Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us

writing seminar, essay on the subjectivity hidden in academic ‘objectivity’ – unveiling the masquerade

In the grand theater of academic writing, we’ve been sold tickets to a show titled ‘Objectivity.’ But as the curtain rises, we find ourselves witnessing a performance where subjective narrators, clad in the garb of neutrality, orchestrate a symphony of so-called unbiased truths. It’s a masquerade, dear readers, where the masks of objectivity barely conceal the human countenances underneath. Consider this an invitation to peek behind the curtain, where the subjective orchestrators wield their pens. It’s here, in the dimly lit corners of the writer’s mind, where personal experiences and cultural influences choreograph the ballet of ‘facts’ and ‘findings’. This is not to discredit the performance, but to appreciate the artistry and human essence that underpin it.

Let’s ponder this: When a scholar writes about the socio-political dynamics of the Middle East, do we not detect the faintest hue of personal perspective, tinted by their experiences, biases, and the very zeitgeist they breathe in? Each word chosen, each fact highlighted, is akin to a brush stroke on a canvas, painting not just a picture of the world, but of the painter as well. Take, for example, the writings on the Arab Spring. Each analysis, whether hailing the uprisings as a democratizing force or criticizing them as destabilizing, tells as much about the author’s political stance as it does about the events themselves. The Middle Eastern canvas is never neutral; it is imbued with the colors of the writer’s own ideological palette.

Consider the historian dissecting events of yesteryears. Can they truly extricate their today from the yesterday they write about? The past is often a mirror reflecting our current beliefs and biases. Our historian, in their quest to present an ‘objective’ account, inadvertently weaves a tapestry rich with the threads of their own temporal and cultural fabric. Edward Said’s seminal work, ‘Orientalism,’ serves as a prime example. It challenges the Western historical narrative on the East, revealing how these accounts were less about the East itself and more about the West’s perception of it. Said’s critique underscores how even historical analysis is a product of its time, shaped by contemporary cultural and political contexts.

Dive deeper into the scientific realms, and the waters get murkier. The scientist, with their beakers and numbers, claims a monopoly on objectivity. But isn’t the choice of what to study, what variables to consider, and what constitutes ‘significant data’ a subjective decision? The path from hypothesis to conclusion is not a straight line but a meandering river, guided by the scientist’s own biases and assumptions. Consider Thomas Kuhn’s assertion in ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ that scientific progress is marked by paradigm shifts rather than cumulative advancements. This perspective suggests that scientific ‘truths’ are often reframed by new paradigms, shaped as much by the scientific community’s prevailing beliefs as by empirical evidence. The very act of choosing a research topic is influenced by subjective factors – what the scientific community deems important or what society prioritizes.

Now, let’s not forget the ethicist, perched on their philosophical pedestal, proclaiming moral truths. Even in their lofty proclamations, the whispers of personal morality echo. Ethics, dressed in the garb of universal truths, often turns out to be a cultural narrative, shaped by the philosopher’s own societal norms and personal experiences. Reflect on the divergent paths of Kantian deontology and Mill’s utilitarianism. While Kant emphasizes duty and universal moral laws, Mill advocates for the greatest happiness principle. These contrasting views don’t just outline ethical frameworks; they reveal the philosophers’ own perceptions of human nature and society. The philosophical debates around ethics thus become windows into the souls of those who argue them, tinted with their cultural backgrounds and personal convictions.

What of literature, you ask? Ah, literature! It unabashedly revels in subjectivity, yet even here, critics mask their interpretations as ‘definitive readings.’ Each analysis is but a reflection of the critic’s mind, a subjective journey through the text, masquerading as an objective exploration. The subjective nature of literary criticism becomes evident when we compare different interpretations of the same text. Take Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet,’ for instance. Is it a tale of tragic indecision, a study in madness, or a political commentary on power and corruption? Each critic’s interpretation is a mosaic of their educational background, personal beliefs, and the critical theories they align with, illustrating that literature is a mirror reflecting the myriad faces of its interpreters.

Amidst this dance of subjectivity, there’s a golden thread that guides us through the labyrinth of academic writing. It’s not the quest for unattainable objectivity but the pursuit of traceability. Academic writing, at its core, is about laying a breadcrumb trail of thoughts and references, allowing readers to trace the journey of the author’s reasoning. It’s less about erasing the author’s footprint and more about making those footprints clear and discernible. Rachel Carson’s ‘Silent Spring’ epitomizes this principle of traceability. Her groundbreaking work on the environmental impact of pesticides didn’t just present a scientific argument; it provided a map of her research journey, complete with references and methodologies. This transparency allowed readers to follow her thought process, challenge her conclusions, and embark on their own journeys of discovery. Thus, traceability in academic writing serves not just as a beacon of clarity, but as an invitation to dialogue and exploration.

