pnina motzafi-haller_scholarship, identity, and power- mizrahi women in israel

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Signs.http://www.jstor.orgScholarship, Identity, and Power: Mizrahi Women in Israel Author(s): Pnina Motzafi-Haller Source:Signs, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Spring, 2001), pp. 697-734Published by:The University of Chicago PressStable URL:http://www.jstor.org/stable/3175537Accessed: 10-08-2015 21:05 UTCYour use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspJSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected] content downloaded from 128.205.114.91 on Mon, 10 Aug 2015 21:05:53 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsPninaM o t z a fi - HaIIerPninaM o t z a fi - HaIIerPninaM o t z a fi - HaIIerPninaM o t z a fi - HaIIerPninaM o t z a fi - HaIIerPninaM o t z a fi - HaIIerPninaM o t z a fi - HaIIerPninaM o t z a fi - HaIIerPninaM o t z a fi - HaIIerPninaM o t z a fi - HaIIerPninaM o t z a fi - HaIIerPninaM o t z a fi - HaIIerPninaM o t z a fi - HaIIerPninaM o t z a fi - HaIIerPninaM o t z a fi - HaIIer Scholarship,Identity, andPower:MizrahiWomeninIsrael Once it is understoodthat subjects areformed throughexclusionary operations, it becomes politicallynecessary to tracethe operations of that constructionand erasure. -Joan Scott quoted in Nicholson 1995, 12 Mizrahifeminist activist friend who heardme say that I planned to review the literature on Mizrahi womenin Israel suggested that I read Patricia HillCollins's book Black Feminist Thought (1990). "You will find it interesting," she said. She was right. I worked my way through Col- lins's brilliant bookwhile amassing and closely examining(with the help of a small group of students) the scattered literaturethat has discussed, and more often ignored, Mizrahi womenin Israel. Collins's powerful analysis is theoretically sophisticated and personally committed. As I read it, I real- ized that hardly any theoretical work that explores the intersections of gender, ethnicity, andclass hasbeen produced inIsrael. AsIlearned more abouttherich intellectual tradition ofAfrican-Americanwomenand the words and ideas of black feminist thinkers like Audre Lorde, Alice Walker, and bell hooks, Icame torealize howMizrahi women's intellectual work hasbeen suppressed and was virtually invisible until very recently. Isaw that muchwork liesahead-westill have tofind and express our voices and our ideas. Thereare some beginnings, a fewscattered articulations published in themore progressive academic literature and, more often, essays written by a fewMizrahi womenthatare internally circulated.' Iwouldliketo shed some light onthis emerging Mizrahi feminist discourse, butbefore Iwould like tothank the following friends and colleagues who encouraged me and providedhelp in various ways during the long months and years that led to the writing of this article:Vicki Shiran, Niza Yanai, CathyFerguson, Riv-Ellen Prell, NaderaShalhoub- Kevorkian, Adriana Kemp,SigalNagar-Ron, RuthKnafo Setton, andDebbieBernstein.The anonymous reviewersof this articlewere particularlyhelpful in theircommentsand sugges- tions, and they deserve my gratitude. 1 Dahan-Kalev's essay aboutMizrahi feminism, an essay thatis citedbelowas a draft paper circulatingamong a few feminist scholars, was finallypublished in Hebrewin 1999. [Signs: Journalof Womenin Cultureand Society2001, vol. 26, no. 3] ?2001 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0097-9740/2001/2603-0003$02.00 Scholarship,Identity, andPower:MizrahiWomeninIsrael Once it is understoodthat subjects areformed throughexclusionary operations, it becomes politicallynecessary to tracethe operations of that constructionand erasure. -Joan Scott quoted in Nicholson 1995, 12 Mizrahifeminist activist friend who heardme say that I planned to review the literature on Mizrahi womenin Israel suggested that I read Patricia HillCollins's book Black Feminist Thought (1990). "You will find it interesting," she said. She was right. I worked my way through Col- lins's brilliant bookwhile amassing and closely examining(with the help of a small group of students) the scattered literaturethat has discussed, and more often ignored, Mizrahi womenin Israel. Collins's powerful analysis is theoretically sophisticated and personally committed. As I read it, I real- ized that hardly any theoretical work that explores the intersections of gender, ethnicity, andclass hasbeen produced inIsrael. AsIlearned more abouttherich intellectual tradition