Fonte:
http://www.comedonchisciotte.org/site/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6585
The dominant discourse stigmatizes the veil "Islamic" as a religious symbol that undermines the covenant lay as waste EU integration by the community, or submission to male power.
However, research carried out on the field by the sociologist Tülay Umay shows a completely different meaning for the choice of this garment. It affirms women's personal identity and incite people to revolt.
Girls immigrant family who wear the veil are increasingly numerous. The various measures taken to prohibit or restrict the practice do nothing but exacerbate the problem. It 's true in both Belgium and France. From the beginning, anche quando il velo era socialmente insignificante, era recepito come una minaccia per la nostra società. Sarebbe il cavallo di Troia dell’integralismo musulmano. Sarebbe un simbolo della sottomissione della donna.[1].
Si tratta in questo caso di un discorso che si sostituisce alla parola delle donne stesse. Si ritiene del resto che non sia necessario che esse parlino. Non avrebbero nulla di particolare da dire. Non sarebbero che semplici donne portatrici di valori che non appartengono loro, di valori che sarebbero quelli degli uomini della loro comunità. Portare il velo sarebbe un’imposizione. Sarebbe il prodotto di una dominazione diretta o risulterebbe dall’interiorizzazione da parte della vittima di questo rapporto. Sarebbe inutile question them as women who could not reproduce a speech which the alien.
Yet numerous studies show that wearing the veil is an individual choice and that choice can not be reduced to that of a surrogate victim. Some women carry it, some do not. Typically, in the same family, some veiled, some not. A personal decision distinguishes those wearing the veil from those who do not carry. It 's the possibility of this choice that makes the veil of modernity.
If we take care to listen, and that's what we have done in the context of field research, it appears that this phenomenon is not a religious nor a descendant of the community. When you wonder these young women, they reveal their personal will, the individual path that path. Thus, they deny the reading made by the media. They are opposed to the vision of a veil imposed by family, father, husband. Often, they point out that wearing the veil at odds with family members or speak to the strong reluctance of the family against their choice. If we give the floor to the girls, something emerges: the veil is neither a return to tradition nor a reflection of the community. It 's a choice of individuals inscribed in modernity. Moreover, the observation of the phenomenon shows us that everything in this film, refers modernity and tradition. So long ago, the scarf aside the woman's body in front of the male gaze. Instead now the veil has become the presence of the female body, the presence of women in public space. Instead of hiding the veil shows. And 'the act of revealing through the mediation of the body. It thus becomes a means to gain access to the right to be, to exist as a unique individual.
All values \u200b\u200bare reversed by the veil of tradition, modern as the disguise of the woman, her withdrawal from public space and privacy of the body, as well as the conception of the individual as a mere reflection of its community. In modern
the veil is no longer liabilities, individual adjustment to the standard of speech is taken, a statement of the individual. E 'then a subjectivity that is given the right to appear. The veil becomes the space of voice, speech, women's subjectivity. And 'the act of partially conceal their bodies that can descend the act of disclosure of their reality, their inner self.
The veil is a symptom of modernity. Hides and shows at the same time. This coverage is also revelation in itself, is language, ie a symbol that represents from the other, from the host society and the image mother.
The speech of the media or institutions deny the specificity of the phenomenon inscribed in modernity. This is why it melts in its own different things. Confuses the veil of our society, the result of individual choice, with that tradition, which is a social sign, and the latter with the veil that exists in modern Islamic societies, where it is imposed by the State. This reductive process is not without ulterior motives. It is to deny a fact that disturbs the order. Like the Sphinx, the film poses questions. Submit a critique of modernity and a sense brings us back to ourselves, our values \u200b\u200band our own contradictions. In fact, the veil does not create disorder as a symbol of subjugation of women but on the contrary, it appears as a symptom of the failure of men. This element is at the heart of the speeches of women wearing the veil. The film highlights, highlights the inability of men to enforce their community, particularly their inability to give a name to the discrimination they suffer. The veil shall be substituted for this lack. But it's not a flag, not the expression of a social movement. If you give a name that is not understood in the sense of conflict and collective but in the sense of individuality and difference.
The veil is not submission to men, is generally not required from them, but replaces them. These young women do not occupy the place designated by the patriarchal community. It is women who relocate people in their place. Contrary to the feminists do not want to occupy the role of man, but they want to resume the function who have left, the ability to reflect, to acknowledge their existence, the ability to transmit culture, to defend their cultural specificity.