In every academic piece,, the writer leaves a trail. This trail includes the insights gathered, the methodologies applied, the data scrutinized, and the references consulted. Traceability is the map that readers use to navigate the writer’s intellectual terrain. It provides transparency, allowing readers to see the ‘how’ and ‘why’ behind each conclusion drawn, each theory proposed.

The strength of an academic argument lies in its ability to be followed, questioned, and understood. When a scholar cites sources, they’re not just bolstering their argument; they’re providing coordinates for readers to find the same information and potentially draw their own conclusions. When a scientist details their experimental procedure, they’re not just showcasing their methodology; they’re inviting others to replicate or challenge their findings. In essence, traceability is the backbone of academic integrity and scholarly dialogue.

So here we are, in this grand masquerade ball of academia, where everyone is both a spectator and a performer. The masks of objectivity are donned, but the eyes behind them sparkle with personal narratives, beliefs, and biases. And as I pen down these thoughts, my own mask slips slightly. Yes, even this critique is not devoid of subjectivity. I, too, am dancing at this ball, my steps choreographed by my experiences, my views, and yes, my biases.

But fear not, for there is beauty in this revelation. It is in the acceptance of subjectivity that we find authenticity. Let us embrace this dance of perspectives, for it is here, in the acknowledgment of our subjective selves, that intellectual exploration begins. In the end, the show of ‘Objectivity’ is but an illusion. We are all subjective beings, trying to make sense of the world through our tinted lenses. And perhaps, in this realization lies the path to a deeper understanding, not just of the world we study, but of ourselves as well.

biopolitics, essay on chapter 3: Disabled Diaspora, Rehabilitating State – The Queer Politics of Reproduction in Palestine/Israel

Let us traverse the tangled terrain of “pinkwashing” – an intriguing concept indeed! As Edward Said’s seminal Orientalism unveiled, narratives create mythic dichotomies between West and East, moderns and ancients. Here too, Israel deploys tropes of progress and tradition to veil complex truths. I am reminded of Plato’s allegory, where the unenlightened see mere shadows on the cave wall, oblivious to realities hidden behind them. Palestinians become those shadows – rendered backward, monolithic, their truths eclipsed by this political art of camouflage.

Yet such dichotomies rarely capture lived complexity, wouldn’t you agree? As Gloria Anzaldúa wrote, borderlands foster “technicolored” mestizaje identities that defy rigid binaries. Might diverse LGBTQ perspectives lurk behind this pink façade? As we traverse beyond Puar’s framework, let us give voice to marginalized narratives on all sides. Can we envision a discourse revealing varied dreams, fears, loves and hopes within both communities? One acknowledging minorities within minorities? After all, to quote Audre Lorde, “revolution is not a one time event.”

Homonationalism: A Mirror of Contradictions

This “homonationalism” also intrigues – nationalism’s dance with gay rights makes queer bedfellows indeed! As Foucault exposed, sexuality and state power entwine like vines. Which identities flourish in this bramble, and which are choked? Puar reveals the double-edged sword, where heralded progress for some obscures others still struggling for liberation.

I am reminded of activist Audre Lorde’s words: “I am defined as other in every group I’m part of.” Like Russian nesting dolls, minorities hide within minorities in manifold ways. In gazing at Israel’s homonationalist facade, let us ask – what stories of identity and exclusion are not being told? What voices yearn to breathe free from this cultural glue bonding citizenship and sexuality?

Rather than framing queer Israeli identities as automatic accomplices to the state, might we make space for diverse experiences? Could Israel’s LGBTQ communities themselves have complex, conflicting views on immigration policies affecting Palestinian kin? As Walt Whitman wrote, we “contain multitudes” of connections and contradictions within the self. Before making judgments, we would do well to listen to marginalized voices from across this metaphorical border wall. Only then can equivalence and empathy guide us forward.

The Biopolitics of Debilitation and Rehabilitation

And when it comes to disability – the body politic bared! Palestinian figures cast as broken, dependent…fragile merchandise of occupation’s brutal machinery. An ironic contrast emerges – the “rehabilitated” state turns caretaker nursemaid for its wounded wards.

Yet I hesitate to embrace this metaphor wholeheartedly. Does it not risk flattening the manifold ways disability mingles in Palestinian experience? As Judith Butler wrote, which bodies “qualify” as “grievable” enough for notice? The discord between populations ought not blind us to discord within.

Might we move past imagery of nameless invalids aided by magnanimous Israel? Let us conceive instead of individuals, families and communities adapting creatively to impairment’s challenges. Of neighborhoods and nations re-envisioning access, equity and empowerment even amidst hardship. Of pride and solidarity thriving alongside struggle. For as disability activist Eli Clare wrote, “complex embodiment ought not be reduced to simple spectacle.” In gazing past façades, we must make space for nuance – honor the once invisible.