ofAfrican-Americanwomenand the words and ideas of black feminist thinkers like Audre Lorde, Alice Walker, and bell hooks, Icame torealize howMizrahi women's intellectual work hasbeen suppressed and was virtually invisible until very recently. Isaw that muchwork liesahead-westill have tofind and express our voices and our ideas. Thereare some beginnings, a fewscattered articulations published in themore progressive academic literature and, more often, essays written by a fewMizrahi womenthatare internally circulated.' Iwouldliketo shed some light onthis emerging Mizrahi feminist discourse, butbefore Iwould like tothank the following friends and colleagues who encouraged me and providedhelp in various ways during the long months and years that led to the writing of this article:Vicki Shiran, Niza Yanai, CathyFerguson, Riv-Ellen Prell, NaderaShalhoub- Kevorkian, Adriana Kemp,SigalNagar-Ron, RuthKnafo Setton, andDebbieBernstein.The anonymous reviewersof this articlewere particularlyhelpful in theircommentsand sugges- tions, and they deserve my gratitude. 1 Dahan-Kalev's essay aboutMizrahi feminism, an essay thatis citedbelowas a draft paper circulatingamong a few feminist scholars, was finallypublished in Hebrewin 1999. [Signs: Journalof Womenin Cultureand Society2001, vol. 26, no. 3] ?2001 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0097-9740/2001/2603-0003$02.00 Scholarship,Identity, andPower:MizrahiWomeninIsrael Once it is understoodthat subjects areformed throughexclusionary operations, it becomes politicallynecessary to tracethe operations of that constructionand erasure. -Joan Scott quoted in Nicholson 1995, 12 Mizrahifeminist activist friend who heardme say that I planned to review the literature on Mizrahi womenin Israel suggested that I read Patricia HillCollins's book Black Feminist Thought (1990). "You will find it interesting," she said. She was right. I worked my way through Col- lins's brilliant bookwhile amassing and closely examining(with the help of a small group of students) the scattered literaturethat has discussed, and more often ignored, Mizrahi womenin Israel. Collins's powerful analysis is theoretically sophisticated and personally committed. As I read it, I real- ized that hardly any theoretical work that explores the intersections of gender, ethnicity, andclass hasbeen produced inIsrael. AsIlearned more abouttherich intellectual tradition ofAfrican-Americanwomenand the words and ideas of black feminist thinkers like Audre Lorde, Alice Walker, and bell hooks, Icame torealize howMizrahi women's intellectual work hasbeen suppressed and was virtually invisible until very recently. Isaw that muchwork liesahead-westill have tofind and express our voices and our ideas. Thereare some beginnings, a fewscattered articulations published in themore progressive academic literature and, more often, essays written by a fewMizrahi womenthatare internally circulated.' Iwouldliketo shed some light onthis emerging Mizrahi feminist discourse, butbefore Iwould like tothank the following friends and colleagues who encouraged me and providedhelp in various ways during the long months and years that led to the writing of this article:Vicki Shiran, Niza Yanai, CathyFerguson, Riv-Ellen Prell, NaderaShalhoub- Kevorkian, Adriana Kemp,SigalNagar-Ron, RuthKnafo Setton, andDebbieBernstein.The anonymous reviewersof this articlewere particularlyhelpful in theircommentsand sugges- tions, and they deserve my gratitude. 1 Dahan-Kalev's essay aboutMizrahi feminism, an essay thatis citedbelowas a draft paper circulatingamong a few feminist scholars, was finallypublished in Hebrewin 1999. [Signs: Journalof Womenin Cultureand Society2001, vol. 26, no. 3] ?2001 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0097-9740/2001/2603-0003$02.00 Scholarship,Identity, andPower:MizrahiWomeninIsrael Once it is understoodthat subjects areformed throughexclusionary operations, it becomes politicallynecessary to tracethe operations of that constructionand erasure. -Joan Scott quoted in Nicholson 1995, 12 Mizrahifeminist activist friend who heardme say that I planned to review the literature on Mizrahi womenin Israel suggested that I read Patricia HillCollins's book Black Feminist Thought (1990). "You will find it interesting," she said. She was right. I worked my way through Col- lins's brilliant bookwhile amassing and closely examining(with the help of a small group of students) the scattered literaturethat has discussed, and more often ignored, Mizrahi