Light & Dark

The essays, The Stuff that Dreams Are Made Of by Azar Nafisi and Death of a Mannequin by Mehrangiz Kar both hinged on the regime’s removal of the Family Protection law that, “since 1967, had helped women work outside the home and provided them with substantial rights in their marriage”(Nafisi, 3) and “which guaranteed women the freedom to work, travel, and divorce at will” (Kar, 31.) The Family Protection law was a stake or even character in the essays that held both light and dark.

The Family Protection law was light because what it provided/assisted women and the people of Iran with. The law enabled Iranian women to be seen as some the most progressive women of that time (prior to the regime’s takeover.) Overall, in both essays the author’s expressed the importance and impact the law had/has past/present on women’s rights in Iran. That was the light. But, the darkness that is the law also is the fact that the law had to be implemented in the first place. That not all genders of people were given the same freedoms (same, of course can be said about race, ethnicity, geography, literacy and etc.) The law played a part in the darkness that both authors address in their essays. The law did this because it was such a guiding light that the fall or removal of the law also brought the darkness.

Everything that came after the law removal was darkness but still light because there was still fight. The physical abuse, autonomy, policing of body and aesthetics (basically everything negative that regime imposed upon the people and women of Iran) was the darkness. The state sanctioned violence was the darkness that the law held (the actual Family Protection law.) Because the law originally created space, created autonomy, created freedom (or at least made space for these things) the law also held the dual responsibility of the darkness that it brought with it’s removal. Although the law doesn’t have exact control like the state or the people it still plays a part in the darkness. In conclusion, the light and darkness were very evident in both the essays because of the academic writing style that allowed for facts, stakes, politics, complexity and a rough narrative to exist in order to deliver the truths the two authors did.

    Other light I saw in the essays was acknowledgement of feminism and uncovering it in Islamic texts as well as the circulation of more feminist texts. (Although the idea of feminism “saving” is conflicting for me because often Western feminism has a savior complex. Whether this is the style of feminism the people of Iran are circulating or not I'm not sure. But often times feminism is also delivered without social class context. I don’t quite buy that feminism alone can move the people completely out of the control of the regime that they’re in… the people can have the knowledge and can break free mentally but what about those that are in power, that are in control that really controlled a people through the presentation of a mannequin… if those people aren’t on board with feminism and even caring about the effects of their regime on the people (which they clearly don’t care), then how is feminism that powerful to overturn the regime? Or are they not looking to go that far? I just don’t buy that the revolution alone stands in the hands of feminism. I think feminism helps in whatever fashion to an extent but it’s only an extent… and yes, that is something and it has value and worth but the way feminism was placed in the essay made it seem as if it is the end all be all for women. And this isn’t a critique on who they are, where they come from and what they’re about it's truly me saying that feminism alone cannot grasp all that control and power. Other things need to be at work too such as class politics, racial and ethnic politics, politics about sexuality and sex. Feminism doesn’t always cover all of these other things that are just as important as gender empowerment and unity.)

Anyways that ending was a rant.

Jameka

Comments

  1. AnonymousNovember 15, 2017 at 12:34 PM

    Hey Jameka,
    I noticed that both pieces were told from the implications of that law passed in 1967. I am thinking about how these pieces were able to deliver a complexity to the reader in such a different format than we as a class have come across. I liked your line "evident in both essays because of the academic writing style that allowed for facts, stakes, politics, complexity and a rough narrative to exist..." I think that format was definitely based on an academic writing style and from my impression as the reader, the stakes were definitely high!
    I also really enjoyed your thoughts on feminism and it's relationship to the revolution in Iran. I do think that western feminism does have a savior complex and I might even go as far to say it's also combined with a superiority complex. That being said, I was thinking of that moment in my reflection too and think it would be beneficial for feminism to exist in Iran during the oppression of women but it cannot be "white feminism" it has to be a feminism that supports the specific and unique needs of the women being oppressed in Iran.
    I'm not convinced that feminism won't solve some of the foundational social oppression women were facing because of their sex. I think feminism has a big role in having more people understand why patriarchal systems are super toxic for the people. That being said I also think that feminism does need to be backed by other movements that can support the goal of taking down patriarchal systems.
    I loved reading through your blog post!
    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"The Stuff That Dream Are Made Of" and "Death of a Mannequin"

The Stuff That Dreams Are Made Of             Before anything else, I just have to say – wow. Azar Nafisi is one hell of an inspirational writer. She starts off talking about her sense of home. That Iran had always been the home that she wanted to go back to when she was studying abroad and that classic novels and poetry became a sort of home for her. Then she tells us that she finally did go home to Iran only to find that it was not the home she remembered. She arrived to witness the stripping of rights and freedom, of creativity and imagination. Lastly, Nafisi challenges her readers to ponder our own humanity.             Her words are eloquent and impactful. They’re the type of words you’d expect to hear from a great leader. She started slow and worked her way up to a profound ending. I didn’t expect the beginning, where Nafisi describes herself as a spoiled brat running...
Read more

"Death of a Mannequin" and "The Stuff that Dreams are Made of" Response

Arya Samuelson Both stories challenge the idea of a “singular historical moment.” Nafisi makes it clear that every action of the regime pointed backwards. Ayatollah Khomeini claimed to be “restoring women’s dignity and rescuing them from the degrading and diabolical ideas that had been thrust upon them by Western imperialists and their agents, who had conspired for decades to destroy Iranian culture and traditions” (3). In other words, Ayatollah Khomeini insisted that he was trying to make Iran great again. As Nafisi counters, “in formulating this claim, the Islamic regime not only robbed the Iranian people of their rights, it robbed them of their history” (3). She goes on to discuss the powerful “process of self-questioning and transformation” that comprised the acquisition of rights for women throughout the nineteenth and twentieth century.   By the time of the revolution, “women were active in all areas of life in Iran.” This section prompted me to consider the distin...
Read more

"My Sister, Guard Your Veil; My Brother, Guard Your Eyes" Response

By Lila Kalick "The Stuff That Dreams Are Made Of" and "Death of a Mannequin" I thought a lot this week about the role of artists and writers in society and about the notion that the things these individuals make can last beyond their historical moment. With all that is happening these days -- in the news, in the world -- it can be hard to keep perspective beyond the present day. It seems me that there is a hard question that we need to ask ourselves as artists: Can we live in our imaginations exploring the space of what things "can be?" Should we? A lot of what I'm learning is that we don't have to disengage fully with the world in order to make things that last, but it is somewhat helpful. Ultimately, if we disengage enough in the current moment, ignore minutia, and focus on the bigger picture, I think we'll (or at least I'll) be more effective at making art that is transformative and that creates the change we want to see in the ...
Read more