3.1sayigh

8/7/2019 3.1sayigh

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/31sayigh 1/21

Product and Producer of Palestinian History: Stereotypes of "Self"

in Camp Women’s Life Stories

Sayigh, Rosemary.

Journal of Middle East Women's Studies, Volume 3, Number 1,

Winter 2007, pp. 86-105 (Article)

Published by Indiana University Press

DOI: 10.1353/jmw.2007.0009

For additional information about this article

Access Provided by American University in Cairo at 07/11/10 2:37PM GMT

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jmw/summary/v003/3.1sayigh.html



8/7/2019 3.1sayigh


86 JOURNAL OF MIDDLE EAST WOMEN’S STUDIES

JOURNAL OF MIDDLE EAST WOMEN’S STUDIES

Vol. 3, No. 1 (Winter 2007). © 2007

PRODUCT AND PRODUCER OF

PALESTINIAN HISTORY:

STEREOTYPES OF “SELF” IN CAMP

WOMEN’S LIFE STORIES

Rosemary Sayigh

ABSTRACT

is paper examines representations of “self” embodied in the life his-

tories of women members of a Palestinian refugee camp community

in Lebanon. Stereotypes of “self” are inherently ambivalent (Guttman

1988) as sites of both subjection and resistance. is ambivalence

is strongly exemplified around the Palestinian refugee identity (to

submit or to resist?); and again, though in different terms, for women

members of refugee communities. (In camps, gender conservatism

was multi-sourced, forming a link with Palestine, a boundary dif-

ferentiating Palestinians from the “host” population, and resistance

to coercive change.) e Palestinian resistance movement, like other

twentieth-century anti-colonialist national movements, rigidified

gender “tradition” as a key element of cultural nationalism, while

political and economic mobilization gave women new scope for action

and for “voice.” e life stories of women of Shatila camp, recorded

soon aer its destruction during the “Battle of the Camps” (1995–98),

reveal “self” stereotypes that express historic continuity with Palestine

as well as the specificity of Lebanon as diaspora region, character-

ized by PLO autonomy from 1970 to 1982, and high levels of violence

against camp Palestinians in particular. Analysis of the “self” stereo-

8/7/2019 3.1sayigh


ROSEMARY SAYIGH 87

types (and of their absence) points to a “collectivization” of personal

narratives, as well as factors such as social status, age, educational

level and degree of patriotism that differentiate the speakers in termsof presentation of the “self” and narrative coherence. Clear challenges

to gender ideology are present in two of the life stories.

us, the emergence of the modern self, the self as subject, figures

prominently in the subjection of humankind, and figures promi-

nently in the genesis of those modern struggles that seek, in the face

of that subjection, to reclaim their humanity for men and women

(Guttman 1988, 118).

INTRODUCTION

This paper begins from a triple point of interrogation regarding the

historiography of colonized peoples. In the beginning, the colonizer

writes the “natives” out of the history of the colonized area, using different

arguments to justify their exclusion. Differentiation between “advanced”

and “backward,” between “civilized” and “primitive,” offers ideologicalcover for the appropriation of the resources of the weak by the power-

ful. In its struggle to appropriate Palestine, the Zionist movement en-

joyed undeniable advantages vis à vis the indigenous population, among

them one of the oldest written histories in the world. This history was the

prism through which the mainly Christian “advanced” world perceived

Palestine and the Middle East, making the Zionist movement appear in

the eyes of believers as the realization of biblical prophecy (Mattar 1999).

There has never been a more powerful historical framework for colonial-ist appropriation, and the critical work of a new generation of biblical

scholars has not yet been able to undo the role of Gentile Zionism in the

displacement of Palestinians and the suppression of their history.1

New nation-states exhibit a second form of repression when they

write their history, one in which a taken-for-granted focus on national

leaders and formal politics excludes attention to women and the “do-

mestic sphere” in sustaining national liberation struggles. Nationalist

histories register women only as individual heroines, or as “auxiliaries,”or when they form organizations, hence supplementary to the main-

stream struggle. e omission of women, the domestic, subaltern classes,

8/7/2019 3.1sayigh



ethnic minorities, and the local appears to characterize all national his-

toriography. Indeed, scholars have argued that the state arises through

suppressing alternative sites of power such as family and tribe, inventingthe nation as a myth of unity and dividing the (male) public domain

from the (female) domestic one.

No single “official” Palestinian history has yet been published, yet

we find these leader- and andro-centric characteristics in the publica-

tions of the various Palestine Liberation Organization institutions—the

Research Center, the Planning Center, the popular unions—that flour-

ished in Lebanon between 1969 and 1982. One Palestinian historian,

Abdul-Wahhab Kayyali (1979, 171–73, 191–92), observed that womenformed a vanguard within the national struggle during the Mandate pe-

riod, but this interesting suggestion has never been followed up. Among

PLO institutions, the General Union of Palestinian Women (established

in 1965) formed a subcommittee to research and publicize the history

of the pre-1948 women’s movement in Palestine, but its research ambi-

tions were pushed aside by social care work created by continual crisis

and attack.

