus he reaches a progressive conclusion on issues of gender. And if this flow of influence occurs – if conceptualizations of deterritorialization and context influence view on gender issues – then politics influence ideology.

            The second major conclusion I draw is that Islam is not inherently misogynist. A dominant discourse in the West is that Islam is intrinsically sexist. But because the issue of gender relations is an underlying source of tension in both Christianity and Islam, Islam is not inherently more misogynist than Christianity. Both Christians and Muslims wrestle with the issue of gender relations, with some sects and individuals reaching conservative conclusions and others arriving at more progressive destinations. Therefore, analyzing Islam and Christianity within the frameworks of globalization, deterritorialization, and gender challenges the dominant discourse of Muslim misogyny.

-GGM