The Fertility Front: Biopolitics of Population Poetics

Now to the fertile terrain of population policies – the bedroom intimacies colliding with statecraft! Israel’s pronatalist incentives expose motives consonant with occupying regimes through history…the demographic battleground where bodies become soldiers.

Yet, I am reminded of Arundhati Roy’s words: “There’s really no such thing as the ‘voiceless’. There are only the deliberately silenced, or the preferably unheard.” If we peer past policy, might we glimpse the secret poetry of individual choice when reproductive futures hang in balance? What inner songs sound out when families weigh scientific possibilities against cherished beliefs? When genetic “defects” are defined, by whom – and by whose authority sentenced or spared?

This discourse would thrive, I believe, from embracing reproductive decisions not just as byproducts of state power but as complex personal turning points – crossroads of compromise between conscience and external constraints. Policy is but one vector; lived realities far messier and more multidimensional. Perhaps in listening to marginalized experiences around fertility, abortion and surrogacy, we may better stand in solidarity.

Surrogacy and LGBTQ Rights: Weaving Coatlicue’s Serpentine Identity

Now, surrogacy unfurls as a colorful fringe in this tapestry, interweaving queer family histories with state demographic designs. As previously discussed, the acceptance of formerly marginalized groups often correlates with positions of influence.

Yet even ingestion into the body politic rarely comes without complexity, as Anzaldúa’s mestiza consciousness knows. We contain diversity akin to ancient goddess Coatlicue’s serpentine locks – not easily subsumed or homogenized! I am reminded too of James Baldwin’s words: “I love America more than any other country in the world.” Yet also that “I refuse to accept…the things that white Americans have said they love.” Critical patriotism…loyalty laced with dissent.

In this spirit, could we move past framing Israeli LGBTQ citizens as simplistic pawns or proxies? Might some champion surrogacy rights precisely to resource those otherwise outcast? Could others within the community adopt critical stances – even opposing state policies seen as oppressing Palestinian kin, while benefiting from security and belonging themselves? Perhaps in exploring complexity within LGBTQ experience, new solidarities may emerge on all sides.

Retexturing the Narrative

Thus concludes our journey beyond borders – not into some utopian fantasy, but rather a landscape brimming with complications and contradictions everywhere transformed into opportunity! For in gazing past façades, essentialisms dissolve to reveal intricate humanity in all its forms.

Where to now? Perhaps a new discourse awaits – one truly incorporating voices once marginalized, addressing complex audiences, empowering testimony from multitudes. A platform nurturing empathy for struggles in all camps, binding up wounds from an insufficiently nuanced past.

As we have seen, simple binaries serve poorly to depict profound experience. Rather, reality resembles Gloria Anzaldúa’s coatlicue state – that fertile creative matrix, simultaneously constructive and destructive, harboring tremendous generative potential born of turbulence. Shall we midwife such creation together?

For beyond deconstructing oppression lies the creative burden – transmuting critique into care, spinning inclusion from threads of dissent, till a vibrant mosaic of liberation is all that remains. Who will take up such delicate work with me? Who will stand to retexture these tangled narratives into new patterns – both preserving uniqueness, yet interwoven and resilient enough for ardors ahead? Our work has just begun.

biopolitics, short essay on Crip Nationalism: Pluralizing Embodiments – A Crip Take on Cultural Citizenship

Let’s join scholar Jasbir Puar on a voyage interrogating bodily norms intertwined with cultural ideals of consummate citizenship. Her conception of ‘Crip Nationalism’ challenges state ideologies and social systems cementing ableism by design. It subverts constructions of disability as inherent tragedy or defect, instead locating it in exclusionary infrastructures and policies. Crucially, Crip Nationalism goes beyond deconstructing disability as dis-ease. It reconstructs visions of inclusive citizenship unbounded by bodily conformity.

Take stock of neoliberal capitalist logics worshipping the figure of the unencumbered productive worker-citizen, freely laboring without ‘burdensome’ difference. Such ruling doctrines dismiss bodies that differ from standardized physical or mental norms as drains requiring heavy ‘care’. Historically scientists exploited disabled prisoners as innoculation test subjects because their ‘unfit’ bodies seemed conveniently expendable.

Let’s tune our ears to counter-hegemonic melodies. Behold Shireen, disabled activist, belting anti-carceral protest chants from her motorized wheelchair, embodying Staci Haines’ framework of ‘epic generativity’. Her glittering placard decrees Access for ALL! No Exceptions!” Revel in her joy dethroning tropes of helplessness while demanding rights not pity.

