We discussed Lipstick Jihad in today's class, and there seemed to be a lot of malice towards the book. It sort of bummed me out, considering I sort of liked it. I know that it is not a perfect text, but I wanted to address some of the issues. Maybe it will make me feel a little better.
1. The author seemed whinny and self absorbed.
Well, it is a memoir. It is kind of all about her. That being said, the author has tons of flaws. It is clear that she is conflicted about her own identity and self-worth. Being an Iranian American has not set well with her. She feels as if the minute she admits her Iranian identity, Americans judge her on a flawed set of stereotypes. She secretly avoids it in her teens. Yet, there is a part of her that is totally absorbed with her mysterious homeland. She dreams of it as if it is in utopian technicolor. When she arrives in Tehran, the dream is sort of popped. She isn't really Iranian, no matter how hard she tries. Still, she doesn't feel American either. This struggle is constantly raging in her, which sort of spills over into her perceptions of other things.
For those of you who are annoyed, I can understand that the untidiness of this process is uncomfortable and ugly. As a young woman myself, going through her own identity issues, I can relate to this self-absorbed trying to figure out me and what all this stuff is about. My process isn't pretty either. The fact that this memoir is written before she even hits 30 might explain why there is never any sort of resolution to the problem. She is still figuring it out. I know I am.
2. This book perpetuates an Orientalist view of Iran.
If you came to this book to get an accurate historical perspective on Iran, or contemporary portrayal of Iranian life without Western stereotyping...yeah, this book will let you down. I believe that, at best, you sort of get the author's take on everything. Remember, she is a refugee, with a bias opinion that is shaped by her perception of what Americans perceive Iran is all about. I also think that she holds a lot of orientalist views that she doesn't even acknowledge because she is still processing them. Now, that being said...I think the book does paint a picture on what Iranian history is like for a refugee and how that impacted their family that fell in a certain social class. I would assume there are others who see things simularly. I think it is also interesting that she seems to be so careful at times when she describes things in Iran that she believes Americans might get the wrong idea about. Her hesitancy sort of suggests that there is another sort of social pressure that we put on refugees like her to be ambassadors for their country, when they are sort of quasi-representatives of that nation. In further interviews with her, she says that she has been asked to speak on Iran and other Iranian topics as an expert, and she does not consider herself one. It is us who want to put her in that role.
3. If we can't view this as a good model of the genre of memoir, or see it as an accurate representation of Iran, we should disregard it and keep others from reading it.
I learned so much about Iran when I read this book, and it gave me such curiousity to learn more that I reject this. Is it the best book ever written, no. I think it talks about something that we have so little on. Maybe it was pushed to be published too soon because the hunger to fill the information gap is so high. Just because it is popular and available doesn't mean we have to feed the fire and use it. True. Still, I think it talks about so many things that young America is interested in that it is a great discussion generator.
Here is another note... I think there are a lot of parallels to Cuban refugee communities in the experience of the author and her family. I think you could pair this with Dreaming in Cuban or stories on other refugees and gain value from that perspective. Her experience isn't completely unique, and it could be a springboard to understanding the lives of those fleeing persecution in general.
4. She double speaks. One minute, she says that the Islamic Republic represses women's rights, and in the next admits that the Islamic Republic help gain greater freedoms for women in rural areas. It is hypocritical.
I think in places like Iran, things and not black or white. I think women, like those in this author's family, once the Islamic Republic took over lost a lot of freedoms they had once enjoyed and were peeved about it. In the same way, some very conservative Iranian women were able to experience the reverse. There is complexity there. It is easy to demonize, without noticing that some part of the population benefited greatly by the Islamic Revolution. Likewise, Iran is doing somethings currently that are fantastic, that doesn't mean that they are saints. Couldn't this be said of the US too?
In regards to the critique that the author only noticed the full hatred toward American governmental policies after 9/11...and how could that be because she had been living there so long... I understood that she knew that it existed before, but she didn't really understand the depth or the breadth until that moment. Simular to the slave narratives I have been reading in African American Literature, there is a singular moment where the main character understands the full depth and breadth of racism, or their plight as a slave. Not that they hadn't been exposed to these facts before, but it was the first time they noticed, or understood.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, I understand that this text and the author has faults, I just felt like we might have been too eager to judge and disregard this text. Maybe I am stupid. Maybe I don't have the chops for this whole literary criticism thing. I mispronounce words, or make stupid observations... but at the risk of looking like a total idiot... I want to stand up for this book. Call me crazy. I think it has some merits to help Americans start to understand Iran, or build some interest in looking at Irans as human beings like you and me. The book forces us to look at our own stereotypes and misconceptions of Iran, and asks us to learn something about the heritage of this land and the current plight of its people. Even if it is flawed, isn't it a start?
Innocent in Guantanamo
14 years ago
Marie, I think this is a perceptive and powerful response to our discussion. At the moment I am thinking that it might be interesting to include your whole post, along with some counter posts, in the book to set up discussion of the complexity of choosing books to teach and to "represent" the Middle East.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your thoughtful post!
I agree with you and I didn't absolutely hate the book like many people seemed too. Sometimes I think people start to be too critical and don't simply listen to the stories. I know this book has flaws and it's not the best book, but I thinks sometimes people need to stop analyzing so much and just enjoy a book.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, I think this is just the way critical dialogue works. If we all talk about how much we loved the book, then there's not much to say outside of surface observations. It's only when we discuss the work within social and cultural contexts that we can really glean an understanding of how this books is working (or is not working, as the case may be) to challenge or disrupt notions of identity. Considering an author's citizenship and upbringing is very important in Postcolonial theory; if she did not experience the culture itself, then an attempt to "return to the roots" is somewhat disingenuous.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I liked the book-- I just have more fun deconstructing things than appreciating them :)