At a third level, in Palestinian communities, women are not rec-ognized as making or knowing history, or capable of telling it. is was

first manifested to me in the camp of Bourj al-Barajneh in 1973 when

I asked a young refugee schoolteacher (male) to help me find people to

speak on the experience of being Palestinian. Even though I didn’t use

the word “history,” he assumed that only men, and only senior men at

that, were capable of performing this national task, so that his first list

was all male, aged 50 years and above. Later, when I was conducting

fieldwork in Shatila camp, a man refused to allow me to record with hiswife (but this was in the period of greatest fear of spies and informers,

in 1982–83, when Israel occupied all of south Lebanon). When experi-

menting with interviewing husbands and wives together, and women in

mixed family settings, I found that men oen “corrected” their wives or

interrupted even when it was the wife’s turn to speak. A session with an

elderly woman, recording her life story, gave me a clearer understanding

of how the collective refugee story had been constructed, when a visiting

(male) neighbor interrupted her story of her marriage with the words,“Tell her how much land you owned!” ese experiences of suppression

of female voices and the “domestic” were valuable in forcing me to ques-

8/7/2019 3.1sayigh


ROSEMARY SAYIGH 89

tion my earlier impressions of refugee women as politicized, articulate,

and free to speak their minds.

In exile in Lebanon, gender ideology became more discursively explicit, as an element of identity that both linked the refugees to their

birthplace and differentiated them from the host society. Camp people’s

frequent and proud assertion that “we have preserved our customs and

traditions” (a phrase that always means the control of women) can be

taken as evidence of the centrality of gender ideology in the production

of a post-1948 Palestinian identity.2 us among the theoretical values of

women’s life stories is the way they express cultural stereotypes3 of the

gendered “self” that reveal both continuity with Palestine and changein exile, whether through environmental factors (such as opportunities

for schooling and paid employment), or through Resistance movement

mobilization. is paper presents oral data from Shatila women’s life

stories with the aim of demonstrating how stereotypes of the “self” fuse

the personal and the collective, and how they are gendered, expressing

cultural models of “woman” inflected by class of origin and aspiration.

ey also point to change between generations, and to the way “selves”

are creatively refashioned in response to new political contexts and newrealities. e “selves” of women oppressed by statelessness, class, and gen-

der point to the dualism that Guttman notes, subjectifying and liberating,

open equally to the stamp of conformity and to the struggle for change.

INSECURITY AS FRAME OF REFUGEE WOMEN’S

REPRESENTATIONS OF “SELF”

e empirical basis of my presentation is a set of life stories recordedbetween 1990 and 1992 with eighteen women from Shatila camp. Its

closeness to West Beirut had made the camp and adjacent areas a center

of political mobilization and institution building under the PLO (from

1970 to 1982). Shatila was viewed as dangerous both by Israel and by

some Lebanese political sectors: the massacre of September 1982 was

only one in a long series of attempts to remove the camp. ree years

aer the Israeli invasion, following the defeat of the Lebanese Forces

in the Chouf and the withdrawal of the Lebanese Army from WestBeirut, in the midst of rising inter-militia tension, the Shi‘ite militia

Amal mounted a surprise attack against Sabra and Shatila, destroying

8/7/2019 3.1sayigh



the smaller camp. The ensuing attacks and sieges (the “War of the

Camps,” 1985–87) le Shatila almost totally destroyed, and most of its

inhabitants scattered outside (see Mansour 1985). e Syrian Army, aerentering West Beirut in 1987 to end Lebanese militia conflict, proceeded

to arrest large numbers of Palestinians as “Arafatists,” and precipitated

an intra-Fateh battle that completed Shatila’s destruction. Aer it fell

totally under the control of the Syrian Army and pro-Syrian Resistance

groups, entry into the camp meant interrogation for myself and anyone

I visited inside the camp. I continued to visit Shatila people, but now

scattered in unfinished or war-damaged buildings all over West Beirut.

ese years of visits during which I recorded oral histories of Shatilacamp helped in the selection of life story tellers in several ways, famil-

iarizing me and legitimizing me through association with respected

figures in the camp, and enabling me to learn some of the descriptives

used of women and girls, value-laden terms that show up the inadequacy

of merely demographic variables. I was also able to gauge variations in

women’s political activism and to grasp the language used for it. Hav-

ing a visiting network of my own also helped me to avoid depending on

the Women’s Union, which would certainly have proposed only womenknown for their activism.

I aimed at a sample that would be representative of the community

in demographic variables such as age, pre-1948 origin, marital status,

and socio-economic position, yet also express the heterogeneity of char-

acter and type to be found among women in a small-scale Arab/Mus-

lim milieu. e prevalent insecurity meant that I could not ask about

people’s political affiliation; but what women said about each other gave

me a rough idea of degree and type of mobilization.4

History entered the Shatila life-story recordings first through

the specificity of the period in which the recordings were carried out.

e years 1990–92 were ones of heightened insecurity and poverty for

Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, a result of the decline in PLO employ-

ment, services, and aid, and of the reimposition of Lebanese labor laws

which foreclosed most skilled and salaried employment to the refugees.

