This week’s readings raised some interesting points on the nature of tradition, and the role that objects and rituals can play in political deliberation. Klein demonstrates that the practice of chewing khat has been erroneously portrayed as a long-standing aspect of Somali tradition, whereas it in fact it has gained popularity only in recent decades. He problematizes the discourse surrounding its detrimental effects in diasporic Somali communities in the UK and pursues a contextualized cultural analysis of such by bringing into question the colonial and gendered facets of the debate.
Wedeen’s chapter was particularly enjoyable by the way in which it challenged liberal notions of democracy and political participation. She recognizes the distinction between democratic practices and liberal values. I read Schumpeter extensively in 2nd year poli-sci and hated every word of it without having a coherent analysis of what was so distasteful about him, so I kind of wish I had read this text a year ago. The troubling of the binarism between authoritarian and democratic regimes, as well as the challenge of the conflation of liberalism and democracy were things I appreciated about Wedeen’s analysis.
The grounding of these two spheres of analysis in the material example of khat provided a useful concretization of the concepts. I found that Wedeen was much more satisfactory in respect to using a real situation to generate rigorous theoretical analysis though, whereas Klein raised useful and interesting questions that were not further pursued.
I would have particularly liked to have seen a closer examination of the gendered aspects of the debate on khat. By this I mean to point towards the manner in which the discussion about gender is framed both by Somali women and the UK parliament. The paper acknowledges Somali men’s barriers to entry in the labor market as migrants and the gender anxiety it can induce with regards to their failure to conform to the concepts of the patriarchal household and masculinity as norms. It would be interesting to explore how the British state simultaneously causes and punishes the anxiety, by creating structural barriers to labor participation and then condemning its consequences – the creation of lazy men who ‘chew all night long’ and beat their wife (and singling the latter out as a racist insinuation that they are culturally inferior or more misogynist than men in western society).
It would also be interesting to think about the way in which the Somali men are emasculated by both their wives and the state and thinking about the ways in which these processes might either provide space for resistance to or perpetuation of patriarchy, and what the role of the masculinity of the practice of khat chewing may play in the diaspora. Wedeen does pay particular attention to the gendered dynamic of the khat chew in itself and explores it with more depth, acknowledging how khat chews are segregated by gender and how this excludes women from political participation. She does not however sufficiently incorporate this analysis into his broader understanding of khat chews as sites of democratic deliberation. I find this unfortunate but not incompatible with his general exploration of democratic potential in khat chews as he explained that his aim is not to romanticize khat but to deromanticize the ballot box, which forgives her from exploring with too much depth the obvious democratic deficits in the practise of the khat chew.
With regards to the use of khat in the diaspora and the ways in which it plays a role in cultural segregation, it would be interesting to explore more how this is acknowledged and taken advantage of by the State and the role it can play in the criminalization of migrants. Anna Pratt writes a chapter in her book ‘Securing Borders’ on the ways in which the illegalization of khat was used to criminalize and harass Somali communities in Toronto, and we see a hint of that behavior in Klein’s example of the quote by the British MP. I think this conversation is intrinsically linked to that of the reasons for selectivity when it comes to the policing of certain substances. Cocaine and whiteness was brought up in some of the other blog posts. I think that colonialism and racism play roles here, for example I would venture to attribute the criminalization of marijuana to its non-western origin, foreignness and attempt to criminalize communities of color. Indeed it was first outlawed in colonized South Africa and Jamaica.
I wonder also to what extent the incredible price differences and legal status of khat between the UK and North America affect its role in shaping diasporic communities, as it seems clear that it still has a significant presence in Canada. Forcing the practice underground would play a role in further segregating these communities from the dominant majority as is the concern posed by its use in the UK. I haven't seen evidence yet though of whether expensive North American khat would segregate diasporic communities by class and disposable income, which would be another method of straining community ties.
No comments:
Post a Comment