The Fetishization of the Orient Through English Patriarchy and Masquerades

By Liliana Silva-Vazquez

There is a very fine line when it comes to Orientalism and Occidentalism within Abu Taleb and Lady Mary’s biographies when it comes to their first-hand experiences in the West and East. Their settings in the 18th and 19th centuries are also why there are so many paradoxes and tensions when it comes to the descriptions of their homelands vs traveling lands. This was the time of British Empire, debates about who was and was not acceptable based on race, skin color and social class, as well as gender benders. Specifically, Abu Taleb and Lady Mary only ran with upper-class Indians and English people but also have a particular opposition to English men within the same circle. This is because they both saw English women to be completely oppressed by their men while on the other hand, Indian women were the ones who were truly free. This initiated Abu Taleb and Lady Mary’s perception of the Orient as a place of civility and an overall model for gender equality–amongst the elites, however. 

But, with women’s liberation comes misogyny between the two authors as they discussed the different lives of English and Indian women. Such as when Abu Taleb states, “it is evident that the English women…are, by the wisdom of their lawgivers, confined in strict bondage” while the “Mohammedan women…are allowed to walk out in veils, and to go to the baths…and to visit…and to sleep abroad for several nights” (Taleb 174). Clearly, he is describing how the English lawmakers, the elite men with power, are able to control their women with an alarming strictness that not even Mohammedan women have to suffer through. They are able to go wherever and do as they please as long as they are veiled and in the company of other women or those close to them. However, Abu Taleb does not like how much freedom Indian women are given when he ends the previous statement by saying they are, “much more mattresses of their own conduct, and much more liable to fall into the paths of error” (174). This is where we see the misogyny, paradox and tension expressed by him because he knows that women should not be completely controlled, but because of their gender, they should be the ones who are more supervised in order to keep their statuses as elite women. 

Similarly, Lady Mary also addresses the paradoxes and tensions she feel as an English woman who was able to see the Indian women’s liberation for herself. She explains, “‘Tis very easy to see, they have more liberty than we have, no woman of what rank soever being permitted to go in the streets without two muslins…You may guess how effectually this disguises them” (Montagu 114-5). Just by their veils/muslins, the Indian women are able to be completely anonymous and do as they please, but with great caution as men like Abu Taleb would not hesitate to make them pay the consequences. But, Lady Mary intersects with the fetishization of Eastern cultures when she compares the veils to a, “perpetual masquerade [that] gives them entire liberty of following their inclinations without danger of discovery” (Montagu 114). Just as the masquerades Abu Taleb saw, English people saw them as opportunities to exercise their sex drives and often dressed as Orientals as a part of their “costumes.” So, Lady Mary, and English people in general, see the Orients as playthings and accessories to their fetishization fantasies of masquerades. Ultimately, she sees the veiled women gaining liberation through unknown identities and casual sex but nothing more which is how she fetishizes them on another level. 

The Critiques and Paradoxes of Abu Taleb and Lady Mary on the English Patriarchy

By Liliana Silva-Vazquez

When there are different genres of racism, you know we’re failing as a society. Specifically, the Eighteenth-Nineteenth century definition of Orientalism by Edward Said is of interest to me as he states it is, “a Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient” (3). And because Abu Taleb’s, The Travels of Mirza Abu Taleb Khan, and Lady Mary Wortley Montagu’s, The Turkish Embassy Letters, take place during these centuries, it gives us more context as to how the Europeans, the English in particular, were colonizing the Orient physically as well as culturally. One of the main factors behind Orientalism, just as in racism, is the belief that the colonizers are the ones who are “civilized” and therefore must be the ones to “teach” the conquered the “right” ways to behave. However, this line is blurred through counter-hegemony in both texts as Abu Taleb and Lady Mary believe the Orient has values and virtues far superior to the West; especially when it comes to gender politics. But, this does not mean there is no fetishization, dehumanization, and misogyny expressed in the texts. In fact, there is a constant paradox of both authors using these elements in order to challenge Orientalism. Therefore, they critique the English patriarchy but also fall into the trap of Orientalism and misogyny when describing certain customs and behaviors between the West and the Orient.