Don’t overlook Pancho, radical veteran dissenter, blasting boots-on-the-ground critiques of militarized ableism. He calibrates carefully between his own injury and collective responsibility for warfare’s unequal brutalization of marginalizedgroups. His poignant question haunts Whose bodies become cannon fodder and why?”

Such subversive soloists accompany orchestral visions for justice spanning technology access, disability arts and culture, solidarity across bodily difference. Their rousing refrain? Dare to dream up citizens’ assemblies where the so-called ‘abnormal’ help authorize policies prioritizing care and inter-dependence!

Heed Crip Nationalism’s urgent call to pluralize bodily ideals undergirding cultural citizenship and state belonging. Let’s collectively re-author more capacious horizons for enfranchisement beyond ableist bounds. Our stories will resound with manifold motifs, recognitions and freedoms for wobbly, wonky, differently-wired embodiments!

The Art of Unsettling Minds: An Exploration of Challenging Assumptions in Academic Writing

writing seminar, commentary on session #5: challenging assumptions


I. Introduction: Setting the Table for Thought

Welcome, dear reader, to our table of inquiry. Here, we don’t just sip on our coffees; we also drink from the fountain of questioning. Our topic today is as stimulating as a double espresso – challenging assumptions in academic writing. Why, you ask? Because, as we’ve all experienced, a text that merely skates on the surface of established ideas is as engaging as a bland diet of unsalted crackers.

II. The Essence of Academic Inquiry: Why We Challenge Assumptions

In the realm of academic writing, challenging assumptions is not just a fancy exercise. It’s a vital heartbeat. Imagine a world where Galileo never questioned the geocentric model, or if Rosalind Franklin accepted DNA as a simple, straightforward molecule. Boring, right? Academic writing thrives on destabilizing the status quo, akin to adding a twist to a well-known tale, making it intriguing and worth exploring.

III. The Problem with Problems: Beyond the Gap Theory

Traditionally, academic texts focus on filling ‘gaps’. But let’s be honest, not every gap needs filling. Some are as inconsequential as a missing sock. Instead, we should focus on ‘instabilities’ – those tantalizing spots where something is amiss, incomplete, or just plain odd. These are not just gaps; they are the seeds of intellectual curiosity.

IV. The Dance of Destabilization: Techniques in Disguise

How do we introduce these instabilities? It’s a delicate dance. One method is by presenting counterintuitive data – imagine revealing that the villain in a story is actually the hero, jolting the reader’s preconceived notions. Or, by contrasting established views with emerging perspectives, akin to showing that the quiet character in the corner has the most profound insights. And let’s not forget the power of questioning norms, the equivalent of asking why the emperor is, indeed, not wearing any clothes.

V. The Balance of Respectful Challenge

Now, challenging assumptions is not about steamrolling over established beliefs with the arrogance of a know-it-all. It’s about inviting the reader on an enlightening journey. It’s the difference between a teacher who throws facts in your face and one who guides you to the discovery. The key? Back your challenges with evidence, acknowledge different perspectives, and aim to enlighten, not belittle.

VI. Engaging the Reader: The Art of Intellectual Seduction

The ultimate goal is to engage the reader. You don’t want your reader nodding off; you want them on the edge of their seat, eagerly turning the page. This requires a mix of clarity, metaphoric creativity, and an invitation to self-reflection. It’s like being a magician who doesn’t just perform tricks but encourages the audience to ponder the mysteries of the universe.

VII. Conclusion: The Joy of Intellectual Unrest

In conclusion, challenging assumptions in academic writing is not just about being contrarian. It’s about sparking curiosity, pushing boundaries, and engaging in a deeper exploration of ideas. It’s a celebration of intellectual unrest, a testament to the human spirit’s unending quest for understanding. So, as you return to your writing, remember: the best academic texts don’t just inform; they provoke thought, inspire change, and, above all, awaken the mind.


This essay is an ode to the art of challenging assumptions. It’s an invitation to join the ranks of thinkers who aren’t afraid to ask, “What if?” and “Why not?” Let’s continue to unsettle minds, including our own, for it is in this intellectual upheaval that true learning and understanding are born.

writing seminar, commentary on session #4: constructing the problem

Academic discourse often touts “objectivity” yet reproduces stale narratives that bolster status quos and power. But when dealing with topics like the Middle East, we must move beyond “generic truisms” that reinforce simplistic binaries and static notions about the region, and shake up entrenched assumptions that flatten complex realities into simplistic binaries: West/East, colonizer/colonized, modern/traditional.

Rather than filling “gaps”, we could ask “what if?” questions that jolt static mindsets. What if we viewed women’s rights through diverse local lenses rather than monolithic religious ones? How might our conceptions of “civil society” change if we trace the term’s contextual origins?

We can present contradictory evidence that adds nuance to notions of fixed identity. While Islam is incredibly diverse, it is often portrayed as a singular culture. And seemingly “static” villages contain internal debates on social change.

