A View From Behind The Veil by Nina Bingham

    In the New York Times article entitled, “In Saudi Arabia: A View From Behind The Veil” (Stack, 2007), staff reporter Megan K. Stack shares her experience as a Western woman living in the male dominated, paternalistic society of Saudi Arabia. She depicted her experience as haunting, unsettling, insulting, and infuriating. Her reactions to living in a fundamental religious society where imposed and mandatory cultural “rules” govern gender roles were…well, typically Western. Social compliance and norms are not concepts that Western independent thinkers take kindly to; America is home of the rugged individualistic cowboy types like John Wayne. The “oppressive” Arabian social attitudes towards women are a stark contrast from America, where women constitute the majority of the workforce. Although Stack attempted to drop her preconceived American “universal commonplace” ideas (Woodward & Denton, p. 178), she found in the end she was unable to.

    Her article offered nothing in the way of trying to explain the gender cast system from a cultural perspective, which is again, typically ethnocentrically American. Psychologically, she sounded “shell shocked” and traumatized by trying to “fit in” when she clearly couldn’t adjust to their way of life. The crucial question Stack is indirectly raising in this article seems to be: if a woman says she is happy, or at least satisfied being dominated and controlled by men, is it still wrong for her?

    In America, the rules for gender roles were changed forever in the 1960’s with the sexual revolution, and into the 1970’s with the feminist movement. These two decades revolutionized American women’s lives, giving them the freedom to express themselves sexually, and compete with men academically, and in the workplace. In the short span of two decades American women transitioned from domestic servants in the home to supervising men in the workplace. What women have traded in exchange for increased equality with men is losing the “protector-provider” role which a paternalistic society offers, much as Stack lost the feelings of anonymity which wearing the “abaya” loaned her. In theory, the “abaya” serves to preserve women’s modesty and propriety, and to protect them from prying eyes. It is the Saudi’s way of keeping women “safe.” In a collectivist society such as Saudi Arabia, the sexes have clearly defined and set gender roles to fulfill, so there is little confusion as to what is expected of you. However, anyone who deviates from this mold is shunned or punished, which is what I believe Stack was opposed to. Because she was an “outsider,” she could do little to change the status of women in Saudi Arabia. However, maybe she did. Just maybe a Saudi man read her article, and thought twice about the gender cast system. At the very least, she helped American readers to appreciate American democracy and freedom just a little bit more.

    What I learned from her article is that it is nearly impossible to understand and appreciate another culture’s motives. It is easy to pass judgment on other societies without having a thorough understanding of another country’s history and perspectives. Sociology calls this propensity, “fundamental attribution error” (Aronson, Wilson & Akert, 2010); the attributing of motives to the person instead of to the environment. I learned again through her article that we all have cultural biases, and try as we might to assimilate into another culture, the social norms we are taught governs our belief systems and behaviors. Stack could have included more insight into how native Saudi women feel about the “gender cast system” they are born into. One Saudi woman didn't understand why Stack was incensed that women do not have the right to vote by responding, “We have husbands and a father, why would we need to vote?” (Stack, 2007). Stack did a decent job of communicating the role-related injustices that are simply an unquestioned way of life for Saudi women, such as: no driving or voting privileges, and no running for public office. Stack describes Saudi Arabia as having the reputation of a “modern, misunderstood kingdom” (Stack, 2007). However, when she describes the everyday injustices of what amounts to a gender cast system, there seems to be no misunderstanding; she seems to be saying that the oppression is deliberate. And yet, inconceivably, native Saudi females do not find it objectionable. Or if they do, they do not have the freedom to say so because of the cool to hostile reception they would receive.

    Stack’s account could have been a cross-cultural lesson for her readers in tolerance and understanding of another culture’s motives, but it was not. Or it could have told us the “inside” story from an Arab woman’s point of view. Instead, Stack seems to be saying that behind her veil were feelings of shame and outrage about being treated like a second class citizen. According to who you ask, the Saudi social morays concerning women can either be considered a method of protection and respect, or a curse. It depends on who is behind the veil.

References:

Stack, Megan K. (2007). In Saudi Arabia, a view from behind the veil. New York Times, June 6, 2007 edition.

Woodward, Gary C., Denton, Robert E., Jr. (2010). Persuasion and influence in American life. Sixth edition, Waveland Press, Inc., Long Grove, Illinois.

Aronson, E., Wilson, T.D., Akert, R.M. (2010). Social Psychology. Seventh edition, Prentice Hall.

Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice. Fifth edition, Pearson.