Halloweenhead (Title not related to the post...)

Hey all,

I am pretty impressed  that I am already blogging again and it has only been about a week. While researching for my next chapter, I had a divine revelation. Bogged down in memory theory, an idea finally came to me. And I thought, why don't I just blog about it? That way I can feel like I am telling someone without having to actually bore any of my friends AND remember my ideas.

But first I must say, Happy Halloween! Here is a picture of me dressed up as a LOLCat.

 

The sign says, "I can haz candy?" Clever, right?

I realize the first question on your mind might be, why were you studying memory? (or it may be, why a LOLCat?) I will answer the first question (the second is simply obvious). By memory, I don't mean a memory stick or memory foam or memorization of facts. Instead, I refer to Personal vs. Collective memory. Confused by those terms? So was I!

Deciphering Khouri's book with these types of memory in mind is helpful. Why is that? Read on!
 ***********************************************************************************

"But what from one’s past can reasonably be known and subjected to examination?...Piled in with the rest are convenient imitation packages of memories constructed out of dreams and fantasies that were never paid for with experience.” -Bruce M. Ross

“Memory is furnished not only from the recollection of events which the individual has himself experienced but from the memories of others older than himself with whom he associates. From their account of their own experiences, which frequently antedates his own, and from written at various removes, his image of his ‘largest self’ is brought to include events which occurred both recently and earlier outside his own experiences. Thus, his knowledge of the past is furnished by the history of his family, of his neighborhood, of his city, of his religious community, of his ethnic group, of his nationality, of his country and of wider culture into which he has been assimilated.”-Edward Shils

Personal memory is casually defined as being: what I did, where I did it, how I did, when I did it. For example, I went to Smith between 2007-2011. I graduated with a history degree, etc etc. However, there is never any pure personal memory, for memory itself is a complicated, living, ever-changing thing. 

We run into mucky territory when we try to apply personal memory to Khouri's book. Through my research, it is almost certifiable that she did not experience the crimes she claims to witness in the book. This is where it is useful to cite Ross's quote. While it is almost a certainty that Khouri did not witness the death of a woman named Dalia, we can not deny it as part of her memory, even if it is constructed "out of dreams and fantasies." 

Ross goes on to claim:
"It can be furthered assumed as a general principle, if one acknowledges the inevitable social forging and personal memories, that it is somewhat arbitrary to limit influences that affect memory to the lifetime retention span of a single individuals and social institutions that transcend more that one generation."


I will refer back to this quote in the moment.

Yet, I cannot deny that Khouri's book is still not considered to be autobiographical memory. Ross defines autobiographical memory as being different from all other forms of memory because the events are "unrepeatable because they occurred at a specific point in time." However, that does not mean that it isn't personal. It is personal. Since Khouri is a con-artist and thus her memories are not transparent, we are forced to assume what we cannot prove.

But to create this book, it is probable that she used stories surrounding this topic from her community, newspapers, her parents and other relatives living in Jordan. The written and unwritten histories surrounding her contributed to this book. Jordan has become relatively infamous for honor killings, due to both the media and legislation. It is doubtful that as a Jordanian splitting time between America and Jordan that she did not get affected by honor killings and their place in the international dialogue.
************************************************************************************
 My recent thoughts have led me to the idea that Khouri is contributing to Collective Memory with her memoir. What is collective memory?

 

I know this cartoon isn't that helpful....

Collective memory as defined by James Wertsch is a "focus on how efforts to create a usable past meet political and identity needs." Novick expands, claiming that these memories work to establish an "essential truth about the group."

In this case, we can consider Khouri's group as an Arab woman. In her book, she is attempting to create an essential truth about honor killings in order to achieve a political and identity need. For example, she could be exploring the truths behind an identity as an Arab woman and what that entails. Or she could be defining what it entails for an Arab man. But her supposed political aim is to erradicate honor killings through political legislation.

Instead of a book about accuracy (Khouri has said it doesn't matter that she does not know what countries border Jordan) it is a book focused on a community message. Whether or not you think she portrayed that message for monetary gain is a seperate matter. What is evident, at least to me, is that she is engaging in a dialogue that existed at that time about honor killings. The book attempts to set the standard, to establish this "universal truth." That is why I quoted Ross regarding limiting memory to only personal memory. She could be unearthing this tale from the stories she heard around her, from the papers she has read in the past, it could come from several influences. It is doubtful to me that she pulled the story out of thin air. There needs to have been a precedent. And having lived in Jordan and America, she most likely had to deal with this cross-cultural identity.

But you may ask (with good reason), why does she not admit that? Why is it published as an autobiography? (I believe it is partially out of pride). She claims she was sexually assaulted by her father and beaten by her husband (the latter claim is unlikely) and that is what led to the story (after it was proven to be "untrue.") Why would she do this? Why would she make these audacious claims?