The veil is a symbol of the current failure of the function of the father, the failure of man from immigration but also the man in our society. This phenomenon shows that the veil, is designated by the theory di Lacan in quanto “organico” all’insieme della modernità. Per fare ciò questa teoria utilizza il termine di “forclusione-del-nome-del padre”. La funzione del-nome-del-padre rappresenta il potere di dare il nome e di conseguenza di riconoscersi e di essere riconosciuto. Questa funzione è la capacità di uscire da una realtà stigmatizzante e di dire “io”. E’ questa funzione che il velo fa ritrovare. Il velo dice il proprio nome, dice “io”. E’ affermazione paradossale di un’autonomia. Si appoggia alla cultura per tentare di sfuggire a una mancanza, a un rifiuto di riconoscenza, a un’alienazione sociale.
Per ristabilire il legame sociale, la funzione del-nome-del-padre, il velo fa appello non più alle rappresentazioni paterne ma all’imago materna, a un’interiorità femminile che si fa esteriorità. Contrariamente all’immagine della donna veicolata dalla pubblicità, quest’esteriorità, il velo, non è più la forma dello sguardo dell’altro, dello sguardo dell’uomo ma vuole essere la forma dell’interiorità femminile, dell’imago materna. Queste donne si collocano quindi su un piano diverso rispetto al femminismo istituzionale che parte dai valori maschili per costituirsi un’identità. Si tratta allora di un elemento paradossale che spiega in parte l’incomprensione e il turbamento di questo fenomeno social.
Tülay Umay
sociologist born in Anatolia, he lives in Belgium. He is interested in the psychic and social structures of post-modernity. How
concrete support to this research the question of the veil called "Islamic" is privileged object of study, not as an object in itself but as a symptom of our society.
Source: www.voltairenet.org
Link: http://www.voltairenet.org/article162762.html # article162762 11/03/2009
Translation for www.comedonchiosciotte.org by Elena R.
[1] Tülay Umay, Nos "valeurs" valent-elles plus que nos enfants?, Réseau Voltaire, 15 ottobre 2009 (I nostri valori valgono di più dei nostri figli?) ndt
http://www.comedonchisciotte.org/site/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6585
The dominant discourse stigmatizes the veil "Islamic" as a religious symbol that undermines the covenant lay as waste EU integration by the community, or submission to male power.
However, research carried out on the field by the sociologist Tülay Umay shows a completely different meaning for the choice of this garment. It affirms women's personal identity and incite people to revolt.
Girls immigrant family who wear the veil are increasingly numerous. The various measures taken to prohibit or restrict the practice do nothing but exacerbate the problem. It 's true in both Belgium and France. From the beginning, anche quando il velo era socialmente insignificante, era recepito come una minaccia per la nostra società. Sarebbe il cavallo di Troia dell’integralismo musulmano. Sarebbe un simbolo della sottomissione della donna.[1].
Si tratta in questo caso di un discorso che si sostituisce alla parola delle donne stesse. Si ritiene del resto che non sia necessario che esse parlino. Non avrebbero nulla di particolare da dire. Non sarebbero che semplici donne portatrici di valori che non appartengono loro, di valori che sarebbero quelli degli uomini della loro comunità. Portare il velo sarebbe un’imposizione. Sarebbe il prodotto di una dominazione diretta o risulterebbe dall’interiorizzazione da parte della vittima di questo rapporto. Sarebbe inutile question them as women who could not reproduce a speech which the alien.
Yet numerous studies show that wearing the veil is an individual choice and that choice can not be reduced to that of a surrogate victim. Some women carry it, some do not. Typically, in the same family, some veiled, some not. A personal decision distinguishes those wearing the veil from those who do not carry. It 's the possibility of this choice that makes the veil of modernity.
If we take care to listen, and that's what we have done in the context of field research, it appears that this phenomenon is not a religious nor a descendant of the community. When you wonder these young women, they reveal their personal will, the individual path that path. Thus, they deny the reading made by the media. They are opposed to the vision of a veil imposed by family, father, husband. Often, they point out that wearing the veil at odds with family members or speak to the strong reluctance of the family against their choice. If we give the floor to the girls, something emerges: the veil is neither a return to tradition nor a reflection of the community. It 's a choice of individuals inscribed in modernity. Moreover, the observation of the phenomenon shows us that everything in this film, refers modernity and tradition. So long ago, the scarf aside the woman's body in front of the male gaze. Instead now the veil has become the presence of the female body, the presence of women in public space. Instead of hiding the veil shows. And 'the act of revealing through the mediation of the body. It thus becomes a means to gain access to the right to be, to exist as a unique individual.