Such conditions created an ambiguous mood: nationalism continued

to be the dominant mode of political discourse but was now dissoci-ated by ordinary Palestinians from the existing PLO and Resistance

leaderships. Such dissociation created a space for “revisionist” versions

8/7/2019 3.1sayigh


ROSEMARY SAYIGH 91

of history, both public and personal. e fact that some of the speakers

spontaneously raised problems of sexuality in sessions where family

and neighbors were present—all recording sessions were conducted in“public”—points to the crucial importance of the historic moment in

shaping life stories.

Second, the span created by the interviewees’ ages offered a wide

sweep of Palestinian history, with the oldest Shatila speaker being aged

90 and the youngest 26. e speakers divided fairly evenly among the

three generations named in everyday camp speech as the “generation of

Palestine” (five speakers, born between 1900 and 1933); the “generation

of the Disaster” (eight speakers, born just before, during or aer theexpulsion); and the “generation of the Revolution” (five speakers, born

between 1949 and 1965). It was a sign of regional and class specificity as

well as historical period that all but five of the 18 speakers had lost close

family members through war—husband, children, parents, brothers. In

several cases losses were multiple. Until the second Intifada in the Oc-

cupied Territories, Palestinian losses had been nowhere higher than in

Lebanon between 1970 and 1987, years when the camps became targets

of both Israeli and Lebanese attack.My method of discerning “self” stereotypes in the life stories was

to look, first, at anecdotes about the “self,” and what characteristics they

emphasized; then positioning of the “self” in relation to a collective

history of expulsion, repression, and resistance; third, metaphors of

collective situation; and finally, stance toward the researcher and the

outside world. Colleagues from milieus close to the camps listened to

the tapes with me and corroborated or contested my interpretations.

ree collective stereotypes dominated most (11) of the 18 life stories(seven speakers seemed not to express any dominant “self” stereotype).

I labeled them as did the narrators themselves, or my Palestinian col-

leagues: 1) the “struggle personality” (five cases); 2) the “confrontation

personality” (two cases); and 3) “all our life is tragedy” (or “witness to

tragedy”) (four cases).5 e connection of these stereotypes with na-

tional struggle is obvious; so too is their idealized and didactic nature,

projected to multiple audiences—local and imaginary—in life stories

intended as witness to the tragic epic of the Palestinian people, hence“testimonials” in the full meaning of the term, fusing the personal and

the collective in truth-claiming narratives (see Beverley 1992).

8/7/2019 3.1sayigh



The “Struggle Personality”: Dominant Stereotype

e prevalence of the “struggle” stereotype is indicated by the number

of speakers who expressed it (five); by its recurrence in the narratives of all three age groups, bridging differences in educational level and urban/

rural origin; and by the fact that it occurred in the form of isolated anec-

dotes in several narratives dominated by another or no single stereotype.

Formalized in Resistance movement discourse, popularized by war

conditions in Lebanon, the “struggle personality” has both gender and

class connotations, since the human qualities it summarizes—strength,

courage, resourcefulness—are preeminently those of peasant women.

To emphasize the cross-generational transfer of the “struggle personal-ity” through changing historical contexts, I have selected examples that

span the three main generations described above: Umm Muhammad

(born circa 1900); Umm Sobhi (born 1941); Umm ‘Imad (born 1946);

and Khawla (born 1960).

e oldest of the speakers, Umm Muhammad spontaneously pre-

sented herself in the struggle mode, focusing upon episodes of British

repression. is is her account of a British Army raid on the village of

al-Birweh during the 1936–39 Rebellion:

Someone told the Inkleez [British] that there were revolutionaries hid-

ing in al-Birweh. So they came and captured them and took them to

an open space where there were cactus bushes. It was July. ey told

the young men to cut the cactus branches and then they threw them

on top of the young men and stepped on them.

Umm Muhammad’s son was in another group of men ordered to carry

heavy stones. When soldiers barred the way of village women trying totake water to the men, Umm Muhammad’s response was to resist:

e soldier stood in my way. He said, “I’ll shoot you.” I took his rifle

and threw it on the ground, and I went on with the water to my son

and the other shebāb [young men] under the olive trees. ey were

black, black, black, you couldn’t recognize them. I poured water into

my son’s mouth and said, “Share it among you.”

While telling this story, Umm Muhammad energetically acted out how shehad pushed the British soldier aside and seized his rifle. She continued:

8/7/2019 3.1sayigh


ROSEMARY SAYIGH 93

e second day they told us to leave the village because the Inkleez

were going to dynamite it. We le for Kafr Yaseef. My daughter Aisheh

was about to have a baby. We went to a relative, Umm Saleh, becausewe needed a midwife, but she refused to come. My daughter gave birth

into my hands.

e straightforward juxtaposition of these two anecdotes, one

political/public, the other domestic/private, is characteristic of older

refugee women’s narratives. Pushing aside a British soldier and helping

a daughter give birth in the midst of military repression are moments in

a continuous action of “living the struggle.” Both anecdotes tell of the

speaker’s courage and resourcefulness; in both, Umm Muhammad actsprimarily to help her own children, though her action includes others,

as when she instructs her son to share the water with the shebab.

