Information Marxism

One of my interests is branding. Products are often sold with fine print that threatens to contractually bind us into expressing certain personalities, attitudes, or traits. This is why you can answer the question: what's the difference between someone who owns a Mac and someone who owns a PC?

The truth is, there doesn't have to be any difference. It's like asking what the difference is between someone who owns cows and someone who owns goats. Maybe somewhere there's stereotype, but it hasn't been used to sell anything, at least not successfully, so most of us can't answer this question. But the real answer is the same: there doesn't necessarily have to be a difference.

When materialism was synonymous with shopohilism, caring about brands made you a shallow person. These days, if you don't care about brands, you aren't socially conscious. However, caring is no longer superficial but requires a lot of research. In the information age, a lack of social consciousness makes you information impoverished, lazy, inept, inconsiderate, and/or awkward. Still, honestly, social consciousness is a "brand" itself, and I have mixed feelings about branding.

First, how much of our identity is created through what we purchase? Everything you buy says something about you because everything you buy is a vote and an investment in the retailer, company, and product and how you vote and invest reflects upon you. Beyond bare necessities, your choices reflect your values or the values a brand convinces you you should have. That last part is pivotal. Do your choices reflect your values or the values advertising convinces you to have?

This came into perspective for me as a minority. The values my parents have are not the same as those held by the larger society I live in. Furthermore, my parents are rather religious and have only become more so over the course of my life. Though their cultural values are still pretty deeply held, religion gives them a more canonized and therefore more accessible way to examine their values against a standard they trust. Their cultural values tend to be more arbitrary but because religion plays such a large cultural role in my family, I have overall adapted a stance of re-examination of values.

It's not just the private sector that perpetuates branding. Schools, which are government regulated, perpetuate the American brand. Or what officials have decided is the American brand. It could be said that's politics in general.

When I was writing graduate school applications, one of the best questions I came across about information access is Randy Stoecker's concern over whether internet access gives underprivileged, dispossessed people a superficial or false sense of belonging to larger culture. Implied in this criticism is a distrust for larger culture, which is created through assertive branding and seeks to profit only the business owners.

The best answer to this question, I believe, comes from Hans Enzensberger, on whom I haven't done enough research but first encountered here. I have been interested in "new media" since I encountered Amir Ahmad's Islam in the Age of New Media project. Basically, the idea is the mass, radical manipulation of media. Branding is created through media but everyone has access to the creation of media, it gives everyone access, if they wish, to branding as well. Rather than only consuming pre-packaged brand values, people are given the chance to package and perpetuate the values they choose. This is also, in my opinion, one of the best uses of the internet. Already, the internet is being limited by big brands. That can't be allowed to happen. Branding, especially in the realm of the internet, needs to be put into the hands of socially conscious community leaders. Maybe that sounds like tribalism but if we are to be united, it has to be on fair terms.

Who is confused?

I seem to be taking a turn for the topical lately so, yes, let's talk about Mona Eltahawy. While I applaud her for gaining such wide readership, I think she needs to heed Uncle Ben's words that, "With great power, comes great responsibility."

A few weeks ago, I read her article, "Let me, a Muslim Feminist Confuse You," and found it highly relatable. Though she breaks down the Muslim feminist experience into milestones, including a "headscarves and hymens" moment, I don't entirely fit into, I agree that Muslim feminism causes confusion in most people and I like that confusion can and should function positively when it comes to busting stereotypes. For a long time, I wore hijab mainly for the performative aspect. I felt it was my duty to give people the chance to interact with a hijabi with a personality contradictory to the submissive, reclusive, even handicapped woman they perhaps expected. I wasn't sure then if hijab itself is empowering in some way but we can at least safely say that it pushed me to stand for something. From Eltahawy's article, it seemed she stood for something similar.

In the same article, she explains that her experience in Saudi Arabia caused her to be "done with Muslim men." Her Foreign Policy article, "Why Do They Hate Us?" appears to continue that thread of her Muslim feminist experience. However, two paragraphs later in her earlier article she says (emphasis her own),

"When I returned to Egypt at 21, I learned Muslim men were not the enemy after all, as progressive, liberal Muslim women and men helped me define my own place in Islam."

If that is the case, what can Eltahaway's reason be for taking a leap backwards by reinforcing the stereotype that makes Arab men criminalized others? Because she both her decision to be "done with Muslim men" and later find some of them to be "not the enemy after all" were both out of experiences with Arab men but men from different countries, I have to recognize that she is not creating an evil Arab male monolith. I believe she is addressing a general cultural feeling that pre-dates Islam and expands beyond Arab culture. I have experienced it myself from all kinds of men. And from women, too. It's called misogyny, or the hatred of women.

It's extremely difficult to confront misogyny in someone like you care about. However, if you have a misogynist loved one, it becomes especially difficult to deal with the issue when they are also a member of a minority for which there exists demeaning stereotypes you don't want to further aggravate. Do you help yourself or do you help the minority community? At this point, Muslim feminists should read up on black feminist thought because there's a lot there that's relevant to this conversation. Whether Mona Eltahawy has done so or not remains unclear but her answer seems to be that you save yourself. In my personal opinion, I believe a woman (or man) has a right to chose who to save but that Eltahawy has a point in her inclusive tone if she means we should not alienate those who choose to save themselves.

Minority feminism aside, I have a few bones to pick with Eltahawy. First, the title, "Why Do They Hate Us," rings of post-9/11 "why do Arabs hate Americans." While I don't think believe that question has been properly addressed by anyone, I don't think this is the right place to bring it up. This is a stretch perhaps, but it seems to imply that the real hatred comes from conservative Muslim and Arab men and women and is directed toward progressive, liberal types such as Eltahawy. The implied Muslim/Western separationism also seems to imply liberals/progressives (or "westerners" in general. Or are all westerners liberal/progs?) are free of the yoke of sexism and that is direly untrue. It struck a thunderous chord with me when she says,

"...women are silenced by a deadly combination of men who hate them while also claiming to have God firmly on their side."

"claiming to have God firmly on their side"?! Well, a judgmental note like that doesn't seem to imply progressive liberals are on the side of all Muslim women. It seems to imply that being a religious Muslim woman who looks to God for help means you can't be feminist, save yourself, or even have feminists on your side.  So much for the confusion you promised, Eltahawy.

We'll talk about why Mona's target audiences needs to hear both from Muslims feminists (the types who oppose niqabs, though) and want to think of Muslim men as criminal others in another post.