When objects are considered to have more agency than humans…
While you are probably already familiar with the ‘burkini controversy’ that took place in France in 2016, I think it can be relevant to some aspects of yesterday’s discussion around materiality and gendered anxieties.
Some of you may have had difficulty understanding how the French mayors who banned the burkini in their cities, with the support of the prime minister, could even attempt to justify their decisions as motivated by anything else than islamophobia. According to those in favour of the ban (two thirds of the French population), an outfit such as the ‘burkini’ can only be the ostentatious sign of a religious project. They assume that, through this object, women are making a political statement aimed at a community of passive beachgoers (or are used/forced by men to that end). Following the same logic, the outfit is thought to have been created by islamist activists with political ambitions.
In contrast, the inventor of the burkini, Aheda Zanetti, argues that she did not even have religion in mind when she designed the swimwear. To her, it is only a tool that enables Muslim women to practice certain sports, as well as a business opportunity she wants to pursue. Religion (and the modesty attached to it) is the context that gives rise to such practical need, but the ‘burkini’ was not designed to convey a message to the public. Attached is Zanetti’s article in the Guardian.
This example illustrates Jones’s point on the importance of gender when it comes to faith and consumption, as women tend to be seen as lacking agency. In this case, the advocates of a burkini ban could only see women’s bodies as vehicles for the diffusion of propaganda.
Contributed by JaanaSerres on 31/01/2018