Umm Sobhi, born in 1941 in a small village near Yafa (Jaffa), first

told her life story in strongly tragic mode. Yet as I continued to visit her,

she told me stories that pointed to her as an exemplar of the “struggle

personality.” Many of these arose directly from her resistance to attempts

to evict her from her home. But the following anecdote comes from an

earlier period, just aer the 1982 invasion, when the Lebanese Army wasrestoring its control over the Beirut camps:

People came and said that the Lebanese Army were hitting a woman....

I was washing clothes. When I got outside, I found it was true. ere

was one of the sisters [i.e., a Resistance cadre], I won’t say her name,

a soldier had got her in an alley and was pressing his baton against

her stomach. No one dared to approach except me. I got closer: “Why

are you doing that? She’s a girl, not a man.” He said, “You’re from thecamp?” I said, “I’m a daughter of the camp like these kids you are

arresting.” He said, “Your children are among them?” I said, “All of

them are my children.” “And this girl, how is she related to you?” “She

is my daughter too. Every Palestinian girl is my daughter, and every

Palestinian boy is my son.”

Umm Sobhi’s courage in challenging a soldier, an action that led

to her arrest and interrogation, recalls Umm Muhammad’s action half

a century earlier confronting British troops in al-Birweh, a form of physical resistance once specific to rural Palestinian women, and carried

8/7/2019 3.1sayigh



by them into exile. Yet by confronting a soldier in defense of a comrade

who is not her daughter, and of Palestinian children who are not her

children, Umm Sobhi expresses a political consciousness of the “Pal-estinian people” formed aer 1948 by two major forces: experience of

oppression in exile, and Resistance movement mobilization. Here is

clear evidence of the construction of a national “family,” a development

which women of the camps readily adopted since it consorted with their

existing roles in societal reproduction, always extended beyond the

household family to the local community.

Born in 1946, also a member of the “generation of the Disaster,”

Umm ‘Imad told an anecdote about her adolescence that prefigured herlater role as mar’a nashīta (active housewife).6 She was around fourteen

years old when Ahmed Shukairy (later first chairman of the PLO) was

allowed by the Lebanese authorities to speak at a public meeting in

Sidon:

I was very enthusiastic and so was my father—Ahmed Shukairy is from

Akka [Acre], our city.... We went there. ere were many people sitting

on the seats. He entered and people stood up and began to clap. He

approached the table with a microphone where he was going to speak.

Suddenly, in the middle of that crowd, I jumped up and shouted, “Oh,

Shukairy, we want arms!” And all the people shouted with me, “We

want arms,” and they went down the stairs to where Shukairy was, and

they carried him, shaking him from side to side, shouting, “Shukairy,

we want arms!”

When I first got to know her in Shatila, Umm ‘Imad was married,

with young children, engaged in distributing supplies to people whosehomes had been destroyed in the 1982 invasion. In her life story she tells

how she became a member of the Palestinian Women’s Union, taking

on a broad spectrum of voluntary political activities. Her husband sup-

ported her activism by staying with the children when she had meetings.

In later parts of her narrative, Umm ‘Imad told how she stayed in the

camp during the war of 1982, and continued to work with the Women’s

Union in the period of Army repression that followed the war:

People were afraid, they didn’t want to get involved in national work

aer the Resistance had le Beirut.... But we began again, bit by bit,

8/7/2019 3.1sayigh


ROSEMARY SAYIGH 95

with struggle, from the beginning. We reopened the Women’s Union.

e Maktab ani [Army Intelligence] came aer us, but we managed

to get a license from the Government allowing us to work.

e ending of Umm ‘Imad’s story was formal: an appeal to the

world for justice for the Palestinian people. e “public” nature of her

narrative was also signaled by her use of her ism al-haraka (movement

name) to identify herself, a rhetorical device to li her life story into the

wider public domain. is “struggle” stance toward the world was most

marked in the case of Umm ‘Imad, perhaps as a result of her long his-

tory as a Union member. But I felt it was implicitly present in all those

women who readily and without hesitation agreed to record with me ina time of insecurity. In such a long and unequal struggle, to speak and

to remember is to resist.

Khawla, a member of the “generation of the Revolution,” born in

1960, recollected her childhood in Tell al-Za‘ater camp in the early days

of the Resistance.7

We children used to take food and drink to the fedayeen. In 1973 there

was fighting with the Lebanese Army. e Resistance fighters werespread out in the mountain. We made sandwiches and went up to the

mountain with them, we took them blankets and jerseys. And on the

way back we filled water gallons and took them to them. I was only six

or seven at the time but I was brave and enthusiastic. Of course my

parents were conservative, so I had to go secretly, with other women.

During the final siege of Tell al-Za‘ater in 1976, Khawla, like other

women, undertook the dangerous task of bringing water from a well

exposed to sniper fire:

I was young, I was thirteen, I used to go out and fill water, from the top

of Tell al-Za‘ater to Dikwaneh, more than a kilometer. ere was snip-

ing and shelling. We used to come up carrying the tins full of water, in

the night, running. I swear by God that once I carried a whole barrel.

I’m thin but I used to carry cans of water as big as this [gesture of both

arms], and go back up running.

