To Look or To Love - Voyeurism in Pakistan

This was meant to be a blog post - I had even written out the first para... then i decided it would do better as an idea for my first academic paper in like two and a half years.

so while the writing is not of the usual brilliance you have come to expect, and my non-plagiarized academic work is quite shabby, the contents are pretty contemporary and happening, so as the wise man said, "Enjooay..."

The aim of this paper is to use psychoanalysis to read two pieces of text in the form of e-mails. Both were written by students at a Pakistani university denouncing what they described as the “public display of affection.” But while the authors claimed that their protests were based on their values, this paper asserts that they were in fact a manifestation of their own voyeuristic tendencies.

I
A few weeks ago, one of Pakistan’s premier universities, the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) made global headlines after its administration decided to “ban kissing on campus.” Many of the international newspapers covering this story chose to focus on it as an example of cultural clashes within a country fighting “terrorism.” However, the entire issue speaks of a lot more than a simplistic cultural divide in Pakistani society.

The controversy began with the e-mails themselves – the first text chosen for this paper was the one that sparked the debate. Entitled ‘To Love or not to Love’ it was sent out to all the university’s students. It sparked a huge reaction from the students as well as staff, and the second chosen text was one of the earliest responses to the original e-mail.

(both e-mails are included at the end of this paper in their original format)

However, before turning to read these texts, we must familiarize ourselves with the concepts that inform their reading.

Jean Michel-Hirt, drawing on Freud, describes the concept of voyeurism as a “a deviant manifestation of sexuality that involves looking without being seen in order to obtain sexual pleasure.”

II
Voyeurism however is not merely the act of looking at what is illicit – it actually inhabits a far wider and more complex range of actions. Thus it can also be understood as a “…‘refusal’ to be seen as an object and, thus, a negation of object loss. It is an exclusive concentration on visual mastery, on the first position.”

This drive to gain ‘exclusive concentration’ of looking has been identified by scholars as prevalent in the process of narration. The narrator, by removing itself from the narration, gains the ability to see (and tell) without being seen itself. Hence, scholars posit, “that narrative is fundamentally voyeuristic, concerned with the veiling and unveiling of objects.”

Now let us turn to the texts in question. The first e-mail, which began the controversy, opens with the following lines:

“I don't know what is wrong with the new freshman,and some seniors too,they have a special and an uncontrolled need to seek physical consolation from the members of opposite sex many times in a day,in public,and in places where EVERYBODY can witness it.”

An initial reading would suggest that the author is merely bringing to attention a case of widespread exhibitionism (‘physical consolation’) and its consequent voyeuristic behavior (‘where EVERYBODY can witness it.’) However, the first act of voyeurism is actually the very process of putting this incident into a narrative form. It is this e-mail which establishes a narrator, and hence a voyeur, and through its dissemination, invites others to partake in this voyeuristic act.

In fact, the dissemination of this narrative is also an important facet of both texts. In the first e-mail, after providing graphic details of various incidents the author has witnessed on campus, she goes on to issue this warning:

“…If nothing is done about it then i'll take pictures of such things and attach them with my emails for everyone to see.)”

The author of the second text expresses her agreement with this threat, and also promises to carry it out as well.

“Otherwise I, too, am in. I WILL take pictures of what offends me and send it to everybody to see.”

Now, the very act of narration had already turned the authors into voyeurs in an academic understanding. By expressing their ability to take photographic evidence, they seem to be coming across as voyeurs in the popular understanding of the term as well.

But more importantly, it is the dissemination of this narrative which transforms the authors from voyeurs to pornographers, since according to Charnon-Deutsch, “The narrator is the voyeur, the one who becomes a pornographer in his role as witness and distributor of the story.”


III
Originally, Freud had expounded upon the idea of voyeurism, and its counter-part exhibitionism, as part of a dichotomy based on gender. Thus the male was the voyeur, the female the exhibitionist, and woven intrinsically into this idea was the notion of the voyeur seeking "to resolve the problem of dependency by possessing or controlling the other … by making the other person an object." Furthermore, “in psychological terms narrating means seeing… in order to avoid being seen, exerting power over an object in order not to be mastered by it.”