Women as Symbols of Male desires and Anti Hegemonic Moments in Lady Mary’s Letters and Travel’s of Abu Tabel

By: Yocelin De Lira

The dominant description of women’s gender roles and sexulaity has histrically been told through the male’s gaze. The most prominent women’s voice we have throughout this time period is Lady Montagu, yet on several occasions her description on women’s sexulaity and gender politics has been pushed aside compared to affluent male artists such as Ingress. Ingress views are influenced by the dominant belief such as orientalism and his own sexual fanatsy. Edward Said defines “orientalism” as “ subtle and persistent Eurocentric prejudice against Arab and Islamic people and their culture” (Said 1978).  Lady Mary was able to immerse herself into Turkish society and take advantage of the freedom, personal agency and liberation given to the women of the Ottoman Empire.  Ingress was able to create a dominant sexualized and fetishized version of Lady’s Montagu’s description of the Turkish bath house Ingress’s  perspective of women’s gender and sexuality is the dominant view, creating erotic orientalism.  Lady Mary and Ingress use the female body as a pond  to explore trangressive sexual desires, although Lady Mary uses this symbole to undermine the ertoic orientalism that Ingress promotes in the male voyeuristic gaze. Abu Tabel uses women as a pond to counter orientalist perspectives placed upon him. He uses the European women’s desires toward him as an advantage , using these relationships to benefit his lifestyle and as a counter hegemonic move.  He uses women to depict his disdain toward European tradition and culture, critiquing the apparent “liberty” European women are given. 

Want Me to Want You

I feel like the text that we have been reading in class talks about how sex was flagged so taboo that these fancy balls (sex parties) happened; where I am sure somebody got to play with somebody’s balls. I am starting to read in his text that everybody is basically horny and thinking about sex but are expected to act a certain way because they are rich yet rich people are having trophy husbands and wives. The only reason Abu is getting any reaction from these European women is that they see him as part of royalty. I am guessing that in Europe, it was not common for somebody to be a person of color yet have money like in the middle east. Let alone have sex with somebody of that class, since money is tied to class standing. , “ … each of the Englishman of rank had a particular lady whom he visited without any interruption” (84). Then I started to look at the entire English government as a whole because, we cannot he is not be influenced by being around who obviously care more about women, in more ways than one, than their job. Its funny how the English are making so many rules to prohibit the freedoms of women like if they are ravenous animals “… secondly, the women never visit any bachelor, except he be a near relation” (p 173). This gives me adam and even vibes, where Eve was blamed for Adams’s mistake of eating the apple. He blamed her for his mistakes. It also seems like he is saying men blame women for why they are horny, they are antagonizers, men are the victims “The English…have wisely determined, that the best mode of keeping women out of the way of temptation, and their minds from wandering after improper desires, is by giving them sufficient employment.” (p 171). I feel like the women who surrounded these politicians benefited from their playtime because then they would be exempt from following guidelines like marriage and stuff.

Women and Their Desires

Rhiannon Badgett

In The Travels of Mirza Abu Taleb Khan, the author of the self titled novel believes that the British patriarchy and aristocratic women both play key factors while living in Britain and serving there. While women are seen as status symbols, symbols for exchange, and even as affluent people during this time and within his work, it seems as though the fetishization of women and Abu Taleb is a two way street. While I previously mentioned in my last blog post that he eroticizes the Cape Town women yet disregards the Dutch women because of their looks, I failed to consider that he was perhaps being looked at in a similar fashion by these people too. As someone that doesn”t look like everyone else, knows different customs, and follows other ways of life, Abu Taleb is seen as a celebrity or even as what some called the novel, “The Persian Prince”. Taleb writes that he was visited by women who have a higher status than he does and maybe even many of the men that he knew at this time. He writes that he was “…visited by ladies of rank who had never in their lives before passed through the street” (122). I believe that these women would not have visited him in a scary or rundown part of town unless they really wanted to; proving that they have a desire to see him just as much as he’d like to see them. It could be that these women are even more fascinated by him than they can begin to admit.