Aer the fall of Tell al-Za‘ater, Khawla married, settled near Sha-tila, and stayed there throughout the Israeli invasion of West Beirut in

8/7/2019 3.1sayigh



September 1982. She described herself seeking news of her parents aer

the massacre, and of her frantic search through the hospitals of West

Beirut to find a wounded sister. She ended her story with her husband’sdeath in the third ‘Amal siege of Shatila: “He died. God have mercy on

him. And we are still continuing in our struggle work.”

Dominance of the “struggle personality” in camp women’s narra-

tives has multiple historical roots: in Palestine, where peasant women

participated in the earliest demonstrations against Zionist land purchase;

in the transmission of peasant culture to the camps where refugees of

rural origin formed a majority; in post-1948 Resistance and popular

discourse, which adopted the peasant as “national signifier” (Swedenburg1990); and in the conflictual nature of refugee history in Lebanon. In

camp meetings at which women were addressed, such as International

Women’s Day, cadres used to pay tribute to “our heroic peasant moth-

ers”; camp housewives appropriated the struggle motif to describe their

domestic and maternal labor (Peteet 1991, 187–98). As is shown by the

quotations presented above, its national and popular character ensured

its transmission between generations, across the urban/rural divide,

and between schooled and unschooled women. What is most interestingabout the “struggle” stereotype is its ambivalence, recalling the epigraph

to this paper: on one hand, conservative in the way it mobilizes women

in occasional action without disturbing norms of domesticity; on the

other, flexible enough to incorporate new elements arising from changed

contexts, as well as encourage personal elaborations.

The “Challenge Personality”: Vehicle of Social Struggle

Manifested by only two of the life story tellers, the “challenge personality”could be taken as a variant of the “struggle personality,” were it not for a

critical difference. Whereas the “struggle personality” is easily incorporated

into women’s domestic routines, even becoming a metonym for them, the

logic of the “challenge personality” is that, formed in the crucible of na-

tional struggle, it becomes a vehicle of opposition to gendered constraints

in the family. Several of the speakers who incarnated the “struggle person-

ality” voiced conservative attitudes to gender, especially when speaking as

mothers of daughters. But Umm Marwan (born in 1938) and Rihab (bornin 1964) had both challenged gender norms in their personal lives, and

each used the life story genre as vehicle for social critique.

8/7/2019 3.1sayigh


ROSEMARY SAYIGH 97

Like most girls of her generation of rural origin, Umm Marwan

had been subjected to coercive marriage. But unlike others, this expe-

rience had kindled in her a life-long rebellion that had taken severalforms, some more far-reaching than others. She had brought up her

daughters differently from the way she herself had been brought up,

putting them through school (she had been unschooled), and refusing

to let them marry until they had obtained professional training. Such a

stance is not unusual among camp women deprived of schooling. But

Umm Marwan had taken her rebellion further than this, cutting herself

off from her family of origin aer her husband died:

According to our traditions, the family of the father dominates, but in

our case they didn’t want the children. My family were near me.... they

came, they tried to dominate, I didn’t want it.... I wanted to raise my

children myself, so that we would become friends. I separated myself

from people for fieen years, I was outside my family. ey had forced

me to get married, that was it! I didn’t let them impose anything on

me, nor on my children. I stood against them.

An important strand in Umm Marwan’s story was women’s needfor professional training and economic independence, ideas still not

widely accepted in camp milieus. She herself had worked to keep her

family together and maintain their independence, defending her at-

titude thus:

Work isn’t shameful. I encourage women to work and to struggle.... A

woman shouldn’t depend completely on a man.... Maybe her husband

will come and tell her, “You are divorced. Goodbye!” He will give

her the mu’akhar ,8 and throw her out. e money won’t feed her two

days.

It is revealing to compare Umm Marwan’s critical views on Pales-

tinian gender norms with those of another woman of similar age, Umm

Noman. e latter told me that she had raised her sons to be patriots

and fighters, but had refused to allow her daughters to work outside

the home, either in politics or in paid employment, because this might

damage their reputations. Umm Marwan acknowledged the danger of sexual harassment in the workplace, but said that a girl must learn how

to resist such pressures.

8/7/2019 3.1sayigh



Umm Marwan’s revolutionary ideas and practices seem to have had

no other antecedents than personal experience, since she belonged to a

generation that came to maturity before the Resistance movement. ButRihab’s story shows how the practice of resistance against an external

enemy can be turned inward against family and societal gender norms.

Rihab was one of the youngest speakers, a student at the time of the

invasion of 1982, Her narrative expressed the “challenge personality”

both as dominant format for representing the “self” and as embedded

in her narrative in a series of confrontational episodes. e first of these

was her earliest recollection when, aged six, she witnessed the liberation

of Shatila camp from Lebanese Army control (1969). Confrontation isplayed out again in another key episode, in the aermath of the war of

1982. eir home in the camp had been damaged, so Rihab went with

her mother and younger siblings to a house they owned outside Beirut:

We went to the house, but there were Kata’eb9 in it.... ey used the

pretext, “Your days are gone, Palestinians, this house is ours.” I am

a fanatic Palestinian, I couldn’t tolerate such a situation.... We had a

hunting rifle. I loaded it with a cartridge. I told them, “Now get out or

I’ll demolish the house over your heads....” ey le and we stayed in

the house until the schools opened.