Thus we understand that narration and voyeurism are in a fundamental way related to power, and the ability to exert control over the object of the voyeur’s sight. In light of this relationship, the authors’ threats of taking photographs, and the very narration of the incidents, can also be seen as their ability to reduce those indulging in exhibitionist behavior as mere objects, over whom they seek to exert control.

And this idea of asserting power over the objects is reinforced multiple times in both texts:

“I openly challenge the fake hypocritical "tolerance" and "liberalism" being promoted on campus…”
“I demand that a set of rules be laid out so that the "sentiments" of not-so-unclutured people are not hurt…”

The author also incorporates another traditional method of differentiating and objectifying those subject to her looking by describing them as

“…people who [are] involved in this proud display of animal instincts in man.”

The idea of comparison with animals has been traditionally used to deny the object “participation in civilization (language, thought, culture) which differentiates [it] from whomever is seeing...”

IV
But further our reading of these texts, it is also necessary to understand the dynamics of the voyeurism. Davis, drawing upon Lacan, writes, “seeing is but a function in a largely unconscious discourse that can be glimpsed in what Lacan calls… the ‘Gaze,’ and… the subject who looks is the one who precisely is ‘seen’ by the nonvisual Gaze.” Silverman further expounds this Lacanian concept by writing that “it is precisely at that moment when the eye is placed at the keyhole that it is most likely to find itself subordinated to the Gaze.”

The reason it is important to understand the relationship between the voyeur and the Gaze is because of the reaction the Gaze produces within the voyeur. Continuing with Silverman, who writes that once the eye is subordinated to the Gaze, “the Gaze surprises the [subject] in the function of the voyeur, disturbs him, overwhelms him, and reduces him to shame.”

And it is this idea of shame that is an integral part of establishing both these texts as voyeuristic.
“I demand that a set of rules be laid out… so that we can go home and NOT for once,hide from our fathers our of sheer shame of what they saw.”

The author expresses a double set of voyeurism here, firstly by witnessing the acts of exhibitionism and finding herself subordinated by the Gaze, and hence reduced to shame. The second act is of seeing her father seeing as well, thus turning his voyeurism into an exhibitionist act for the author, and once again transforming into the Gaze which reduces the author to shame.

This idea of shame and voyeurism is expressed more explicitly by the second author, who writes that:

“The weirdest part is that WE, the ONLOOKERS, end up going red in the face and we try to hasten away from the 'crime site'! As if its OUR fault that we caught them red-handed! Normal human reaction to being caught in such situations is to hide one's face in shame,but in this situation,we,the "not-so-uncultured" need to look away and get OUR sentiments offended in the name of hypocritical liberalism!”

Here, the author has identified herself as the ‘onlooker’ and is surprised and angered by the shame she feels in looking. Rosenman quotes Sartre on the subject, who writes that “I am ashamed of myself as I appear to the Other… I am put in the position of passing judgment on myself as an object…” Rosenman writes that according to Tomkins, the origin of shame also lies in “the failure of distancing that ought to mask an intense investment.”

Thus the shame provoked in the authors is not due to the idea of such acts occurring, but rather by having witnessed such acts and being reduced to shame by the submission evoked by the resultant Gaze.

Furthermore, the idea of distancing oneself from the object is also apparent in the chosen texts. The first author suggests that the ‘offenders’ should find more surreptitious locations for their activities:

“Why don't they go back to using the DRs at night? Or behind the sports complex? or in the hockey fields?”

The suggestion makes clear that the author is not opposed to the acts themselves, for they obviously satisfy the voyeuristic urge, but that she rather opposes their being carried out within such immediacy, which confronts the voyeur’s ability to see without being seen.

V
Despite the various nuances with which this paper has attempted to show these texts as voyeuristic, a certain protest can be anticipated, namely that the authors were not seeking to derive any sexual pleasure from their acts of looking.

Hence we must also understand how a voyeur experiences pleasure from his acts in order to understand these texts more properly.

According to Blank, “The voyeur achieves gratification in a complicated way. He looks at the forbidden, expresses aggression in his defiant behavior, avoids any commitment to interpersonal intimacy and, all the while, in his passive fantasy needs not surrender one iota of his ideals and imagined assertiveness.”