As a public figure, scrutinized for her deception of her readers and slandering of Jordan, Khouri took the quick way out. She is not stupid. She knows that trauma studies are influential and choosing another trauma to pin her lies on was a bold move. But like I mentioned earlier, we cannot believe her since she is a cunning con-artist. I would argue that she does not know where this story comes from. We cannot track her memory or her thought process. Consider a simple childhood memory. How do you know it is really truth? And where did your misconceptions of the event come from? You cannot pin it down. It wriggles away from you. If Khouri could explain it, perhaps she could. But I don't think she can. Or ever will be able to. 

I will be talking about a movie I watched about Khouri later this week. It is scandalous so be excited!

Sorry this post was so long. It is pretty instrumental that I lay it all out though. Don't you think?

Don't eat too much candy.

Salam,

Liz

Anti-Western

It not quite been a month since my last post, which I am happy about. I did not see my posts as being too frequent once the school year started. Since I lasted post, things have been happenin'.

As expected, my outline changed a bit. I combined all of the books into one chapter where I discuss their similarities. Then I created another chapter where I talk about why Nora Khouri's book is different, dangerous and potentially useful.  I submitted my first chapter. I would post that, but let us be serious, it is not ready for public consumption.

I know I have a few new readers and thank you for following! It gives me a kick (not of the Inception variety) to write some more, which is helpful.

I planned on writing tonight. I thought of discussing the contents of my last chapter, but last night, I got into an argument regarding Arab women. The question was this:
"As someone who wants to teach Arabic, do you find trouble reconciling the desire to teach it with the abuses of women in those countries?"

Barely missing a beat, I said, "No."

I will allow that yes, there is suppression (of all genders) in this "Arab" world (which is vast) that he speaks of...but this question draws a direct relationship between the language and sociological issues, history, and images portrayed by the media. And as the Juan Williams scandal has taught us anything, making direct correlations between something like language/appearance and sociological issues is probably politically incorrect. If I wanted to teach any other language, a question of this variety would not have been asked. I did not bring this up in our argument, but I figured I would get too angry to do so gracefully.

It was mostly how we perceived women in the "East" and how that is a problem. I went into the details of why his perception of "Arab women" was complicated by the way it is portrayed historically. (My step-Dad backed me up, props to him.)

I wish I could say I was the image of eloquence, composition, and that I didn't fume the entire dinner.

That would be a lie. I became a bit of a curmudgeon. I have a slight, slight temper, which rarely shows unless this issue is broached.

So instead of rehashing the jumbled conversation, I provide some quotations of things I imagine myself saying in future conversations. (And hey, maybe you could say them too). The quotes are provided from Chandra Talpade Mohanty's Feminism Without Borders, 2003 from Duke University Press. Some of them are out of context, but I think the general idea of what Mohanty is trying to portray is pretty evident.

“Not only is it problematic to speak of a vision of women shared by Arab and Muslim societies (i.e., over twenty different countries) without addressing the particular historical, material, and ideological power structures that construct such images, but to speak of the patriarchal family or the tribal kinship structures as the origin of the socioeconomic status of women is to assume again that women are sexual-political subjects prior to their entry into the family So while, on the one hand, women attain value or status within the family, the assumption of a singular patriarchal kinship system (common to all Arab and Muslim societies) is what apparently structures women as an oppressed group in these society. This singular, coherent kinship system presumably influences another separate and given entity ‘women.’ Thus, all women, regardless of class and cultural differences, are affected by this system. Not only are all Arab and Muslim women seen to constitute a homogeneous oppressed group, but there is no discussion of the specific practices within the family that constitute women as mothers, wives, sisters, and so on. Arabs and Muslims, it appears, don’t change at all. Their patriarchal family is carried over from the times of the prophet Muhammad. They exist, as it were, outside history.” (28)

Mohanty quotes Marnia Lazreg: “A ritual is established whereby the writer appeals to religion as the cause of gender inequality just as it is made the source of underdevelopment in much of modernization theory in an uncanny way…The overall effect of this paradigm is to deprive women of self-presence, of being. Because women are subsumed under religion presented in fundamental terms, they are inevitably seen as evolving in non historical time. They virtually have no history.” (29)

"Similarly, a large number of different, fragmented examples from a variety of countries also apparently add up to a universal fact. For instance, Muslim women in Saudi Arabi, Iran, Pakistan, India and Egypt all wear some sort of veil. Hence, the argument goes, sexual control of women is a uneversal fact in those countries." (33)

I won't overwhelm you all with anymore quotes. Or with my obvious bitterness towards the aforementioned conversation. 

Wish me luck on constructing my next chapter(s). I wish you all a lovely end-of-fall. 

Best,

Liz