Masquerades and Entanglements

By Liliana Silva-Vazquez

In relation to my point about European women fetishizing Abu Taleb during the handkerchief scene on page 85, we see further fetishization as he explains what “masquerades” are and how the Europeans utilize them. These private parties lead to affairs and reveal what kind of sexual deviants the European men and women were towards Orientals. 

Abu Taleb explains that at these masquerades, “everyone wears a short veil or mask…over the face; and each person dresses according to his or her fancy. Many represent Turks, Persians, Indians, and foreigners of all nations” (154). By describing the majority of their preferred wardrobe, we see that they treat Orientals as exciting and erotic costumes that give them the freedom to act unruly and lustfully. This is implied as he tells a brief story of a man who was kept up all night by an entanglement’s affair as they were making “noise.” This is a sexual reference to the presumed bangs, knocks, and moans he must have experienced all night in which he did not mind because he knew they had come from a masquerade. 

He also comments on the ladies who incited these masquerades in which he stated, “Several of the ladies of quality permit their acquaintances to come to their houses in masquerade dresses…where they exhibit their wit and skill at repartee” (155). Just as Lady Mary mentions the freedom that the Turkish women have with their veils, Abu Taleb comments on the freedom these parties and costumes give to European women. However, he makes sure to point out the main differences: these parties are attended by many, many people while the Muslim women at least have the “decency” to keep their affairs private. Or, he could be attempting to completely erase the fact that Muslim women do have affairs because of their anonymity in order to save the masculinity of his brethren and the virtue of his sisters; so I think this “missing” information may be gone on purpose. 

In contrast, Abu Taleb does provide that meta-critique of European fetishization of the Oriental as he tells us, “I one day received an invitation card from a lady…the lady gave a Rout…[and] I frequently afterwards attended these routs” (155). The italicization of “invitation card” and “Rout” gave us hints that these elements of masquerades were also erotic, mysterious, and exciting. And when he states that he “frequently…attended these routs” (155), he is telling us of how many more of those invitations cards he received afterward in order to enrage the European men. He was so popular that he always had a rout to visit and was always sought after by a “Mrs.–at home on–evenings” (155). Even the “Mrs” is a direct implication of the women being married, but like it is said: don’t let your husband stop you from finding your boyfriend. The Orient (Abu Taleb) was the one satisfying the British Empire (the Ladies).

Restrictive Men, Insecure Man

Luis Arceo

Abu Taleb Khan’s desire for European women shows how restrictive/patriarchal British Imperial Culture is, while also unintentionally revealing how insecure he is about his masculinity. I will begin with a close reading of the beginning portion of a passage where he describes this restrictive workspace for women. Khan describes how the British confine and control women through employment, he describes “The English…have wisely determined, that the best mode of keeping women out of the way of temptation, and their minds from wandering after improper desires, is by giving them sufficient employment.”(Abu Taleb Khan, 171) Here Khan although not critical about this choice as seen through his use of the words like, “best,” and “wisely,” it reveals not just his mindset, but those of his English compatriots who’s distain of this if present are absent. It’s not like he follows it up with how they feel since feelings are mutual between Khan and these British men. Revealing to the reader not only through Khan‘s words of how patriarchal British Imperial Culture is, but through its lack of words from British men. 

Continuing through this passage Khan describes going to their workplaces, and spending money just to flirt with the women there, “I scarcely ever passed the pastry-cook’s shop at the corner of Newman-street in Oxford-road, that I did not go in and spend money for the pleasure of talking to a beautiful young woman.” What’s shown here is the continuation of his masculine insecurity. Though not the first instance of him sharing such an account, showing to his readership back home he feels as though he has to do this to show how masculine he is, but also to the Englishmen around him as well. That’s why he uses the phrase “scarcely ever,” to say look how confident and manly I truly am by continually going to flirt with these women. Women he knows that he cannot court since their work, “[keeps them] out of the way of temptation, and their minds from wandering after improper desires.” His actions contradicting the truth he already knows, that these women will never be interested in him since these jobs keep them free of, “improper desires”. Coupled with feeling the need to show everyone how truly masculine he is, exposes his insecurity even more than it did before.