Blank’s definition largely encapsulates the actions of the authors as described in the text. As is clear, both authors admit to having witnessed ‘forbidden’ behavior. Their various threats, most notably that of producing and distributing photographic evidence, can be read as manifestations of their aggression and defiance. And finally, their numerous appeals to ideals of cultural and social values make clear that they do not feel the need to apologize for their voyeuristic acts, or even concede the higher moral ground. In fact, as one of the authors writes the offensive actions are leading to rumors that “most of the girls in the university are not virgins” and it is leading to the university’s “credibility” being challenged. This can be read as a justification proffered for the voyeuristic act within the garb of protecting ideals.

Therefore, we can see the how the authors were able to achieve voyeuristic gratification in accordance with the formula that Blank provides.

VI
In conclusion, our reading the two texts seeks to confirm the voyeurism of the authors. In order to do so, we have looked at how the act of narration is fundamentally voyeuristic. We have seen how narration and voyeurism are about power, and how the voyeur seeks to exert dominance over the object. We have also explored the idea of the voyeur being seen by the Gaze, and how that provokes a sense of shame. And finally we have seen how the voyeur gains gratification. With each intellectual leap, we have been able to read how the texts themselves conform to these facets of voyeurism, and how they can be understood as primarily voyeuristic pieces.
VII
As an afterthought, it is interesting to note that the university decided to ban “kissing on campus.” Since voyeurism is associated with power and control, it is probably no surprise that the exhibitionist act was ‘punished’ and the voyeuristic one ‘rewarded.’


Bibliography: Ahmed, Issam. "Top Pakistan university to ban kissing." Csmonitor.com. Christian Science Monitor, 14 Oct. 2009. Web. 31 Oct. 2009.
Benjamin, J. "The Bonds of Love: Rational Violence and Erotic Domination." The Future of Difference. Eds. Hester Eisenstein and Alice Jardine. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 41-70.
Blank, Leonard. "Nakedness and Nudity: A Darwinian Explanation for Looking and Showing Behavior." Leonardo 6.1 (1973): 23-27. Print.
Charnon-Deutsch, Lou. "Voyeurism, Pornography and "La Regenta"" Modern Language Studies 19.4 (1989): 93-101. Print.
Davis, Robert C. "Lacan, Poe, and Narrative Repression." MLN 98.5 (1983): 983-1005. Print. Freud, S. ‘Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality’, in The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, trans. and ed. James Strachey, 24 vols. [London, 1953-74], 7:167).
Hirt, J-M, Voyeurism. International Dictionary of Psychoanalysis. Ed. Alain de Mijolla. Gale Cengage, 2005, eNotes.com. 2006. 31 Oct, 2009
Press Trust of India. “To kiss or not to kiss keeps Pakistani Tweeters busy” Hindustantimes.com, Hindustan Times, 19 Oct 2009. Web. 30 Oct. 2009.
Rosenman, Ellen B. Unauthorized pleasures: accounts of Victorian erotic experience. Ithaca, New York: Cornell UP, 2003. Print.

Appendix:
(Text 1)
Subject: To Love or Not to Love
Date: Sep 11 2009
Dear All
I have been reduced to throw this out there because of what i have been witnessing in Lums for around a month now. What has to be kept in mind here is the fact that the following has nothing to do with "religion" or with anybody's personal beliefs so please,refrain from sending any emotional "liberal" emails in reply to this.
Public Display of Affection.
I don't know what is wrong with the new freshman,and some seniors too,they have a special and an uncontrolled need to seek physical consolation from the members of opposite sex many times in a day,in public,and in places where EVERYBODY can witness it.
Quoting few instances: (Readers' Discretion is advised)
1) Standing at the main entrance,a girl stands on tip of her toes and kisses a boy good bye.
2) Lying in the lawn in front of the library,a boy rolls over the girl lying down beside him and remains in this posture.
3) Sitting in the academic block, a boy constantly rubs a girl's leg,which are already half bare,with his hand inside her capries.
(These are just few instances,i have no reason to make these up.If nothing is done about it then i'll take pictures of such things and attach them with my emails for everyone to see.)
Our (people who aren't involved in this proud display of animal instincts in man) parents come to lums to pick us up and they have,i can gladly say,some sense of social (MIND YOU,i didn't say religious) sentiment intact so they get offended. Our crediblity, and the credibility of our institution in our society is challenged when aunties spread rumors of most of the girls in lums not being virgin spread all over the city. Even my parents were reluctant to send me to lums just because of the "enviroment" here.
I openly challenge the fake hypocritical "tolerance" and "liberalism" being promoted on campus.If irreligious,uncultured (by this i mean those who don't respect a culture's values),unsocial have the need to be tolerated and have "sentiments" which need to be respected,then so do religious,cultured and social people.
This "tolerance" for each other has to be mutual.If we give some,then these people need to do it too.Why don't they go back to using the DRs at night? Or behind the sports complex? or in the hockey fields?
I have never seen a religious person reading their holy book out in the open then why can't they hide their anti social and irreligious practices too?!
I demand that a set of rules be laid out so that the "sentiments" of not-so-unclutured people are not hurt and so that we can go home and NOT for once,hide from our fathers our of sheer shame of what they saw.
I am hoping that the OSA will look into this so i have not cc-ed this email to the VC.
regards,
Tajwar.