womenin Israel. Collins's powerful analysis is theoretically sophisticated and personally committed. As I read it, I real- ized that hardly any theoretical work that explores the intersections of gender, ethnicity, andclass hasbeen produced inIsrael. AsIlearned more abouttherich intellectual tradition ofAfrican-Americanwomenand the words and ideas of black feminist thinkers like Audre Lorde, Alice Walker, and bell hooks, Icame torealize howMizrahi women's intellectual work hasbeen suppressed and was virtually invisible until very recently. Isaw that muchwork liesahead-westill have tofind and express our voices and our ideas. Thereare some beginnings, a fewscattered articulations published in themore progressive academic literature and, more often, essays written by a fewMizrahi womenthatare internally circulated.' Iwouldliketo shed some light onthis emerging Mizrahi feminist discourse, butbefore Iwould like tothank the following friends and colleagues who encouraged me and providedhelp in various ways during the long months and years that led to the writing of this article:Vicki Shiran, Niza Yanai, CathyFerguson, Riv-Ellen Prell, NaderaShalhoub- Kevorkian, Adriana Kemp,SigalNagar-Ron, RuthKnafo Setton, andDebbieBernstein.The anonymous reviewersof this articlewere particularlyhelpful in theircommentsand sugges- tions, and they deserve my gratitude. 1 Dahan-Kalev's essay aboutMizrahi feminism, an essay thatis citedbelowas a draft paper circulatingamong a few feminist scholars, was finallypublished in Hebrewin 1999. [Signs: Journalof Womenin Cultureand Society2001, vol. 26, no. 3] ?2001 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0097-9740/2001/2603-0003$02.00 Scholarship,Identity, andPower:MizrahiWomeninIsrael Once it is understoodthat subjects areformed throughexclusionary operations, it becomes politicallynecessary to tracethe operations of that constructionand erasure. -Joan Scott quoted in Nicholson 1995, 12 Mizrahifeminist activist friend who heardme say that I planned to review the literature on Mizrahi womenin Israel suggested that I read Patricia HillCollins's book Black Feminist Thought (1990). "You will find it interesting," she said. She was right. I worked my way through Col- lins's brilliant bookwhile amassing and closely examining(with the help of a small group of students) the scattered literaturethat has discussed, and more often ignored, Mizrahi womenin Israel. Collins's powerful analysis is theoretically sophisticated and personally committed. As I read it, I real- ized that hardly any theoretical work that explores the intersections of gender, ethnicity, andclass hasbeen produced inIsrael. AsIlearned more abouttherich intellectual tradition ofAfrican-Americanwomenand the words and ideas of black feminist thinkers like Audre Lorde, Alice Walker, and bell hooks, Icame torealize howMizrahi women's intellectual work hasbeen suppressed and was virtually invisible until very recently. Isaw that muchwork liesahead-westill have tofind and express our voices and our ideas. Thereare some beginnings, a fewscattered articulations published in themore progressive academic literature and, more often, essays written by a fewMizrahi womenthatare internally circulated.' Iwouldliketo shed some light onthis emerging Mizrahi feminist discourse, butbefore Iwould like tothank the following friends and colleagues who encouraged me and providedhelp in various ways during the long months and years that led to the writing of this article:Vicki Shiran, Niza Yanai, CathyFerguson, Riv-Ellen Prell, NaderaShalhoub- Kevorkian, Adriana Kemp,SigalNagar-Ron, RuthKnafo Setton, andDebbieBernstein.The anonymous reviewersof this articlewere particularlyhelpful in theircommentsand sugges- tions, and they deserve my gratitude. 1 Dahan-Kalev's essay aboutMizrahi feminism, an essay thatis citedbelowas a draft paper circulatingamong a few feminist scholars, was finallypublished in Hebrewin 1999. [Signs: Journalof Womenin Cultureand Society2001, vol. 26, no. 3] ?2001 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0097-9740/2001/2603-0003$02.00 Scholarship,Identity, andPower:MizrahiWomeninIsrael Once it is understoodthat subjects areformed throughexclusionary operations, it becomes politicallynecessary to tracethe operations of that constructionand erasure. -Joan Scott quoted in Nicholson 1995, 12 Mizrahifeminist activist friend who heardme say that I planned to review the literature on Mizrahi womenin Israel suggested that I read Patricia HillCollins's