All values \u200b\u200bare reversed by the veil of tradition, modern as the disguise of the woman, her withdrawal from public space and privacy of the body, as well as the conception of the individual as a mere reflection of its community. In modern
the veil is no longer liabilities, individual adjustment to the standard of speech is taken, a statement of the individual. E 'then a subjectivity that is given the right to appear. The veil becomes the space of voice, speech, women's subjectivity. And 'the act of partially conceal their bodies that can descend the act of disclosure of their reality, their inner self.
The veil is a symptom of modernity. Hides and shows at the same time. This coverage is also revelation in itself, is language, ie a symbol that represents from the other, from the host society and the image mother.
The speech of the media or institutions deny the specificity of the phenomenon inscribed in modernity. This is why it melts in its own different things. Confuses the veil of our society, the result of individual choice, with that tradition, which is a social sign, and the latter with the veil that exists in modern Islamic societies, where it is imposed by the State. This reductive process is not without ulterior motives. It is to deny a fact that disturbs the order. Like the Sphinx, the film poses questions. Submit a critique of modernity and a sense brings us back to ourselves, our values \u200b\u200band our own contradictions. In fact, the veil does not create disorder as a symbol of subjugation of women but on the contrary, it appears as a symptom of the failure of men. This element is at the heart of the speeches of women wearing the veil. The film highlights, highlights the inability of men to enforce their community, particularly their inability to give a name to the discrimination they suffer. The veil shall be substituted for this lack. But it's not a flag, not the expression of a social movement. If you give a name that is not understood in the sense of conflict and collective but in the sense of individuality and difference.
The veil is not submission to men, is generally not required from them, but replaces them. These young women do not occupy the place designated by the patriarchal community. It is women who relocate people in their place. Contrary to the feminists do not want to occupy the role of man, but they want to resume the function who have left, the ability to reflect, to acknowledge their existence, the ability to transmit culture, to defend their cultural specificity.
The veil is a symbol of the current failure of the function of the father, the failure of man from immigration but also the man in our society. This phenomenon shows that the veil, is designated by the theory di Lacan in quanto “organico” all’insieme della modernità. Per fare ciò questa teoria utilizza il termine di “forclusione-del-nome-del padre”. La funzione del-nome-del-padre rappresenta il potere di dare il nome e di conseguenza di riconoscersi e di essere riconosciuto. Questa funzione è la capacità di uscire da una realtà stigmatizzante e di dire “io”. E’ questa funzione che il velo fa ritrovare. Il velo dice il proprio nome, dice “io”. E’ affermazione paradossale di un’autonomia. Si appoggia alla cultura per tentare di sfuggire a una mancanza, a un rifiuto di riconoscenza, a un’alienazione sociale.
Per ristabilire il legame sociale, la funzione del-nome-del-padre, il velo fa appello non più alle rappresentazioni paterne ma all’imago materna, a un’interiorità femminile che si fa esteriorità. Contrariamente all’immagine della donna veicolata dalla pubblicità, quest’esteriorità, il velo, non è più la forma dello sguardo dell’altro, dello sguardo dell’uomo ma vuole essere la forma dell’interiorità femminile, dell’imago materna. Queste donne si collocano quindi su un piano diverso rispetto al femminismo istituzionale che parte dai valori maschili per costituirsi un’identità. Si tratta allora di un elemento paradossale che spiega in parte l’incomprensione e il turbamento di questo fenomeno social.
Tülay Umay
sociologist born in Anatolia, he lives in Belgium. He is interested in the psychic and social structures of post-modernity. How
concrete support to this research the question of the veil called "Islamic" is privileged object of study, not as an object in itself but as a symptom of our society.
Source: www.voltairenet.org
Link: http://www.voltairenet.org/article162762.html # article162762 11/03/2009
Translation for www.comedonchiosciotte.org by Elena R.
[1] Tülay Umay, Nos "valeurs" valent-elles plus que nos enfants?, Réseau Voltaire, 15 ottobre 2009 (I nostri valori valgono di più dei nostri figli?) ndt
0 comments:
Post a Comment