(Text 2)
Subject: (Re:) To Love or Not to Love
Date: 13th September 2009
Thank you so much Tajwar for speaking out.
The weirdest part is that WE, the ONLOOKERS, end up going red in the face and we try to hasten away from the 'crime site'! As if its OUR fault that we caught them red-handed! Normal human reaction to being caught in such situations is to hide one's face in shame,but in this situation,we,the "not-so-uncultured" need to look away and get OUR sentiments offended in the name of hypocritical liberalism!
This is a "STUDENT AFFAIR", OSA stands for OFFICE OF THE STUDENT AFFAIRS. I hope those cc-ed in this email can see the OBVIOUS reaction this issue has raised and can respond and do something about it.
Otherwise I, too, am in. I WILL take pictures of what offends me and send it to everybody to see.
regards,
Nabiha

Burger ya Bun-Kebab

A blog I read recently showcased the behavior of young Pakistani males at a concert.

Some might find the scenes described as reprehensible, disgusting and downright creepy.

It also wouldn’t matter which side of ideological divide you found yourself in – men dancing suggestively with one another would offend both the self respecting liberal and mullah.

But to be honest, it is a bit of a rampant problem.

During my time at Pakistan’s premier business school, and alma mater of our previous Prime Minister, this was a recurring occurrence.

There would be post-exam “parties” and post-convocation concerts and beach plan parties and the ever present break time “dholkis.”

During these spontaneous celebrations, women were not allowed to dance. There was no ruling against it; instead, it was a social consensus. The way it worked was that if any girl got up to dance, all the others would shame her into sitting down, and if she dared continue, she would be labeled as ‘loose’, ‘gushtee’, ‘kunjaree’ ‘bay-sharam’ ‘bay-hayah’ etc etc.

Strangely enough, the lack of female presence on the dance floor lent an unbridled sexual explosion to the men. Perhaps to make up for the lack of women, the dancing men would become spectacularly unabashed. There would be vigorous chest wiggles, multiple partner grinding, one partner sliding his open palms slowly down the front of the other, grabbing hold of one’s own body and emitting loud hissing sounds while impersonating a snake slithering along the ground, coordinated thumkays, cat calls, whistles, drooling, licking, kissing, baring, sharing and everything else in between.

I am not making this up.

The question that arose repeatedly in my mind during these sweaty, testosterone choked extravaganzas was: Why?

After much mulling over the facts, there is a simple answer.

A dearth of entertainment.

I mean, what the hell is there to do?

(I think this problem of not having anything to do is fuelling two epidemics at least – the insane use of drugs by Pakistani youth, and the rise in religious Puritanism and so-called extremism. if you don’t have a range of activities, you find one and just go ape-shit with it. But I digress, unwillingly this time.)
The one source of entertainment most of us have access to is eating out.

(The form of entertainment everyone has theoretic access to is sex. But as the starved gyrations made clear, and as I argued in a previous blog, that form is also not available to everyone in the country.)

But even eating out has its controversies. In fact, in true Pakistani fashion, eating out has become a method of class differentiation.