book Black Feminist Thought (1990). "You will find it interesting," she said. She was right. I worked my way through Col- lins's brilliant bookwhile amassing and closely examining(with the help of a small group of students) the scattered literaturethat has discussed, and more often ignored, Mizrahi womenin Israel. Collins's powerful analysis is theoretically sophisticated and personally committed. As I read it, I real- ized that hardly any theoretical work that explores the intersections of gender, ethnicity, andclass hasbeen produced inIsrael. AsIlearned more abouttherich intellectual tradition ofAfrican-Americanwomenand the words and ideas of black feminist thinkers like Audre Lorde, Alice Walker, and bell hooks, Icame torealize howMizrahi women's intellectual work hasbeen suppressed and was virtually invisible until very recently. Isaw that muchwork liesahead-westill have tofind and express our voices and our ideas. Thereare some beginnings, a fewscattered articulations published in themore progressive academic literature and, more often, essays written by a fewMizrahi womenthatare internally circulated.' Iwouldliketo shed some light onthis emerging Mizrahi feminist discourse, butbefore Iwould like tothank the following friends and colleagues who encouraged me and providedhelp in various ways during the long months and years that led to the writing of this article:Vicki Shiran, Niza Yanai, CathyFerguson, Riv-Ellen Prell, NaderaShalhoub- Kevorkian, Adriana Kemp,SigalNagar-Ron, RuthKnafo Setton, andDebbieBernstein.The anonymous reviewersof this articlewere particularlyhelpful in theircommentsand sugges- tions, and they deserve my gratitude. 1 Dahan-Kalev's essay aboutMizrahi feminism, an essay thatis citedbelowas a draft paper circulatingamong a few feminist scholars, was finallypublished in Hebrewin 1999. [Signs: Journalof Womenin Cultureand Society2001, vol. 26, no. 3] ?2001 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0097-9740/2001/2603-0003$02.00 Scholarship,Identity, andPower:MizrahiWomeninIsrael Once it is understoodthat subjects areformed throughexclusionary operations, it becomes politicallynecessary to tracethe operations of that constructionand erasure. -Joan Scott quoted in Nicholson 1995, 12 Mizrahifeminist activist friend who heardme say that I planned to review the literature on Mizrahi womenin Israel suggested that I read Patricia HillCollins's book Black Feminist Thought (1990). "You will find it interesting," she said. She was right. I worked my way through Col- lins's brilliant bookwhile amassing and closely examining(with the help of a small group of students) the scattered literaturethat has discussed, and more often ignored, Mizrahi womenin Israel. Collins's powerful analysis is theoretically sophisticated and personally committed. As I read it, I real- ized that hardly any theoretical work that explores the intersections of gender, ethnicity, andclass hasbeen produced inIsrael. AsIlearned more abouttherich intellectual tradition ofAfrican-Americanwomenand the words and ideas of black feminist thinkers like Audre Lorde, Alice Walker, and bell hooks, Icame torealize howMizrahi women's intellectual work hasbeen suppressed and was virtually invisible until very recently. Isaw that muchwork liesahead-westill have tofind and express our voices and our ideas. Thereare some beginnings, a fewscattered articulations published in themore progressive academic literature and, more often, essays written by a fewMizrahi womenthatare internally circulated.' Iwouldliketo shed some light onthis emerging Mizrahi feminist discourse, butbefore Iwould like tothank the following friends and colleagues who encouraged me and providedhelp in various ways during the long months and years that led to the writing of this article:Vicki Shiran, Niza Yanai, CathyFerguson, Riv-Ellen Prell, NaderaShalhoub- Kevorkian, Adriana Kemp,SigalNagar-Ron, RuthKnafo Setton, andDebbieBernstein.The anonymous reviewersof this articlewere particularlyhelpful in theircommentsand sugges- tions, and they deserve my gratitude. 