Battles structured Rihab’s narrative to a degree unparalleled in

those of other speakers, marginalizing the personal. She tells of her

divorce in a single sentence: “Aer finishing secondary [school], I got

engaged, then married, then divorced.” ough curtailed in her narra-

tive, divorce appears to have been a “critical juncture,” a moment in her

life when Rihab turned the capacity for challenge she had learnt in theResistance against societal gender constraints. is is suggested obliquely

in the context of remarks about Palestinian women in general:

is matter [independence] will need a long struggle, struggle in the

sense of conflict—with parents, with society, and with the whole en-

vironment. At the time I got married and divorced, it wasn’t easy for

a girl in our society, or in the camp, to divorce. A woman has to fight

opinions—I won’t say traditions, because we are Arabs.... Success or

failure depends on her “long breath.”

Elsewhere she forcefully asserts her independence:

8/7/2019 3.1sayigh


ROSEMARY SAYIGH 99

I will choose my life according to what suits me. And there’s no way

that anyone can impose things on me. I have this revolutionary logic

not only in my national work but also in my personal life. Of coursethey are linked.

Both Umm Marwan and Rihab were of rural origin; the older was

self-taught, the younger had reached university; Umm Marwan had

worked as an employee (outside the PLO) for most of her adult life, and

may have belonged to the mar’a nashita category (insecurity at the time

of recording made it impossible to ask about political activity); Rihab was

mutafarrigha (a full-time Resistance cadre). Older women tell stories of

women rebels and nonconformists, and it seems likely that, however rare

its occurrence, the “confrontation personality” is not the product of a

particular historic period, class, or diaspora region, but this is a hypoth-

esis that needs testing in historic Palestine and other diaspora areas. Leb-

anon perhaps gave greater scope for social rebellion because it provided

a wider basis for women’s economic independence. But a close reading

of these two narratives suggests that the primary element in forging the

“confrontation personality” is a determination to follow out an inescap-

able “logic.” In Rihab, the “confrontation personality” is an essential

expression of the “self” rather than a theme of incidental anecdotes, a

full-time occupation rather than an occasional irruption into politics.

“All Our Life Has Been Tragedy”

Frequent use of this phrase framed certain narratives as illustration of

national tragedy, and the narrator as witness and embodiment. More

collective in its reference than the other two modes, it was nonetheless“personalized” stylistically and through specific content. One example

must suffice, that of Umm Noman (born in 1937, of village origin, un-

schooled).

Umm Noman gave a chronicle of displacements and loss, imper-

sonal in its focus on war and family, expressive in its bare factualism.

She began, “All our life has been lost,” and then, as if for an official reg-

ister, went on to give me the full names of two sons who had been killed

and a third imprisoned since 1976, whereabouts unknown. She thenlisted all the homes she had been displaced from, in most cases through

war, beginning with Kabri (Palestine), and going on to south Lebanon,

8/7/2019 3.1sayigh



the Beqa‘, Nahr al-Bared camp, Bourj al-Barajneh camp, Tell al-Za‘ater

camp, and Shatila camp, where her home had been destroyed twice (in

1982 and 1985). She commented, “Since I was born I saw nothing in my life but wars.” Part of her story ran thus:

We stayed steadfast in Tell al-Za‘ater camp for three months under

bombardment. We were living death. ere was no more food. No

more water. No more medicine. ey treated people who got wounded

with salt. Za‘ater fell. People went down and surrendered themselves

in Dikwaneh. From Tell al-Za‘ater to Dikwaneh we were walking on

Palestinian corpses thrown on the ground.

Umm Noman ended her story with the death of a newly married

son in the third siege of Shatila. When she had finished speaking, awed

by the painfulness of her story, I felt unable to ask her for details, though

hers was the briefest of all the recording sessions. Just as a way of closing

down, I asked her if she had anything to add. She answered:

To be honest, I don’t have anything more to say. Don’t be offended, but

I’ve given many interviews before. I’ve talked a lot. A long, wide life

we’ve spent telling our reality and we got nothing from it.

“We got nothing from it”—this is the theme echoed by Nazira

(born 1948, of urban background, a PLO employee), who said, “At the

end, all we are is widows and orphans.” As dominant frame for life

stories, this contains generational specificity, since it was women of the

“generation of the Disaster,” whose brothers, husbands, and sons were

of an age to join the Resistance, who suffered most losses. ere is an

element of regional specificity also, in that Palestinians in Lebanon boreuntil recently higher losses than other regions. Moreover, their emphasis

on sacrifice and loss makes it possible to read their stories as implicit cri-

tique of the PLO for having abandoned the refugees in Lebanon. A final

point not to be forgotten is that the figure of witness, or truth-teller, is

a positive one in Palestinian and Arab culture, and legitimates women’s

presence in public space.

The “Sitt fi’l-Beit”: A Latent Stereotype?