Now I know people with intelligence would argue that no, eating out isn’t about class in Pakistan alone – there are swanky and rundown eateries all over the world.
But what makes us unique is that we use a particular gastronomic term to help establish differences in class – Burger.
To the uninitiated, burger is meant to define… well what does it define?

Is it a social and class difference, or is it a cultural marker?

In essence, burger is meant to signify someone who has burgers. Since the term has been around for donkey’s years, I am guessing that it originated during a time when burgers were a new-fangled concept in Karachi* and therefore referred to people who could afford to have them.

* (I switched from talking about Pakistan to Karachi because I now remember that burger is used generally in Karachi. During my time in Lahore I don’t remember it having the same level of usage, or acceptance.)

But defining who is a burger and who isn’t is notoriously tricky.

For starters, the opposite of burger can be logically understood as a bun-kebab. But it isn’t. The appropriate antonym is in fact ‘maila’ which translates into dirty. There is also “mummy-daddy” which may or may not be synonymous to burger. But the point is that the dichotomy of ‘burger-maila’ means that there is a difference beyond class that signifies who is a burger and who isn’t.

So we understand this difference to be cultural. Thus being a burger means employing a certain attitude towards life, having certain habits, speaking in a certain language, or in a certain accent, living a certain lifestyle etc.
But cultural definitions are notoriously difficult to outline. For some burgers are those that drink expensive brands of bottled waters, for others those who drink any form of bottled water, and for others still burgers are those that know why drinking bottled water makes a difference.
It is also difficult to demarcate it according to where you live – there are as many people who can fit a definition of burger in Gulshan and Nazimabad as there are those who can be described as mailas in Clifton.

And every time you set a certain definition, someone who falls victim to it will cry out against it.

So if burgers are people who studied abroad, you will have a lot of foreign educated folks claiming that it’s not true, they’re not burgers. Fine, so we will make it about those who eat out in Zamzama, until you hear that eating at Pizza Hut or for that matter Copper Kettle is really not the same as eating out at Okra.
Speaking in English can be a sure shot way of defining who is a burger and who isn’t. But even that got me thinking – only 8-10% of the country has Urdu as their mother tongue. So if we expand our definition, Urdu speakers would also be burgers.

Why?

Because ultimately a burger is a way of pointing out someone who has more than you, someone who is part of the exclusive elite parasites we all hate.

Now maybe you find the Urdu argument above weak. But it would mean that you would also be known as a burger then, because this blog ain’t written in Ghalib’s language.
But I know for a fact that people detest being labeled as burgers.* In fact, most of the people I know go to great lengths to point out that they are not burgers. They will point to the Indian movies they watch, or the desi eateries they frequent, or the fact that they are friends with their menial laborers, or drivers or cooks, or that they know dirty jokes in Urdu, or that they don’t have an aversion to eating ‘un-hygienic food,’ or that they don’t live in Defence, or that they got into fist fights, or that they don’t listen to what their parents tell them all as evidence that they are not burgers.

*(One example of bucking this trend was the ‘street-gang’ BUDDOK, which allegedly stood/stands for Burgers-United-Dopers-Drinkers-Of-Karachi.)

Yet I have spoken to others, not in our strata of society, who would define burger simply as someone who wears pants, or studied in a co-education school, or gave their O’ levels, or drives a car.

And friends of mine who refuse to be known as burgers are people who have their own personal room in their houses in a city where 60% don’t even have formal shelters, let alone a house. They have their own TV and AC while most of their city-mates find the cost of rotis unbearable. They don’t ever vote, and generally support the army. They have, and know how to use, computers beyond the level of signing onto MSN. And even if they didn’t study abroad, they did study at universities which are the most exclusive in the country, even if they were full of hip-shaking homeboys.

So does it even matter?

If you think it does, consider this fact.

The best burgers in Karachi are at Chips and Mr. Burger - Desi outlets.
So therefore, does defining someone as a burger serve any purpose other than ripping open cleavages within our society?

Do we really need to pull apart, especially at this time in our history?

No we don’t, but the reason I wrote this blog is this.

WE ARE ALL BURGERS.

You, me, and everyone we are friends with.

