Islam Obscured: The Rhetoric of Anthropological Representation

Contemporary Anthropology of Religion

by Daniel Martin Varisco

Islam Obscured analyzes four seminal anthropology texts on Muslims that have been read widely outside the discipline. Two are by distinguished anthropologists: Islam Observed (Clifford Geertz, 1968) and Muslim Society (Ernest Gellner, 1981). Two other texts are by Muslim scholars: Beyond the Veil (Fatima Mernissi, 1975) and Discovering Islam (Akbar Ahmed, 1988). Varisco argues that each of these approaches Islam as an essentialized organic unity rather than letting "islams" found in the field speak to the diversity of practice. He sheds light on Islam as a cultural phenomenon, representation of the other, Muslim gender roles, politics of ethnographic authority, and Orientalist discourse. Varisco's analysis goes beyond the rhetoric over what Islam is, focusing instead on ethnographic research about what Muslims say they do and actually are observed doing.

Genres: Islam, Anthropology, Religion, Social Science

235 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2005

Reviews

[lisey · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is basically a pretty brutal dismantling of four seminal texts that have come form the basis of the anthropology of Islam. Yes, heh... it sounds quite boring. However, I think Varisco makes some really eye-opening points about the way that really problematic texts can form the basis for all succeeding work. He's also quite funny, although I think he's a bit of a smart-arse sometimes honestly.

The major problem for Varisco is that these widely-read authors are guilty of essentialising Islam as a singular, monolithic entity from which local traditions are just cutesy variations. The antidote he proposes is just good ethnography - charting how practices actually take place in the real world, and not how they match up to someone else's Qur'anic interpretation. He has a problem with the idea that Islam exists apart from the Muslims who practice it, so that Muslims themselves become shaped by this abstract external force. I think this is a really useful idea when considering current debates about the "nature" of Islam as violent or nonviolent, and all the rhetoric that surrounds that.

So according to this book, these four texts were pretty sloppy with their ethnographies. They might have incorporated elements of it, but they didn't chart how beliefs are practices were actually expressed - rather, they obscured reality in favour of textual ideals and other theology-based sources, which they held in higher esteem than the deviations of local communities.

If textual analysis cannot form the basis of understanding Islam, the implication is that there is no central authority for what constitutes belief. I read a book review by Lizzo (I think in the Journal of North African Studies?) who found this completely incomprehensible. If individuals can define themselves as Muslims despite apparent contradictions with texts and mainstream orders, it becomes unclear whether Islam exists as an independent entity. She accused Varisco of taking an epistemological position, regarding Islam as something man-made. Varisco doesn't take such a strong position, though. He suggests that attempting to grasp "Islam" wholly serves little anthropological purpose and will inevitably gloss over variation. Anthropology can serve to elucidate contextual expressions of Islam without making generalisations about the nature of Islam or religion more generally.

Even if you're not interested in the anthropology of Islam so much, this book has some great ideas. It provides a starting point for thinking about how to approach human behaviour without considering language-concepts to exist "out there". It seems incredibly obvious, but it seems anthropology as a discipline often falls for the trap of privileging cultural artefacts over lived experience. I think we could build more on this approach by further honing in on individuals and not "culture", which in my opinion is as abstract as the word "Islam".

[J · Rating 4 out of 5]

Coruscating stuff. Somewhat over-stated in places, and almost asking for a similar deconstruction to be performed on him (if only I could find someone clever enough and good enough with words), Varisco makes his main point pretty well: "Islam" can only be observed by Muslims (another instance of his word-plays, or should that be words-play?), and should not be the stuff of anthropology. Stop idealising and reifying this sort of thing, please!
It's not all fun and games, of course, but full of very serious academic research. I've read another of his books off the back of this one, and a few of his essays. Sparkling work.