1 Dahan-Kalev's essay aboutMizrahi feminism, an essay thatis citedbelowas a draft paper circulatingamong a few feminist scholars, was finallypublished in Hebrewin 1999. [Signs: Journalof Womenin Cultureand Society2001, vol. 26, no. 3] ?2001 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0097-9740/2001/2603-0003$02.00 Scholarship,Identity, andPower:MizrahiWomeninIsrael Once it is understoodthat subjects areformed throughexclusionary operations, it becomes politicallynecessary to tracethe operations of that constructionand erasure. -Joan Scott quoted in Nicholson 1995, 12 Mizrahifeminist activist friend who heardme say that I planned to review the literature on Mizrahi womenin Israel suggested that I read Patricia HillCollins's book Black Feminist Thought (1990). "You will find it interesting," she said. She was right. I worked my way through Col- lins's brilliant bookwhile amassing and closely examining(with the help of a small group of students) the scattered literaturethat has discussed, and more often ignored, Mizrahi womenin Israel. Collins's powerful analysis is theoretically sophisticated and personally committed. As I read it, I real- ized that hardly any theoretical work that explores the intersections of gender, ethnicity, andclass hasbeen produced inIsrael. AsIlearned more abouttherich intellectual tradition ofAfrican-Americanwomenand the words and ideas of black feminist thinkers like Audre Lorde, Alice Walker, and bell hooks, Icame torealize howMizrahi women's intellectual work hasbeen suppressed and was virtually invisible until very recently. Isaw that muchwork liesahead-westill have tofind and express our voices and our ideas. Thereare some beginnings, a fewscattered articulations published in themore progressive academic literature and, more often, essays written by a fewMizrahi womenthatare internally circulated.' Iwouldliketo shed some light onthis emerging Mizrahi feminist discourse, butbefore Iwould like tothank the following friends and colleagues who encouraged me and providedhelp in various ways during the long months and years that led to the writing of this article:Vicki Shiran, Niza Yanai, CathyFerguson, Riv-Ellen Prell, NaderaShalhoub- Kevorkian, Adriana Kemp,SigalNagar-Ron, RuthKnafo Setton, andDebbieBernstein.The anonymous reviewersof this articlewere particularlyhelpful in theircommentsand sugges- tions, and they deserve my gratitude. 1 Dahan-Kalev's essay aboutMizrahi feminism, an essay thatis citedbelowas a draft paper circulatingamong a few feminist scholars, was finallypublished in Hebrewin 1999. [Signs: Journalof Womenin Cultureand Society2001, vol. 26, no. 3] ?2001 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0097-9740/2001/2603-0003$02.00 Scholarship,Identity, andPower:MizrahiWomeninIsrael Once it is understoodthat subjects areformed throughexclusionary operations, it becomes politicallynecessary to tracethe operations of that constructionand erasure. -Joan Scott quoted in Nicholson 1995, 12 Mizrahifeminist activist friend who heardme say that I planned to review the literature on Mizrahi womenin Israel suggested that I read Patricia HillCollins's book Black Feminist Thought (1990). "You will find it interesting," she said. She was right. I worked my way through Col- lins's brilliant bookwhile amassing and closely examining(with the help of a small group of students) the scattered literaturethat has discussed, and more often ignored, Mizrahi womenin Israel. Collins's powerful analysis is theoretically sophisticated and personally committed. As I read it, I real- ized that hardly any theoretical work that explores the intersections of gender, ethnicity, andclass hasbeen produced inIsrael. AsIlearned more abouttherich intellectual tradition ofAfrican-Americanwomenand the words and ideas of black feminist thinkers like Audre Lorde, Alice Walker, and bell hooks, Icame torealize howMizrahi women's intellectual work hasbeen suppressed and was virtually invisible until very recently. Isaw that muchwork liesahead-westill have tofind and express our voices and our ideas. Thereare some beginnings, a fewscattered articulations published in themore progressive academic literature and, more often, essays written by a fewMizrahi womenthatare internally circulated.' Iwouldliketo shed some light onthis emerging Mizrahi feminist discourse, butbefore Iwould like tothank the following friends and colleagues who encouraged me and providedhelp in various ways during the long months and years that led to the writing of this article:Vicki Shiran, Niza Yanai, CathyFerguson, Riv-Ellen Prell, NaderaShalhoub- Kevorkian, Adriana Kemp,SigalNagar-Ron, RuthKnafo Setton, andDebbieBernstein.The anonymous reviewersof this articlewere particularlyhelpful in theircommentsand sugges- tions, and they deserve my gratitude. 