Dominant narratives rarely emerge from those marginalized. We need situated perspectives: platforming Middle Eastern women’s scholarship to counter Western paternalism. And applying a power analysis to knowledge production itself—how funding and institutions perpetuate status quos.

This work of unsettling stable truths swims against academic conventions. But carving out unstable spaces where new modes of thought take root is vital for grappling with multifaceted realities. Although unsettling, the cracks where light seeps in reveal possibilities for connection across difference.

biopolitics, commentary on session #4: trans & disability

Our last seminar delved deep into the concept of “piecing” and how it relates to bodily integrity, autonomy, and identity formation in the Middle East. Piecing, as Jasbir Puar describes, involves the fragmentation and reconstitution of the body, often in response to violence and marginalization. It can be a means of asserting agency and reclaiming narrative.

In our robust group discussions, some key themes emerged:

Piecing as Reclaiming Identity

For trans individuals and people with disabilities in the Middle East, piecing allows the reassertion of an identity that dominant social norms delegitimize. Embodying gender transition or disability on one’s own terms resists narratives that label such bodies as “broken” or “abnormal.” As one participant noted, when society fragments you, piecing becomes an act of refusal.

The Commodification of Body Parts

We must critique how neoliberal capitalism intersects with piecing practices like medical tourism or organ trafficking. Within these systems, the body becomes a commodity—its parts assigned monetary value, accessibility dependent on ability to pay. This compromises bodily autonomy and raises ethical concerns. Who has the “right to maim” for profit?

Piecing as Ontological Multiplicity

Piecing also challenges static conceptions of identity. National, ethnic, religious, and gender identities in the Middle East are contested and in flux. Piecing embraces the coexistence of multiple identities within oneself, recognizing identity as an ever-evolving process rather than a fixed state.

Situating Trans Experiences

For trans people, piecing opens vital possibilities for embodying gender on their own terms. Yet we must also consider the broader context—cultural stigma, medical gatekeeping, lack of legal protections—that compromises trans bodily autonomy in much of the region. As one participant emphasized, realizing self-definition often remains an elusive struggle.

Ultimately, our dialogue revealed universal questions about bodily sovereignty, normalcy, and the relationship between individual and society. Piecing foregrounds the struggles for self-determination and belonging that marginalized communities face worldwide. It calls us to imagine a more just world, where all bodies can thrive in their own ways.

These discussions prompt deeper questions:

  • How are queer and crip bodies portrayed in Middle Eastern media and popular culture? What counter-narratives exist?
  • How do lived experiences of trans and disabled people from the region complicate Western assumptions and savior narratives?
  • What traditional practices and communal care strategies exist in the Middle East that support bodily and psychic difference?
  • How do we move beyond just “tolerance” or “visibility” and build a culture of true belonging?
  • What would policies and societal changes that enhance bodily autonomy and integrity look like in this region and globally?

Our dialogues illustrated how the body becomes a lightning rod for core issues of identity, power and social justice. Piecing foregrounds the universal struggles for self-determination and belonging among marginalized communities worldwide. It calls us to imagine more just futures where all embodiments can thrive.

In our next session, we analyze how disabled bodies are impacted by nationalist projects, medical regimes and capitalism. This critical linkage between body, state and economy will expand our understanding of the forces shaping bodily autonomy.

biopolitics, comment on chapter 1: Bodies with New Organs – Becoming Trans, Becoming Disabled

The first chapter of Jasbir Puar’s “The Right to Maim” delves into a complex interplay of bodies, identities, and the socio-political structures that govern them. Here are some essential findings and key takeaways, which we can then relate to the context of the Middle East:

