CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,371Anthropology: Ethics, History, CultureAnthropological Studies and InsightsGender, Security, and Conflict

Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others

Abu‐Lughod, Lila·2002·American Anthropologist
DOI 10.1525/aa.2002.104.3.783
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article explores the ethics of the current "War on Terrorism, asking whether anthropology, the discipline devoted to understanding and dealing with cultural difference, can provide us with critical purchase on the justifications made for American intervention in Afghanistan in terms of liberating, or saving, Afghan women. I look first at the dangers of reifying culture, apparent in the tendencies to plaster neat cultural icons like the Muslim woman over messy historical and political dynamics. Then, calling attention to the resonances of contemporary discourses on equality, freedom, and rights with earlier colonial and missionary rhetoric on Muslim women, I argue that we need to develop, instead, a serious appreciation of differences among women in the world—as products of different histories, expressions of different circumstances, and manifestations of differently structured desires. Further, I argue that rather than seeking to "save" others (with the superiority it implies and the violences it would entail) we might better think in terms of (1) working with them in situations that we recognize as always subject to historical transformation and (2) considering our own larger responsibilities to address the forms of global injustice that are powerful shapers of the worlds in which they find themselves. I develop many of these arguments about the limits of "cultural relativism" through a consideration of the burqa and the many meanings of veiling in the Muslim world. [Keywords: cultural relativism, Muslim women, Afghanistan war, freedom, global injustice, colonialism]

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1525/aa.2002.104.3.783

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Ahmed Leila, 1992, Women and Gender in Islam
  2. MacLeod Arlene, 1991, Accommodating Protest
  3. Moghissi Haideh, 1999, Feminism and Islamic Fundamentalism
  4. Papanek Hanna, 1982, Separate Worlds, 190

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Abu‐Lughod, L.
Affiliations
Columbia University (US)
Corresponding author
Abu‐Lughod, Lila
Venue
American Anthropologist
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-09
Volume
104
Issue
3
Pages
783-790
ISSN
  • 0002-7294 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-1433
DOI
10.1525/aa.2002.104.3.783
OpenAlex
W2134894735
Semantic Scholar
e0b847748e9c900d4116c7ec9882f496bb18f559
Cited by
2,371
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 132 · 2025: 170 · 2024: 141 · 2023: 130 · 2022: 125 · 2021: 140 · 2020: 181 · 2019: 171 · 2018: 170 · 2017: 158 · 2016: 106 · 2015: 87 · 2014: 126 · 2013: 124 · 2012: 90
FWCI
37.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 1954 d)
Locations
American Anthropologist (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Anthropology: Ethics, History, Culture
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Anthropological Studies and Insights
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender, Security, and Conflict
Keywords
cultural relativism, Muslim women, war on terror, US intervention in Afghanistan, saving the world, colonialism, burqa, veiling, women's rights, global injustice, freedom

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review