1 Dahan-Kalev's essay aboutMizrahi feminism, an essay thatis citedbelowas a draft paper circulatingamong a few feminist scholars, was finallypublished in Hebrewin 1999. [Signs: Journalof Womenin Cultureand Society2001, vol. 26, no. 3] ?2001 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0097-9740/2001/2603-0003$02.00 Scholarship,Identity, andPower:MizrahiWomeninIsrael Once it is understoodthat subjects areformed throughexclusionary operations, it becomes politicallynecessary to tracethe operations of that constructionand erasure. -Joan Scott quoted in Nicholson 1995, 12 Mizrahifeminist activist friend who heardme say that I planned to review the literature on Mizrahi womenin Israel suggested that I read Patricia HillCollins's book Black Feminist Thought (1990). "You will find it interesting," she said. She was right. I worked my way through Col- lins's brilliant bookwhile amassing and closely examining(with the help of a small group of students) the scattered literaturethat has discussed, and more often ignored, Mizrahi womenin Israel. Collins's powerful analysis is theoretically sophisticated and personally committed. As I read it, I real- ized that hardly any theoretical work that explores the intersections of gender, ethnicity, andclass hasbeen produced inIsrael. AsIlearned more abouttherich intellectual tradition ofAfrican-Americanwomenand the words and ideas of black feminist thinkers like Audre Lorde, Alice Walker, and bell hooks, Icame torealize howMizrahi women's intellectual work hasbeen suppressed and was virtually invisible until very recently. Isaw that muchwork liesahead-westill have tofind and express our voices and our ideas. Thereare some beginnings, a fewscattered articulations published in themore progressive academic literature and, more often, essays written by a fewMizrahi womenthatare internally circulated.' Iwouldliketo shed some light onthis emerging Mizrahi feminist discourse, butbefore Iwould like tothank the following friends and colleagues who encouraged me and providedhelp in various ways during the long months and years that led to the writing of this article:Vicki Shiran, Niza Yanai, CathyFerguson, Riv-Ellen Prell, NaderaShalhoub- Kevorkian, Adriana Kemp,SigalNagar-Ron, RuthKnafo Setton, andDebbieBernstein.The anonymous reviewersof this articlewere particularlyhelpful in theircommentsand sugges- tions, and they deserve my gratitude. 1 Dahan-Kalev's essay aboutMizrahi feminism, an essay thatis citedbelowas a draft paper circulatingamong a few feminist scholars, was finallypublished in Hebrewin 1999. [Signs: Journalof Womenin Cultureand Society2001, vol. 26, no. 3] ?2001 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0097-9740/2001/2603-0003$02.00 Scholarship,Identity, andPower:MizrahiWomeninIsrael Once it is understoodthat subjects areformed throughexclusionary operations, it becomes politicallynecessary to tracethe operations of that constructionand erasure. -Joan Scott quoted in Nicholson 1995, 12 Mizrahifeminist activist friend who heardme say that I planned to review the literature on Mizrahi womenin Israel suggested that I read Patricia HillCollins's book Black Feminist Thought (1990). "You will find it interesting," she said. She was right. I worked my way through Col- lins's brilliant bookwhile amassing and closely examining(with the help of a small group of students) the scattered literaturethat has discussed, and more often ignored, Mizrahi womenin Israel. Collins's powerful analysis is theoretically sophisticated and personally committed. As I read it, I real- ized that hardly any theoretical work that explores the intersections of gender, ethnicity, andclass hasbeen produced inIsrael. AsIlearned more abouttherich intellectual tradition ofAfrican-Americanwomenand the words and ideas of black feminist thinkers like Audre Lorde, Alice Walker, and bell hooks, Icame torealize howMizrahi women's intellectual work hasbeen suppressed and was virtually invisible until very recently. Isaw that muchwork liesahead-westill have tofind and express our voices and our ideas. Thereare some beginnings, a fewscattered articulations published in themore progressive academic literature and, more often, essays written by a fewMizrahi womenthatare internally circulated.' Iwouldliketo shed some light onthis emerging Mizrahi feminist discourse, butbefore Iwould like tothank the following friends and colleagues who encouraged me and providedhelp in various ways during the long months and years that led to the writing of this article:Vicki Shiran, Niza Yanai, CathyFerguson, Riv-Ellen Prell, NaderaShalhoub- Kevorkian, Adriana Kemp,SigalNagar-Ron, RuthKnafo Setton, andDebbieBernstein.The anonymous reviewersof this articlewere particularlyhelpful in theircommentsand sugges- tions, and they deserve my gratitude. 