استبطان الشرف: الخصوبة والغرابة والتكاثر في شرق السودان: تأليف الدكتورة آمال حسَّان فضل الله

Dear Professor Abushouk, Uz Alhassan, and Dr Fadlallah & the respectful readers

Apologies for the delay in coming back with some comments, as promised, and also in writing them in English, rather than Arabic. Please do not feel obliged to respond to them, as I understand that things have moved on.

The post was brought to my attention by Uz. Hashim Alhassan (very grateful for that) a few weeks ago. I re-read it several times. Not only that I enjoyed the read, but I was also trying to grasp what has been said, by deciphering the eloquence of Professor Ahmed and Uz. Hashim’s writings. The difficulty for me was in switching between two modes of discourses; a professional technical Arabic discourse that was used to introduce and reflect on the book (which I am not very familiar with), and the very familiar English research vocabulary in my head. I sort of used English to understand what was said in Arabic (twisted, huh!). A humbling, nevertheless, enlightening experience for me.

I will summarise my comments about the book in three sections. My comments about Dr Amal’s book will be limited, as I have not read the book myself, but depended mainly on the careful and insightfully prepared summary by Professor Ahmed and reflections of Uz. Hashim. I disclaim any special knowledge into culture or that part of the Sudan, but have some little knowledge about anthropology and generic discussions of culture in sociological debates. Also, I read a while ago the book by Janice Boddy, and I enjoyed it very much.

The three threads are as follows:


The interplay between gender and race

I very much liked how Dr Amal reflected on the interplay between those two systems of social oppression. More often than not, the two have been studied separately (in addition to class). But to demonstrate empirically the potency of how gender could influence perceptions of race ascendancy (or not), and create a new social strata, is quite interesting. The example I read was about how Al Hadandawa perceive descendants from Barakaween (male) to be of a superior race to those descending from Hudat (females). Although I took Uz. Hashim’s reflections on this point to mean that it is a bit more complex than this. Social order in that context is subject to more than this simple male/female dichotomy, nevertheless, Dr Amal’s analytical lens is one that is worse revisiting in light of second wave feminism and also Hashim’s comments.


“Otherness” as an anthropological concept

Whenever I came across an anthropological study, such as this one, and as much as I appreciated the depth of their fieldwork, I struggled with this concept of otherness.

I do believe, along some other social researchers I guess, that anthropological work tends to exaggerate differences between their studied groups/tribes and the rest of the world (mainly us). Places studied are often remote and hardly accessible to the average person. Observations made about those groups tend to be idealised and to an extent made more mystic. In doing so, the gap between “them” and what we consider “us/modern” widens. This is by no means a criticism to Dr Amal’s work, as much as to the field of Anthropology in general. This reminds of a famous quote by Keesing (1992); “the radical otherness anthropologists have sought has not existed" (p. 301). In my modest view, otherness as an anthropological concept forces strong, and to a large extend, fictitious boundaries between “us/modern” and “them/savages”. For example, similar practices/believe systems about spirits and evil seem to exist in this very “modern” world we call the west (not only “modern” Sudan). I keep remembering my personal experience when I was pregnant with my son Yassin in England lasy year. Many women asked me if its OK to touch my stomach. Others just touched it without asking for my permission, while humming some words. When I asked why do they do that (and these were your average white, middle- class women) I was told it brings luck and good fortune to them!

In summary, I am not calling for discarding otherness as an analytical lens, but perhaps hoping that the presentation of this otherness could allow for seeing similarities between those studied groups and what we consider the norm. Otherness is relational and situational. A comment by Professor Abushouk’s echoed this in my view, by calling for more comparative studies within different cultures.

It is amusing to see Alhadandawa utilising this very same lens that we used to look at their culture, to describe undesirable behaviour/outcomes (e.g. foreign women, evil spirits, etc).


Janice (colonial anthropologists?) vs Dr Amal (local anthropologists?)

I share Professor Ahmed’s and Uz. Hashim’s reservations about particular types of anthropological studies. Especially those that implicitly aimed at advancing the interests of colonial powers in the region (historically and currently). However, I also would like to acknowledge the work of researchers, such as Janice, who spent whole two years in northern Sudan focussing on a related theme. In my view, Amal and Janice’s work intersect in more ways than one, and I am looking forward to receiving Amal’s book to see what a local anthropologist’s view could add. However, from the neat summary of the book and my reading to Janice’s book, some thoughts/questions emerged:

** Professor Abushouk commented on how Amal’s closer perspective will add value to such studies. A view that I partly share. On the other hand, it is worth considering the limitations of such closeness. Would the presence of a local in such tribal settings encourage the studied group to respond more or less to the researcher? I am reflecting on my personal experience in doing field work in the UK with a team of British researchers. By the end of our two years of field work, we found out that my informants were more responsive to me, less threatened by my presence and divulged more information when talking to me, as they tried to explain things more clearly. An observation that we could only explain at the time by my “foreignness”. They made no assumptions, and did not take for granted my knowledge about their culture. Hence, my data sets were more infused with elaborate descriptions and discussions that tried to explain to this foreign woman (me) how things worked over there.

** Another related point, which I think could work to the advantage of both Janice and Amal, is related to this “closeness”. Would Amal’s close perspective mask unintentionally some of what she observes? Since one could assume that she will have some pre-conceived ideas about Alhadandawa culture, (unlike someone like Janice), and hence affect her descriptions? I am basing this on some comments that were discussed by Uz. Hashim, in negating some of Amal’s observations.

** For me, Janice views those local rural women as resourceful beings, in a male dominated culture. Which is contrary to other feminist studies about those cultures. She argues that women bring to the forefront the use of such concepts such as “spirits” to their economic advantage. Women’s problems such as fertility or miscarriage are being used as a resource , rather than being a hindrance. I like this reading into symbolism, because it sorts of empowers women, rather than make them subjective beings. The question sis, to what extent does Dr Amal push to the forefront the use of such symbolism? Is what Janice called feminist discourse (e.g. spritits) part of women reisitence within those societies in the face of increasing problems that they face (health, economical, ..etc)?

** Professor Abushouk also called for more comparative studies about other cultures within the Sudan. A call that I sympathise very much with. However, could one take Dr Amal’s study as an extension to other field work that was done previously in the Sudan? I.e. could all those anthropological studies represent a whole sum of a big jigsaw? or the very nature of those studies (anthropological work), makes it very hard to do so, since they are more concerned with rich descriptions.

Please excuse my ramble and unstructured thoughts. I enjoyed reading this post very much, and I was hoping to read the book and then write some structured piece around it, but time is not on my side. I am very grateful to the summaries and comments provided, which enabled me to have some thoughts around the topic.
Thanks Uz Hashim for drawing my attention to such important post.


A sisterly note to Dr Amal

Way to go sister! I feel very proud to see such excellence in research. I just wish if there was a way for all of us (researchers) to connect and network. I hope that you won’t mind me recommending your book to our library and our anthropology department. Please do let me know if you are planning a visit to the UK (rihab khalifa, Asso Prof, WBS).





----------
Bibliography

Keesing, R. (1992). Custom and Confrontation: Kwaio Struggle for Cultural Autonomy. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-42919-9 (hardcover). ISBN 0-226-42920-2 (paperback).