OverviewGender distinctions in Muslim societies have often
been approached through a clear dichotomy be-
tween the public (equated with men) and the private
(equated with women) domains. Corresponding to
this split is a whole set of oppositions such as male/
female, honor/shame, outside/inside, active/passive,
powerful/powerless, superior/inferior, and visible/
invisible. While these oppositions have been espe-
cially common in the study of the Middle East, they
have also directly and indirectly informed the study
of Muslim communities in other parts of the globe.
From Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Morocco to Azer-
baijan, the Philippines, and Indonesia, in the litera-
ture an emphasis on spatial and symbolic distinctions
that structure interaction between men and women
is frequently encountered. Different (Muslim and
non-Muslim) writers have seen this opposition as
central to the construction of Muslim femininities
and masculinities.
Public/private and the question
of power
Since the late 1960s, several studies have ques-
tioned the public/private dichotomy and its value in
understanding power and gender inequalities. This
critique has focused on two aspects. An earlier set
of studies aimed to show how the dichotomy fails
to capture the active role women play in social life
and the significant power they exercise in running
the affairs of their families (Nelson 1974, Altorki
1986, Rassam 1984). In an article published in
1974, Cynthia Nelson provided a powerful critique
of this split, linking it to Western categories that
inform discussions of power, privacy, and public-
ness. In contrast to the sharp dichotomy and the
great emphasis most (mainly male) researchers
placed on the power that men exercised in the pub-
lic domain, Nelson drew on various ethnographic
studies (mainly conducted by women) to show the
complex interplay between the public and private
spheres. She demonstrated that despite the segrega-
tion of men and women, the latter still had the abil-
ity to influence men and exercise more power than
had been assumed in earlier studies. Through sor-
cery, witchcraft, and healing, women exercise con-
siderable influence over men and their decisions. In
Public/Private Dichotomy
short, women’s networks always cross the bound-
aries between inside and outside and function to
link the concerns of men and women. Authors such
as Soraya Altorki (1986), Asma Afsaruddin (1999),
and William Lancaster (1997) have revealed the
political implications of the roles of mothers, sis-
ters, and other female relatives in arranging mar-
riages. Other studies have shifted the attention to
the symbolic and political significance of the pri-
vate domain and documented how the house unit
may become fundamental to the resistance of dom-
ination, marginalization, and colonization as well
as to the assertion of ethnic/national identities.
When Azerbaijan was part of the Soviet Union, for
instance, anti-religious policies pushed Islam to the
private domain of the family. Within this context,
women and their ritual practices acquired central
significance in resisting Soviet domination and in
asserting Azeri national and religious identity
(Tohidi 1998). Similarly, the house, its decoration,
and women’s religious practices are important
markers of the differences between Bosnian Mus-
lims and their Christian neighbors (Bringa 1995).
While these conditions increase the symbolic power
invested in the private domain, they may also facil-
itate and legitimize the possibility of imposing
restrictions on women and their access to various
public spaces.Public/private as contested
domains
A second and more recent set of studies question
the meaning of “publicness” and “privacy,” em-
phasizing the shifting and unstable meanings of
these two concepts (Afsaruddin 1999, Bringa 1995,
Ghannam 2002, Meneley 1996). In particular,
these studies have been critical of the male-based
definition of the “public” common in the literature.
While many researchers tended to view men’s activ-
ities and spaces as part of the public domain, they
usually saw women’s practices (even when con-
ducted outside the immediate domain of the house-
hold) as “privatizing” public spaces. In contrast to
this view, recent anthropological research has de-
monstrated how women have their own “publics.”
Anne Meneley, for example, illustrates how Yemeni
women through visiting and networking are active
in enhancing their families’ honor and status. While