As I noted earlier, more than a third of the life stories (seven) did not

seem to express any dominant “self” stereotype. In seven of the life

8/7/2019 3.1sayigh


ROSEMARY SAYIGH 101

stories there appeared no dominant collective stereotype. Does this

weaken my argument for their existence in the other life stories, and

for their historical/cultural significance? I would argue, rather, that thecharacteristics of the seven exceptional cases usefully suggest situational

factors that influence the formation of collective stereotypes. Two of the

exceptions had le Shatila long before and were living abroad, while a

third had le aer the “War of the Camps” and was living in a suburb of

Sidon. is suggests that residence in a “popular” Palestinian milieu is

a condition for the transmission of stereotypes, with separation tending

to produce more individual or fragmented narratives. Generation and

socio-economic status may also be factors that intervene in the forma-tion of “self” stereotypes: three others among the exceptional cases came

from the oldest set of women, two from families that had prospered

enough in Lebanon to move into a suburb bordering the camp, while

the third was of urban origin, a woman whose husband had kept her

shut up at home.

Setting the absence of a dominant “self” stereotype within an

analysis of all narrative structures used by Shatila women for telling life

stories helps to clarify the relative weight of various factors—residence,age, education, socio-economic status, relation to the Resistance move-

ment—that may influence the formation of a “self” stereotype. In spite

of sharing so much (national identity, refugee status, local community,

somewhat similar class background), the 18 speakers differed from each

other as life story tellers in several significant ways: 1) in autonomy and

coherence of narration; 2) in the degree that national history formed part

of the structure of the life story; and 3) in the degree and form of asser-

tion of a “self.” All but three of the nine oldest speakers (unschooled) dis-played hesitation when asked to tell their life story, and needed questions

from the audience or myself to move from one episode to another. Most

of the older speakers began their narration at the point of expulsion from

Palestine, returning to earlier recollections only if prompted, and seldom

referring to other historical events, national or local. Another narrative

characteristic of older women’s self-stories was their use of the collective

“we” rather than the personal “I.” Because these speakers depended on

audience questions, their recordings are multi-vocal and unstructured,a collection of personal anecdotes rather than “life stories” in the clas-

sic sense. us their “self” emerges gradually, through relationship to

8/7/2019 3.1sayigh



others, personal anecdotes, expression of personal opinions, beliefs, or

tastes, just as it would in everyday social interaction. In contrast, most

of the younger women told life stories that were autonomous, composed,sequential (usually beginning at birth, or with their earliest memories),

and that followed national chronology more or less closely. It was these

more spontaneous narratives that offered the clearest expression of col-

lective stereotypes for women’s “selves.”

Age and educational level might be seen as critical differentiat-

ing factors in producing autonomous life stories. Palestinian refugee

women born aer 1945 were beneficiaries of free basic schooling, and

a minority were able to reach university level. But that education doesnot necessarily produce narrative autonomy is suggested by the fact that

three out of the nine oldest women, all unschooled, gave autonomous

narratives dominated by the “struggle” personality stereotype; while

among the nine younger speakers, all with some education, four gave

fragmented narrations without a dominant “self” stereotype. Out of

two younger speakers of similar age and educational level (primary), the

one who had worked with the Red Crescent gave a life story structured

by the history of Palestinians in Lebanon, dominated by the “witnessof tragedy” stereotype; whereas the second, of higher social status, and

affiliated less formally with the Resistance, gave a fragmented narrative

in which family relationships figured more strongly than the speaker’s

“self.” Although the number of speakers permits only tentative conclu-

sions, I would argue that political activism is a more decisive factor than

education in producing a strong “self” stereotype.

Indeed a high educational level may work against the formation

of clear “self” stereotypes, by introducing narrative complexity andintrospection. Dalal, youngest of the 18 speakers (born in 1964, of ur-

ban background, ex-Resistance cadre), who had taken some university

courses and had read socialist feminist writing, gave a deeply intro-

spective narrative, revealing a damaged “self” torn between Resistance

activism and desire for a lost femininity. Fayrooz, a struggling writer

living in London, spoke ambivalently of her life and recollections of

Shatila. e brightest of her generation, she had worked and emigrated

and succeeded in transferring her whole family out of Lebanon. Butwhen I recorded with her, she was asking herself why she had sacrificed

her ambition as a writer. For her Shatila was a place of misery and back-

8/7/2019 3.1sayigh


ROSEMARY SAYIGH 103

wardness that became “home” only in retrospect, in contrast with other

more alien places.10

In a final comment on the seven exceptional cases without a collec-tive “self” stereotype, I would argue that they are actually dominated by

an unvoiced stereotype, that of the sitt fī’l-beit (the lady-in-the-house),

an urban, middle-class Arab ideal of adult womanhood. Repressed

because of its incompatibility with the discourse of national struggle,

repressed by gender norms that prevent women from forming an as-

sertive “self,” this stereotype is realized through accounts that focus

on the domestic, particularly the birth and care of children. Except for

the cataclysm of 1948, the events of Palestinian history in Lebanon areabsent from the “stories” of housewife speakers. Anecdotes—oen skill-

fully narrated—are set in a family context. A basic discrimination used

by Resistance women activists about women of the camps as either “close

to” or “far from” the Revolution confirms the existence of the housewife

model among camp populations.

CONCLUSION

From a feminist perspective, the “struggle personality” deepens the

association between women and domesticity by making it part of na-

tional ideology. e second dominant stereotype, “witness of tragedy,” is

clearly one that preserves gender norms by restricting women’s activity

in public to a few limited roles. ese formats can be seen as “subjec-

tifying” women, casting them in gender moulds that they perform and

transmit through narration to other women, thereby producing history.

