AN EXERCISE IN WORLDMAKING 2009 - ISS

16 What’s Yours is Mine 193
the day of her marriage’. This (assumed direct quote) from him confirms
insulting presumptions that disadvantage persons – particularly oppressed
Muslim women – do not experience joy. Further details report
that Gula remembers being married at 13, which the husband disputes as
16. So far, Gula is defined solely by relationships and remains mute.
Some attributed roles are contradictory, such as that of mother enjoying
her children and violent Pashtun with searing eyes.
Finally, Islamic dress comes into question via Yusufzai, explaining
Gula’s entry into purdah at age 13, explained by the author as secluded
existence instead of systematized modesty: ‘Women vanish from the
eye.’ ‘Vanish’ engages Orientalist discourse whereby women apparently
cease to ‘exist’ in contrast with the visibility of female body exposure in
Western society. For the first time in the article, Gula herself is directly
quoted: ‘[burqa] is a beautiful thing to wear, not a curse.’ Ignoring that
statement, in the next sentence she is described with constructed inner
dialogue, ‘Faced by questions, she retreats into the black shawl wrapped
around her face, as if by doing so she might will herself to evaporate.’
She states that her hijab is positive, and it is portrayed as something under
which she hides and vanishes.
Culture is implicitly addressed, ‘The eyes flash anger. It is not her custom
to subject herself to the questions of strangers.’ Despite it not being
‘custom’ to be without burqa in front of unrelated males, photographs of
her face are viewed by millions of readers. The author chooses not to
discuss this, nor the dynamics of how Gula’s unveiling is orchestrated in
the presence of McCurry, translators and other male members of the
EXPLORER, dismissing her attachment to hijab. The author perpetuates
a dehumanizing tone, choosing to write ‘the eyes,’ not ‘her eyes.’
Gula is asked, ‘Had she ever felt safe?’ to which she answers, ‘No. But
life under the Taliban was better. At least there was peace and order.’
Profoundly disturbing is the lack of unpacking this statement. Gula is
not asked why she feels this way, nor her reasoning. Instead the story
quickly shifts to education, Gula’s lack of it, remorse about leaving
school and her hopes of education for her daughters. The author writes,
‘Education is the light in the eye. There is no such light for her.’ By making
grand claims of Gula’s lack of light, as well as equating light solely
with book-learning and not life experience, ontological assumptions of
her ignorance are made. This claim, paired with descriptions of her allegedly
wanting to disappear into hijab and the failure to unpack her state-