  1. Somatechnologies and Social Bodies: Puar discusses the concept of somatechnologies, which refers to the ways in which demands for bodily alteration are also demands for new social bodies. This idea challenges neoliberal paradigms by emphasizing the interconnectedness of individual bodies and broader societal assemblages (page 50). In the Middle East, this can be seen in the context of gender reassignment surgery in Iran, where the state sanctions and subsidizes such surgeries. While on the surface this may appear as a progressive stance on transgender rights, it also enforces strict gender binaries and does not necessarily reflect a broader acceptance of LGBTQ+ identities.
  2. Transnormative Bodies and Neoliberalism: The chapter critiques the neoliberal celebration of bodily flexibility and the commodification of body parts, noting that the transnormative body that “pieces” is a reflection of market economies that value this piecing as a form of transgressive capacity when it is, in fact, constitutive of neoliberalism (page 56). The Middle East, particularly in the Gulf region, has seen a rise in medical tourism, cosmetic surgeries, and body modifications, driven by neoliberal market forces. Dubai, for instance, is becoming a hub for cosmetic surgery, reflecting the global commodification of body parts that Puar critiques. This trend raises questions about the ways in which economic liberalization influences body norms and ideals in the region.
  3. Intersectionality of Disability and Trans Identity: There is an exploration of the intersectionality between disability and trans identities, highlighting the exceptionalization of both trans and disabled bodies within socio-cultural and legal frameworks. This exceptionalization converts nonnormative debility into a form of social and cultural capacity (page 42). In the Middle East, the intersectionality of disability and trans identities can be particularly complex due to cultural, religious, and political factors. For example, in Iraq, transgender individuals face significant persecution, and those who are disabled due to war-related injuries may receive limited support and face social ostracization. The intersection of these identities can lead to compounded discrimination, where trans individuals who are also disabled may find themselves marginalized from both the broader society and within communities that advocate for either disability or LGBTQ+ rights. This intersectionality is critical to understand in regions affected by conflict, where the social infrastructure for support is often lacking, and where the bodies of disabled trans individuals can become sites of political, social, and medical contestation.
  4. Resistance and Control Economies: Puar engages with the idea of the body as a site of resistance to biopolitical control technologies, emphasizing the paradoxical condition of contemporary resistance where subjectivity is both an effect of control and a site of revolt (page 58). The concept of the body as a site of resistance is vividly illustrated in the Middle East by specific events and movements. For instance, during the Arab Spring, the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi in Tunisia was a stark and tragic act of resistance that catalyzed widespread protests. In Egypt, the occupation of Tahrir Square involved a collective embodiment of protest where physical presence became a form of resistance against the regime. Additionally, in Iran, the women’s movement against compulsory hijab-wearing, exemplified by the “White Wednesdays” campaign, sees women risking imprisonment by publicly removing their hijabs. These acts of resistance are not only against specific policies but also challenge the broader economies of control that govern bodies and behavior in public spaces. Puar’s work invites us to consider how these bodies resist and how resistance itself is commodified or controlled by state powers, which can be seen in the subsequent crackdowns and surveillance of activists in these regions.
  5. Race, Gender, and Speciation: The text discusses the concept of becoming trans as a deterritorializing force that relates to gender, sex, race, and species, challenging the normativities and creating intensive differences (page 60). The Middle East’s diverse ethnic and religious landscape provides a complex backdrop for examining the intersections of race, gender, and species. For instance, the treatment of migrant workers, often from South Asia, in Gulf countries, can be critiqued through Puar’s lens of speciation, where certain bodies are deemed less valuable and are subjected to harsher working and living conditions.
  6. Legal and Political Entanglements: Puar critically examines the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and its role in shaping societal views and treatment of disability. The ADA, while groundbreaking, is argued to have inadvertently reinforced certain standards of bodily capacity and debility through the reproduction of gender normativity. This is integral to the productive potential of the disabled body. The Act is seen as creating a class of “untouchables” by allowing a space for permissible employer discrimination, particularly against those who do not conform to sexual and gender norms, marking them as outsiders. This legal framework contributes to what is termed “crip nationalism,” where certain disabilities are valorized as productive for national economies and ideologies, further marginalizing other disabilities. This tolerance of disability is negotiated through the disciplining of the body along other normative registers of sameness, including racial hierarchies (page 35).
    • Israel: The complexities of the ADA’s counterpart in Israel, the Equal Rights for Persons with Disabilities Law, can be seen in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Disability rights within Israeli society are advanced compared to many other countries, but the situation for Palestinians, particularly those in the Occupied Territories, is markedly different. The intersection of disability with the racialized politics of occupation adds layers of marginalization for disabled Palestinians, who face barriers to mobility, healthcare, and social services.
    • Iran: In Iran, the legal framework for disability is influenced by Islamic principles and the government’s approach to social welfare. The Iranian government has made efforts to integrate disabled individuals into society, but traditional gender norms can complicate this, especially for women with disabilities, who may face double discrimination based on both disability and gender expectations.
    • Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabia has been working on improving disability rights and has ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. However, the intersection of disability with gender can be particularly challenging due to the conservative nature of Saudi society, where gender roles are rigidly defined, and the guardianship system has only recently begun to be dismantled.
  7. Ontological Multiplicity: Puar introduces the concept of “ontological multiplicity,” which suggests an imagined affiliation between disability and trans identities. This affiliation is linked to racial and interspecies discourses that acknowledge the differentiation of variation and multiplicity (page 36). The idea here is that bodies are not fixed entities but are malleable composites of parts, capacities, and debilities. This perspective challenges the notion of discrete categories of identity and instead promotes a view of identities as fluid and interconnected.
    • Lebanon: In Lebanon, the organization “The Arab Foundation for Freedoms and Equality (AFE)” works on issues of sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression as well as disability rights. They advocate for inclusive health services that cater to both the LGBTQ+ community and individuals with disabilities. For example, AFE has highlighted the unique challenges faced by trans individuals with disabilities, who often experience compounded discrimination that is not adequately addressed by existing legal frameworks or social services.
    • Iran: The Iranian context presents a paradox. While transgender individuals can legally undergo gender reassignment surgery and have their new gender recognized, this is often encouraged as a solution for homosexuality, which is criminalized. This situation creates a complex interplay between the state’s enforcement of a gender binary through medicalization and the lived reality of gender-diverse individuals who may not fit neatly into state-sanctioned categories. So, the seemingly progressive stance interms of re-assigning gender is complicated by the lack of support for those who don’t conform to post-surgical gender norms or for those who are disabled as a result of surgery.