Yet they can be listened to in another way, as expressing the self-worthmost camp women feel in being women, a pride in gender identity

that sustains them in many kinds of daily life struggle, and that can

have cumulative importance. Stories women tell about themselves as

exponents of these (and other) collective stereotypes assert that their

nationalism is no less than men’s, that they eminently possess qualities

such as courage and steadfastness, readiness to speak, and accuracy in

reporting, required by national struggle. Pride in being Palestinian and

women was expressed not only in affirmations of identity, but also inclaims to qualities such as patience, self-control, and capacity for work

that women see themselves as possessing more than men do. Pride in

8/7/2019 3.1sayigh



being women is essentially ambivalent, affirming gender “difference”

and stabilizing the division of labor that goes with it, but also laying

claims to recognition and equality. It is certain that when women recodechild-rearing and housework as “struggle,” they are making important

claims about the national importance of their work and hinting at the

national movement’s dependence on them. A corollary of such claims is

acknowledgement by national historians that history cannot be written

without full attention to women’s role and the “domestic domain.”

Given the centrality of gender to the construction of collective

identity and the way “self” concepts incorporate collective identities,

questions may be put to the interplay between nationalism and genderin Palestinian women’s representations of the “self.” Do they represent

the national leaderships’ “nationalization” of gender or do they contain

an important element of women’s own “gendering” of nationalism? As

historical and cultural configuration, could the “struggle” configuration

be redirected into social struggle or is it too deeply imbricated with na-

tionalist associations? What may be said with certainty is that women’s

life stories are an indispensable enrichment of national history: they

offer a view of the interpenetration of the “public” and the “domestic,”how national tragedy is reflected at the family and personal level in the

refugee camps, and how that level sustains resistance. ey are thus an

indispensable element in explaining the persistence of the Palestinian

struggle in the most adverse circumstances.

NOTES

e author was not able to carry out revisions of this article because of war circumstances.

1. For a critique of traditional Biblical scholarship, see Keith Whitelam, e Inven-tion of Ancient Israel: e Silencing of Palestinian History (London: Routledge, 1996).

2. On the gender conservatism of Palestinian refugee communities, see Sirhan

1975 and Peteet 1991, 134–41.

3. e term stereotype used in this essay comes from Luisa Passerini who

defines it in historical and cultural, not psychological, terms.

4. Age: the speakers were born between 1900 and 1965. Origins: 14 came

originally from villages, four from cities. Marital status: seven were married, sevenwidowed, three single, one divorced. Current socio-economic position (with home-

ownership as a rough guide): two owned homes outside and inside the camp; three

8/7/2019 3.1sayigh


ROSEMARY SAYIGH 105

owned homes outside the camp; six owned homes inside the camp; four rented

outside; and three were homeless. Employment: five had never worked outside

the home; three had done casual labor aer 1948; one had worked (aer being wid-

owed) in the family shop; six were employed by the PLO/Resistance; three were (orhad been) employees in other institutions.

5. The Arabic forms are “al-shakhsiyya al-nidāliyya ,” “al-shakhsiyya

muwājahiyya,” “kullu hayatna māsā.”

6. Umm ‘Imad was of urban origin and had completed UNRWA schooling.

7. Tell al-Za‘ater camp was besieged and destroyed by the Lebanese Forces

during the Civil War of 1975–76.

8. A second part of the marriage payment, usually held back in case of divorce.9. A mainly Maronite, Lebanese nationalist party, strongly anti-Palestinian.

10. Two of Fayrooz’s stories, “Mandelbaum Gate” and “Umm Amer,” were

published in Shabnam Grewal et al., eds., Charting the Journey: Writings by Blackand ird World Women (London: Sheba Feminist Publishers, 1988).

REFERENCES

Beverley, John

1992 e Margin at the Center: On Testimonio (Testimonial Narrative).

In De/Colonizing the Subject: The Politics of Gender in Women’s Auto-

biography, ed. Sidonie Smith and Julia Watson. Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press.

Guttman, Huck1988 Rousseau’s Confessions: A Technology of the Self. In Technologies of

the Self: A Seminar with M. Foucault , ed. L. Martin et al. Amherst: Univer-

sity of Massachusetts Press.

Kayyali, A.W.

[1979] Palestine: A Modern History. London: Croom Helm.Mansour, Camille

1985 Au-delà du siège des camps palestiniens de Beyrouth. Maghreb Mashrek

109: 64–82.

Mattar, Nabil I.

1999 Renaissance Cartography and the Question of Israel. In e Landscapeof Palestine: Equivocal Poetry, ed. Ibrahim Abu-Lughod et al. Birzeit: BirzeitUniversity Publications.

Peteet, Julie M.

1991 Gender in Crisis: Women and the Palestinian Resistance Movement.

New York: Columbia University Press.

Sirhan, Bassem

1975 Palestinian Refugee Camp Life in Lebanon. Journal of Palestine Studies

4:2 (Winter): 91–107.Swedenburg, Ted

1990 e Palestinian Peasant as National Signifier. Anthropological Quarterly

63 (1): 18–30.

Documents

3.1sayigh