Gender Religion and Social Relations in the Mediterranean

Gender

Marc Baer. "Islamic Conversion Narratives of Women: Social Change and Gendered Religious Hierarchy in Early Modern Ottoman Istanbul." Gender & History 16, no. 2 (2004): 425-458

In "Islamic Conversion Narratives of Women: Social Change and Gendered Religious Hierarchy in Early Modern Ottoman Istanbul," Marc Baer presents a string of narratives illustrating the experiences of women in Early Modern Ottoman Istanbul, from around the 17th century. The narratives include strategic conversions to Islam that secured the woman some freedoms. For example, one Christian woman living in Galata near the famous tower converts to Islam. When her Christian husband refuses to convert, the woman realizes that she can be instantly divorced -- which she might not have been able to do had she not been subject to shari'ah law. Shari'ah law ironically afforded the woman, Safira (who became Saliha upon conversion) greater sexual freedom and independence.

Yet what was she sacrificing in order to gain these freedoms, and were those freedoms illusory as well as temporary? What kinds of freedoms did women actually have under shari'ah law in early modern Ottoman society, and did it matter that Istanbul was a diverse ethnic center as opposed to a small provincial town?

Another story is of a female slave of the name of Gulistan, which means rosegarden. Her narrative illustrates the widespread use of slavery as a designator of social class status, and yet slavery itself had a peculiar interpretation in shari'ah law according to Baer. Gulistan converts to Islam strategically so that she may be afforded some greater protections under the law as a Muslim woman. Yet the law does not prohibit non-Muslims from enslaving Gulistan. As a result, she continues to suffer the fate of a slave of low social status and shari'ah law affords her no real protection except only that a Muslim cannot be her owner.

Was the experience of slavery gendered or not in early modern Ottoman society? Was conversion genuinely considered a means by which to achieve social mobility, and were there cases in which Muslim women denounced the faith after their conversion or for other reasons?

The author's thesis is somewhat convincing, but the reader is better off letting the narratives -- which constitute primary sources -- speak for themselves. The author does not seem willing enough to explore the depth of social stratification and links between ethnicity, religion, gender, status, and social power.

2. James Grehan. "Smoking and 'Early Modern Sociability: The Great Tobacco Debate in the Ottoman Middle East." The American Historical Review 111, no. 5 (2006): 1352-1377.

Grehan's article "Smoking and Early Modern Sociability" explores the history and evolution of smoking culture in early modern Ottoman society. One of the main points of the article is that tobacco can be viewed as an emblem or symbol of the emerging conflict between those who viewed tobacco as a sinful object, and those who viewed it as an essential freedom. The author's thesis is that tobacco became for early modern Ottomans a means of "redefining patterns of social interaction," and providing opportunities for leisure and escapism (p. 1353). This social and cultural trend, claims the author, signifies burgeoning modernity. Tobacco was part of the new lifestyle of the early modern world; it was more than just the leaf.

Because the author makes good use of primary and secondary sources, the article is convincing. There are few weaknesses in its methodology, execution, or logic. Questions include the following. Are there other products or patterns of behaviors that are symbolic in early modern Ottoman society? Why did tobacco, as opposed to other substances, become the social glue in early modern Ottoman society? Why was it not like this as much for Christian Europe?

3. Emma Loosley. Ladies who Lounge: Class, Religion, and Social Interaction in Seventeenth-Century Isfahan." Gender & History 23, no. 3 (2011): 615-629.

According to Emma Loosley in "Ladies who Lounge," the "outdated and stereotypical tropes" have obscured the truth about gendered places and spaces in early modern Muslim societies. Focused on Persia, the author claims that the role of women in Safavid Isfahan was far more complex than trite historians have suggested. The author uses several examples to substantiate the claim that gender in Isfahan was a complex issue related to social status, ethnicity, and religion. The author refers to Zoroastrian, Jewish, Muslim, and Christian women living in Isfahan. She goes into the cloistered life of harems, which were not as common as many Westerners have believed. The author's thesis is that early modern Persia was diverse and complex, offering different places and spaces for different types of women.

As evidence to substantiate the claims, the author relies on primary and secondary scholarly sources. The argument is somewhat convincing, although it seems at times like Loosley is trying to make the evidence fit the claim rather than letting the evidence speak for itself. Questions include the following: What was the status of women in harems? Why was there tolerance for diversity in Isfahan? Why had so many Zoroastrians and Jews remained in the city, and what role did women in those societies have?