Relating these takeaways to the Middle East, we can consider how the region’s complex socio-political landscape interacts with these concepts. For example, the Middle East’s history of colonialism, conflict, and socio-political movements provides a rich context for examining the intersectionality of identities and the body as a site of resistance. The neoliberal market economies prevalent in some parts of the Middle East, particularly in the Gulf states, can be critiqued through Puar’s analysis of transnormative bodies and neoliberalism.

For example, we can ask:

  • How do neoliberal market economies in the Middle East contribute to the commodification of bodies, and how does this relate to Puar’s concept of the transnormative body?
  • In what ways do the intersectional identities of disability and trans manifest in Middle Eastern societies, and how are they shaped by cultural, legal, and political forces?
  • How might the body act as a site of resistance within the context of Middle Eastern geopolitics, and what forms might this resistance take?

writing seminar, commentary on session #2: analyzing effective writing

Dear fellow explorers of the written word,

As I stood before my students in our recent writing seminar, a thought struck me with the force of a literary epiphany: in our quest for academic excellence, have we forgotten the very essence of writing? Have we lost sight of the reader?

The hallowed halls of academia often echo with the sounds of profound discussions, intricate arguments, and the ever-present hum of intellectual curiosity. Yet, as I delved into the art of effective writing with my students, I couldn’t help but wonder:

For whom do we write?

The second session of our writing seminar was, in many ways, a revelation. As we delved deeper, I was reminded of a quote by the great Maya Angelou: “Words mean more than what is set down on paper. It takes the human voice to infuse them with shades of deeper meaning.” But what happens when that voice seems to be speaking into a void?

As I reviewed the submissions for this session (see this post), an observation became glaringly evident. While many of the pieces were academically sound, brimming with well-researched arguments and meticulous citations, there was a conspicuous absence:

the reader.

It was as if these pieces were written for a void, devoid of a human touch. Not one clearly identified its intended reader. This isn’t to diminish the academic rigor of these submissions; on the contrary, they were commendable in their depth and precision. However, they served as a stark reminder that even the most scholarly of writings can fall short if they don’t consider the reader. It’s akin to crafting a masterful musical performance in an empty auditorium. The notes may be perfect, but if there’s no one there to hear it, does it truly resonate?

But who is this elusive reader? Is it the professor, evaluating our work with a critical eye? Or perhaps our peers, fellow students and colleagues, with whom we share our intellectual journey? Maybe it’s the broader academic community, or perhaps, just perhaps, it’s the curious layperson, eager to learn but often alienated by the dense jargon and convoluted structures of academic prose.

The (fictious) samples we discussed in class were illuminating. Some were dense with jargon, speaking only to a select few. Others, however, managed to bridge the gap between the academic and the accessible, inviting a broader audience into the fold. It reminded us that writing, at its core, is a form of communication. And what is communication without a receptive audience?

This session was a call to action for all of us. It’s not enough to write with precision and clarity. We must also write with empathy and intention, always keeping our readers at the forefront of our minds. After all, isn’t the ultimate goal of writing to connect, to communicate, to resonate?

So, I challenge my students, and indeed, all of you reading this: as you embark on your next writing endeavor, pause for a moment. Think of your reader. Picture them, not as a faceless entity but as a fellow traveler on this intellectual journey. Write for them. Speak to them. Invite them in.

For if we lose sight of our audience in this already cacophonous world, we risk turning our words into mere noise.

Warmly, VM.

biopolitics, commentary on session #1: preface and introduction

Maiming rights: between power and vulnerability

In the dimly lit corners of our collective consciousness, there lies a question, one that has been whispered in hushed tones in the grand halls of academia: What does it mean to have the right to maim? As I sat through the inaugural session of our biopolitics course, the weight of this question pressed somehow heavily upon me. It was like the sensation of a dense fog, obscuring the path ahead, yet beckoning me to venture deeper.