Because in a country with 70% of the population living below the poverty line, we who have access to computers and are literate are the burgers. Even if you traveled in a bus, or have relatives in Baldia, or like cricket more than football, you are a burger.

You and I are part of the people who wield all the power, who have all the money, who live the good life, who have what so many others don’t. Yes, you know people who are outrageously wealthier than you, but that doesn’t mean you are not a burger. You are. Don’t deny it. In fact, stop denying it. Even if you dream in Urdu and not English, you are a juicy, warm, luscious, cheese soaked garnished and spiced burger.
So please.

Every time you have a problem with the country, stop to think about how you’re part of the problem. Cuz you are.

Every time you are bemoaning about how corrupt and lousy our elites are, stop and look at the mirror. Cuz you’re bitching about yourself.

Every time you think this country is going to the dogs, check to see if you’re barking, cuz its all going to you.

No, you are not middle class. You are not upper-middle class. You are not middle-upper-middle-class.

You are a burger. I am a burger.

And we need to shut the fuck up and realize this fact.

Stand up, and take responsibility. It’s your fault. And you can put it right.

On Men and Women

I was in peshawer recently where we were investigating the effects of the rise in militancy on music stores. we were expecting a lot of angst over the shadowy threats issued by the taliban, as well as the bombings that they must all live in fear of.

we weren't disappointed on that front, as most of the store keepers were too afraid to speak to us out of fear of retribution. one guy told me a story that seemed to perfectly encapsulate the pathan mentality - the president of the music shopkeeper's association had held a rally last year where he openly asked the taliban to come rest upon his genitalia, adding that he couldn't give a fuck about them.



he was promptly murdered.

but while there we discovered something else. as the threat from the taliban increases, the sales have dropped. no surprises there. but as the sales have dropped, the demand for more commercial, racy, and as they put it, vulgar songs and music videos is on the rise.

the more repressed we get, the hornier we get.



it struck a nerve with something i have long suspected. the widening gulf between the sexes enforced by the guardians of morality in our country is giving birth to some really fucked up people.

consider this - pakistani men are interested only in marrying immaculate women - they seem to be put off by the slightest symbols of a woman's sexuality when considering a partner for life. in contrast, their sexual fantasies are specially aroused by whorish images and icons, by flagrant displays of titillation. (tit-illation. sounds like a word a man came up with)


growing up amidst pakistani puberty has driven home this point. over time, i have seen men chase ever-riskier ventures to sake their mojo while demanding increasingly puritan attitudes from the women they know, marry and are related to.

the image of the women in dramas, music videos, stage shows, films, fashion ramps, in Bollywood and the 'West' increasingly seems to be about brazenness.


and the pakistani male - bereft of all normal contact with women and sinking amongst the bubbling testosterone - finds his ideas of sexuality increasingly divorced from his conception of companionship.

"i must fuck all the 'dirty' women i can find before i settle down with the Virgin Maria who can be the Mother of my children."


The dichotomy between the Mother and Madonna seems to dominate the local man. iconoclastic reverence of the one whose soles are heaven skies, and unadulterated fantasy for anyone who can be comfortably excluded from the meddlesome boundaries of mehram.

consequently, men in marriages are often found to have forlorn sexual prowess, and even those are immediately extinguished by the prospect of the woman having any skills in bed, for it would sour the image of her as untouched and pure. and those whose libidos are untainted, we find them plugging the holes of six year old nieces, pre-pubescent boys, and unsuspecting, vagina clenching bitches (or female dogs since you have inferred through your associations and not through literal meaning)

we're growing up to be confused, shy, clumsy clambering rapists. and this depravity is not because this is how we are. in a world where the idea of consumerism has transcended into relationships, a society which still prefers to inhabit the ideals of a stone age that never existed is going to go all fucked up. it just stands to reason.

and while we are on this topic, here's another thing. the reason i mentioned the stone age that never existed is:

consider this - a CEO of a large trading company, who happens to be a female, hires a sales rep half her age. upon seeing that he is very competent, said woman proposes marriage to her much junior employee. if you and i hear this story, we would be saying cradle snatcher, sex scandal and god knows what else. only this story took place 1400 years ago, in stone age arabia, and involves the founder of Islam.

on this account, that age seemed to be far more enlightened than this one.