Assignment #5

Comparing Brooks & an essay by Ashraf Zahedi regarding the "Contested Meaning of the veil and political ideologies of Iranian regimes".

In Geraldine Brook's book, 9 Parts of Desire, the author becomes engrossed in the status and rights of Middle Eastern women. When I ran across Zahedi's essay, it seemed the two would tie in nicely together. After all, Brooks starts her narrative off by introducing Khomeini, a prominent figure in the Iranian revolution of 1979, who in her opinion was responsible for persuading "women that wearing of a medival cloak was a revolutionary act". (Brooks, p. 16) Strangely, Zahedi doesn't mention Khomeini once.

However, the Revolution does get its own little section in in Zahedi's essay. The credit - or blame - for what happens during this timeframe is laid at the regime's feet, which found support in both the clerical and secular camps. "Conservative clerics had a vast network of mosques through which they were able to propagate the importantce of traditional roles for women. Secularists supporting women's causes glorified the revolution as the ultimate means of advancing women's rights." (p. 8)

Of course, one of the main points of contention revolved around the veil. Zahedi does a nice job of giving a brief but well-told history of the veil and how it developed into its modern symbolism. Unlike the very disjointed and almost incomprehensible presentation Brooks gives on the subject, Zahedi's essay is easy to read and very informative. Perhaps narrowing the focus to one nation makes all the difference.

One of the more interesting things Zahedi mentions regarding the revolution is that the "women who had symbolically taken up the chador to support vieled women and the revolution came to the realization that they had no control over the meaning of the symbol and its instutionalization" (p.8) After reading that statement and taking a moment to reconsider Brooks' book, I can see this echoed in 9 Parts of Desire.

Brooks does provide examples of both the veiled and unveiled Muslim woman. While her own prejudices are unavoidable, she does try to present the two sides of this emotionally charged topic.

In many ways I much prefer the straightforwardness and matter-of-fact presentation of Zahedi's essay to Brook's wandering style. I didn't have to continually try to figure out where the author had relocated to or what point she was trying to make. Zahedi's essay is structured and easy to follow. There's no guess work involved.

While Brooks' book contains some of the same historical data, I don't know I could have pulled it out in a cohesive manner. However, to her benefit, her book offered a more personable approach. Whereas Khomeini is lumped - name unmentioned - into the regime Zahedi focuses on, Brooks is able to give the reader some insight into the man behind the revolution. She allows his family to speak of him as a man, a father, and even a grandfather. He is given a personality and some depth.

I think this is one of the main differences between travel writing and essays: the personal element. Essays like Zahedi's tend to be very academic in flavor, whereas travel writings allow for more introspection, subjectivism, and real life experience. So while I would prefer to read Zahedi's if I'm looking for a concrete, cohesive history lesson, I'd rather read Brooks' book to catch a glimpse of what's behind the facts.

Article Source: Zahedi, Ashraf. "Contested meaning of the veil and political ideologies of Iranian regimes.(Essay)." JMEWS: Journal of Middle East Women's Studies 3.3 (Fall 2007): 75(24). Academic OneFile. Gale. University of Michigan Flint. 15 Nov. 2007 . .