Jasbir Puar’s “The Right to Maim” is not just a book; it’s a provocation. It’s a challenge to our preconceived notions of power, control, and the human body. Remember Foucault’s musings on biopower? Puar takes it a step further, diving headfirst into the murky waters of debility, capacity, and disability. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Let’s start at the beginning, shall we?

The preface of “The Right to Maim” is akin to the opening sequence of a gripping film. It sets the stage, introduces the characters, and hints at the drama to unfold. But what truly caught my attention was the introduction. It’s here that Puar lays out their thesis, drawing us into a world where the body is both a site of resistance and subjugation. It’s reminiscent of Orwell’s “1984,” where power is not just about control but also about the ability to inflict pain. But Puar goes beyond Orwell, asking: What if power is not just about the right to inflict pain, but also the right to maim?

Now, fellow thinkers, I invite you to pause for a moment.

[trigger warning: imaginations of pain and conflict]

Close your eyes and imagine a world where the state has the authority to maim its citizens. It’s a chilling thought, isn’t it? But as Puar argues, this is not just a dystopian fantasy. It’s a reality for many, especially in conflict zones. Think of the countless stories from war- and conflict- and terror-inflicted places, where bodies are broken, not just to punish, but to control.

But why maim?
Why not kill?

This is where Puar’s argument becomes particularly intriguing. Maiming, she suggests, is a form of biopolitical control. It’s about creating a population that is perpetually debilitated, dependent, and thus easier to control. It’s a Machiavellian strategy, one that is both cruel and effective.

Yet, as I sat in that seminar room, listening to the first reflections on ableness, disability, debility, and activisim, I couldn’t help but wonder: Is there a silver lining? Can the maimed body also be a site of resistance? Can it challenge the very power structures that seek to control it?

In the world of pop culture, the underdog is celebrated, the one who rises against all odds. Think of characters like Furiosa from “Mad Max: Fury Road” or Bran Stark from “Game of Thrones.” Both are physically debilitated, yet they challenge and subvert the power structures around them – to a certain degree, and, of course, a matter of interpretation. Can real-life maimed bodies do the same?

As we venture deeper into “The Right to Maim,” I invite you to join in on this intellectual journey. Let’s explore the nuances of Puar’s arguments, challenge their assumptions, and perhaps, just perhaps, find some answers to these pressing questions.

In the words of the great philosopher Socrates, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” So let’s examine, let’s question, and let’s discover. After all, isn’t that what academia is all about?

writing seminar, commentary on session #1: introduction

Have you ever found yourself at the crossroads of curiosity and academia, yearning for a space that marries both? A space where the hues of the Middle East’s complex history intermingle with the sharp, analytical tools of contemporary cultural studies? Welcome to our seminar’s digital alcove, where we set out for a trip that transcends the traditional boundaries of the classroom, spilling over into the bustling cafés of intellectual discourse.

organizational musings

Our seminar, “From Campus to Cafés: Writing the Middle East for Your Daily Read,” is not just another course. It’s a space of exploration, a canvas upon which we paint our understanding of the Middle East. Our Mondays, from 2:15 PM to 3:45 PM, are reserved for this intellectual dance. But what, you might ask, are the steps to this dance?

Our course is structured to break down the barriers of academia, allowing us to write for a broader audience. We aim to translate our academic insights into narratives that resonate, using ethical research practices and persuasive writing techniques. And as we journey together, we’ll engage in peer reviews and collaborative learning, refining our perspectives and honing our craft.

But what is a journey without milestones? Our course is punctuated with assignments that challenge and inspire. From identifying potential topics for our final papers to framing motivating problems, our tasks are designed to keep us on our toes. And for those who thrive on deadlines, fret not! Our tasks come with their own set of deadlines, ensuring we stay on track.

a note on tolerance

In this space, we champion open-mindedness and embrace the ambiguities that come with diverse perspectives. However, let me be clear: we have zero tolerance for any form of discrimination. Respect and inclusivity are the pillars upon which our learning community stands.

mapping our knowledge

In our first session (see the presentation here), we embarked on a task of personal and peer knowledge mapping. Each student delved deep, introspecting on their expertise, writing experiences, and aspirations. We then came together, forming a network of knowledge and interests. From the anthropology of MENA to the nuances of computational linguistics, our map was a testament to the diverse expertise and interests that each one of us brings to the table.

the blog: our digital alcove

Our seminar’s blog, Keine Disziplin – No Discipline, is not just a platform. It’s a living, breathing entity that captures our reflections, our learnings, and our aspirations. It’s where we engage in discussions, share our insights, and strive for continuous learning.

As we navigate the vast expanse of the Middle East’s history and culture, I invite you to join us. Engage with us, challenge us. After all, in the words of a modern Westerosi philosopher, “The things we do for knowledge.”

P.S. Remember, as we traverse this academic landscape, our guiding principle remains: always question, always explore, and always stay curious.