1 Dahan-Kalev's essay aboutMizrahi feminism, an essay thatis citedbelowas a draft paper circulatingamong a few feminist scholars, was finallypublished in Hebrewin 1999. [Signs: Journalof Womenin Cultureand Society2001, vol. 26, no. 3] ?2001 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0097-9740/2001/2603-0003$02.00 Scholarship,Identity, andPower:MizrahiWomeninIsrael Once it is understoodthat subjects areformed throughexclusionary operations, it becomes politicallynecessary to tracethe operations of that constructionand erasure. -Joan Scott quoted in Nicholson 1995, 12 Mizrahifeminist activist friend who heardme say that I planned to review the literature on Mizrahi womenin Israel suggested that I read Patricia HillCollins's book Black Feminist Thought (1990). "You will find it interesting," she said. She was right. I worked my way through Col- lins's brilliant bookwhile amassing and closely examining(with the help of a small group of students) the scattered literaturethat has discussed, and more often ignored, Mizrahi womenin Israel. Collins's powerful analysis is theoretically sophisticated and personally committed. As I read it, I real- ized that hardly any theoretical work that explores the intersections of gender, ethnicity, andclass hasbeen produced inIsrael. AsIlearned more abouttherich intellectual tradition ofAfrican-Americanwomenand the words and ideas of black feminist thinkers like Audre Lorde, Alice Walker, and bell hooks, Icame torealize howMizrahi women's intellectual work hasbeen suppressed and was virtually invisible until very recently. Isaw that muchwork liesahead-westill have tofind and express our voices and our ideas. Thereare some beginnings, a fewscattered articulations published in themore progressive academic literature and, more often, essays written by a fewMizrahi womenthatare internally circulated.' Iwouldliketo shed some light onthis emerging Mizrahi feminist discourse, butbefore Iwould like tothank the following friends and colleagues who encouraged me and providedhelp in various ways during the long months and years that led to the writing of this article:Vicki Shiran, Niza Yanai, CathyFerguson, Riv-Ellen Prell, NaderaShalhoub- Kevorkian, Adriana Kemp,SigalNagar-Ron, RuthKnafo Setton, andDebbieBernstein.The anonymous reviewersof this articlewere particularlyhelpful in theircommentsand sugges- tions, and they deserve my gratitude. 1 Dahan-Kalev's essay aboutMizrahi feminism, an essay thatis citedbelowas a draft paper circulatingamong a few feminist scholars, was finallypublished in Hebrewin 1999. [Signs: Journalof Womenin Cultureand Society2001, vol. 26, no. 3] ?2001 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0097-9740/2001/2603-0003$02.00 Scholarship,Identity, andPower:MizrahiWomeninIsrael Once it is understoodthat subjects areformed throughexclusionary operations, it becomes politicallynecessary to tracethe operations of that constructionand erasure. -Joan Scott quoted in Nicholson 1995, 12 Mizrahifeminist activist friend who heardme say that I planned to review the literature on Mizrahi womenin Israel suggested that I read Patricia HillCollins's book Black Feminist Thought (1990). "You will find it interesting," she said. She was right. I worked my way through Col- lins's brilliant bookwhile amassing and closely examining(with the help of a small group of students) the scattered literaturethat has discussed, and more often ignored, Mizrahi womenin Israel. Collins's powerful analysis is theoretically sophisticated and personally committed. As I read it, I real- ized that hardly any theoretical work that explores the intersections of gender, ethnicity, andclass hasbeen produced inIsrael. AsIlearned more abouttherich intellectual tradition ofAfrican-Americanwomenand the words and ideas of black feminist thinkers like Audre Lorde, Alice Walker, and bell hooks, Icame torealize howMizrahi women's intellectual work hasbeen suppressed and was virtually invisible until very recently. Isaw that muchwork liesahead-westill have tofind and express our voices and our ideas. Thereare some beginnings, a fewscattered articulations published in themore progressive academic literature and, more often, essays written by a fewMizrahi womenthatare internally circulated.' Iwouldliketo shed some light onthis emerging Mizrahi feminist discourse, butbefore Iwould like tothank the following friends and colleagues who encouraged me and providedhelp in various ways during the long months and years that led to the writing of this article:Vicki Shiran, Niza Yanai, CathyFerguson, Riv-Ellen Prell, NaderaShalhoub- Kevorkian, Adriana Kemp,SigalNagar-Ron, RuthKnafo Setton, andDebbieBernstein.The anonymous reviewersof this articlewere particularlyhelpful in theircommentsand sugges- tions, and they deserve my gratitude. 