Turns Out No One Wanted Captain Thomas

Enrique A.

“Although I was ignorant of the Dutch language, and could not converse with the young women, yet in dancing they made use of so many wanton airs, and threw such significant looks towards me, that I was often put to the blush, and obliged to retire to the other side of the room. A party of these girls once attacked me: one of them,who was the handsomest and most forward, snatched away my handkerchief, and offered it to another girl of her own age; upon which they all began to laugh aloud” (18)

In this particular scene, We can see Abu Talib’s use of his judgment when he takes over the situation. The women are picking on Abu Talib and messing with his handkerchief. Abu Talib mentions how he does not know how to communicate with them but the faces they were making at him were clearly showing “wanton’ ,in other words, malicious intent. He uses language which is referring to how they treated him quite with a raunchy attitude.  He decides to partake in the “Macho Man” role and snap back at them after the woman, who he referred to as the handsomest, hands the handkerchief that she snatched from him to another girl, who was not accepting it. He took his handkerchief back and stated he would only “part with it to the handsomest”. It could be a scene which shows how the women might actually be eroticizing someone who is the Orient. I’m not too sure if they were teasing him or bullying him ,but how I interpret it, they were bullying him. They saw him as different and chose him. Abu Talib used his status to go to parties, eat and drink well. He gained that status by having friends who were people of wealth. He has a fake front and lets people believe he is a “Prince”. Abu Talib reveals how the British Imperial empire sought after the Orient in different ways, the British East India Company taking over and being a parasite to India, as well as the European women for eroticizing him for being different (Orient). 

Throughout the book, they are seen and brought up everywhere, Women. They place women in many scenes and conversations ,but they are not a major part of the scene or conversation but merely the challenge. The challenge is who can get the woman’s attention. Here in another passage we can see how Abu Talib is speaking of women who come visit him.” A few days after I was settled in my new lodgings, some of my friends called, to remonstrate with me on having taken up my abode in a street, one half of the houses of which were inhabited by courtezans. They assured me that no ladies, or even gendemen of character, would visit me, in such a place: however, … I determined to remain where I was; and as my reputation in the minds of the English was as deeply impressed as the carving on a stone, my friends had the condescension and goodness to overlook this indiscretion; and not only was I visited there by the first characters in London, but even ladies of rank, who had never in their lives before passed through this street, used to call in their carriages at my door, and either send up their compliments, or leave their names written on cards. (24) ” At first I myself thought it to be excessive to include all this information as it seems unnecessary, until another perspective was pointed out in the book written by Captain Thomas Williamson. He has another perspective, but looking further into it after class discussion made me see how he is being jealous and is showing heavy signs of orientalism. Abu Taleb includes many scenes and conversations where he is in a way boasting about how all the women are trying to get with him or spend time with him, due to his status of course and also being an “outsider” other, showing how the rumor of him being a prince can get him away from being different. Tying it back to the women aspect , We have the main scenario between these two where Captain Thomas is telling him because of how he is, how he acts and how he carries he will be looked down upon and treated differently, especially by the women.  Abu Taleb then clarifies that Captain was wrong and in fact the English treated him well as a good host. “If In England You cut Your bread In that Manner, The ladies, alarmed for Their table-cloths, Will never invite You to their Houses a Second time; Nor-will You Ever Find Any Person There Who Will Assist You To Carve Your Meat As We Do here…Notwithstanding this, both in Dublin and in London, wherever I was invited, the master and mistress of the house not only excused my awkwardness, but pressed me to eat in my own country manner; and when I refused, always cut the meat for me.” (119) Back to the jealousy, Captain Thomas literally calls him an animal when comparing him to a sea-calf in his book, referencing the scene where he is naming the women who are visiting him in the side of town ,where “no one would visit him in”, I think he is naming the women to show that , women would in fact come to see him despite the circumstances. Captain Thomas is feeling like Abu Talib is getting some slack cut because he is different, and I think Captain Thomas realized how unpopular and undesired he is.

All for Status

Luis Arceo

What Abu Taleb Khan’s erotic desire for European women reveals about British imperial culture is that status is very important. If you want to go to the best parties, eat the best food, or meet the most beautiful women you need status. Abu Taleb Khan has this status due to his occupation, but more importantly through the perceived notion from the English public that he is a “Persian Prince.” When visiting Spa Garden he explains a time where he had no choice but to join everyone’s table due to their persistence and the allure of beautiful women, “My appearance…attracted much attention…I received invitations from many of the tables to favour them with my company; and as they would not take any refusal,…and…[I was]frequently challenged by some beautiful women.”(Abu Taleb Khan, 147) Here Khan uses words like “appearance,” and phrases like “attracted much attention,” to show how due to how he looks it reaffirms the idea of the “Persian Prince,” in the minds of these individuals, while allowing him to become acquainted with the “beautiful women,” present. 

What is odd about this passage is Khan’s use of the phrase “favour them,”instead of “accompany them,” showing how in this instance instead of being seen as just a prince, he’s also more of an accessory that would affirm/improve these individuals’ status, rather than having him join them for no reason other than seeing him as an equal. This is seen throughout his book in his erotic desire for European women where a great deal of meeting them comes from being invited and shown off to others as to say, “look how high class I am I have a Persian Prince with me.” What can also be taken away from this passage is this theme of dominance present in where these people will not take no for an answer, they always get their way, something very closely attributed to those of high status or class. Rarely if ever do they not get their way. To summarize what Abu Taleb Khan’s erotic desire for women has shown is that British imperial culture is firmly intertwined with status, since it will provide you with the means to meet the most beautiful women, allow you to improve/affirm your status, and finally show how dominant you are over others.

Privilege and Affect: Complicating the Evidence

Stemming from the review of past posts, I cannot help but be remiss in my lack of attention towards the matter of privilege in regards to affect. This is considering our authors who have, by and large, come from the upper class and are intellects and scholars made by a privileged patriarchal structure. Consider Abu Taleb who is both scholar and upper class and who seems fixated on the matter of prostitution who attempts to demoralize women by their sexual practices and yet views women as centers of eroticism, objects to arouse, and simultaneously is able to view a Miss Julia Burrell in a mode that dignifies her, which places her, albeit still viewing her as an object of beauty rather than a being of agency. The situation complicates the matter of how Abu Taleb’s feelings and opinions coincide with his privilege and the privilege of his subjects—consider that Miss Julia Burrell was not a prostitute but of a higher class. Until now, I have attempted to use affect as a means to change power dynamics, to reverse orientalism for both the subject of orientalism and those who are enforcing the status quo of power by means of Orientalism. Succinctly: I have taken the basic principle of affect as a humanizing power and demonstrated how it undoes the dehumanizing qualities of orientalism. It seems this conversation becomes not so much a summary of blog posts that I have written, but a large fault that has been allowed. The conversation of privilege has been one which has appeared numerous times within the classroom and on this very blog—brought up by my peers. Perhaps this is not my field of interest or expertise but that does not prevent the matter of privilege from being complicating evidence.

The contemporary United States is a country which is currently troubled and being disjointed by, to list a few pertinent issues: xenophobia, racism, wealth inequality, and multiple forms of systematic injustices. What can be learned by studying privilege in times far worse than ours, as far as civil liberties are concerned, is invaluable. In the case of Abu Taleb one begins to see that affect still allows them to be humanized, that his ode on Miss Julia Burrell was a mode of subverting racism, of making a white, british, privileged, and European woman, who nevertheless was disenfranchised, the focus of his Occidentalism. The word “Occidentalism” is used as opposed to that of “counter-orientalism” because there is something revealed by this example— Abu Taleb and others, including Lady Mary (consider her episodes with the bare bodies of othered women), have used the unprivileged peoples of societies to elevate themselves. Whether this is ethical is something which cannot be addressed within the scope of this summary. Furthermore, one must wonder how it is that the seemingly harmless contemporary process of “checking” people’s privilege (rather than one realizing and assessing their own privilege) can easily become a dangerous means of gaining “privilege” or power via a destructive means.