1 Dahan-Kalev's essay aboutMizrahi feminism, an essay thatis citedbelowas a draft paper circulatingamong a few feminist scholars, was finallypublished in Hebrewin 1999. [Signs: Journalof Womenin Cultureand Society2001, vol. 26, no. 3] ?2001 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0097-9740/2001/2603-0003$02.00 Scholarship,Identity, andPower:MizrahiWomeninIsrael Once it is understoodthat subjects areformed throughexclusionary operations, it becomes politicallynecessary to tracethe operations of that constructionand erasure. -Joan Scott quoted in Nicholson 1995, 12 Mizrahifeminist activist friend who heardme say that I planned to review the literature on Mizrahi womenin Israel suggested that I read Patricia HillCollins's book Black Feminist Thought (1990). "You will find it interesting," she said. She was right. I worked my way through Col- lins's brilliant bookwhile amassing and closely examining(with the help of a small group of students) the scattered literaturethat has discussed, and more often ignored, Mizrahi womenin Israel. Collins's powerful analysis is theoretically sophisticated and personally committed. As I read it, I real- ized that hardly any theoretical work that explores the intersections of gender, ethnicity, andclass hasbeen produced inIsrael. AsIlearned more abouttherich intellectual tradition ofAfrican-Americanwomenand the words and ideas of black feminist thinkers like Audre Lorde, Alice Walker, and bell hooks, Icame torealize howMizrahi women's intellectual work hasbeen suppressed and was virtually invisible until very recently. Isaw that muchwork liesahead-westill have tofind and express our voices and our ideas. Thereare some beginnings, a fewscattered articulations published in themore progressive academic literature and, more often, essays written by a fewMizrahi womenthatare internally circulated.' Iwouldliketo shed some light onthis emerging Mizrahi feminist discourse, butbefore Iwould like tothank the following friends and colleagues who encouraged me and providedhelp in various ways during the long months and years that led to the writing of this article:Vicki Shiran, Niza Yanai, CathyFerguson, Riv-Ellen Prell, NaderaShalhoub- Kevorkian, Adriana Kemp,SigalNagar-Ron, RuthKnafo Setton, andDebbieBernstein.The anonymous reviewersof this articlewere particularlyhelpful in theircommentsand sugges- tions, and they deserve my gratitude. 1 Dahan-Kalev's essay aboutMizrahi feminism, an essay thatis citedbelowas a draft paper circulatingamong a few feminist scholars, was finallypublished in Hebrewin 1999. [Signs: Journalof Womenin Cultureand Society2001, vol. 26, no. 3] ?2001 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0097-9740/2001/2603-0003$02.00 Scholarship,Identity, andPower:MizrahiWomeninIsrael Once it is understoodthat subjects areformed throughexclusionary operations, it becomes politicallynecessary to tracethe operations of that constructionand erasure. -Joan Scott quoted in Nicholson 1995, 12 Mizrahifeminist activist friend who heardme say that I planned to review the literature on Mizrahi womenin Israel suggested that I read Patricia HillCollins's book Black Feminist Thought (1990). "You will find it interesting," she said. She was right. I worked my way through Col- lins's brilliant bookwhile amassing and closely examining(with the help of a small group of students) the scattered literaturethat has discussed, and more often ignored, Mizrahi womenin Israel. Collins's powerful analysis is theoretically sophisticated and personally committed. As I read it, I real- ized that hardly any theoretical work that explores the intersections of gender, ethnicity, andclass hasbeen produced inIsrael. AsIlearned more abouttherich intellectual tradition ofAfrican-Americanwomenand the words and ideas of black feminist thinkers like Audre Lorde, Alice Walker, and bell hooks, Icame torealize howMizrahi women's intellectual work hasbeen suppressed and was virtually invisible until very recently. Isaw that muchwork liesahead-westill have tofind and express our voices and our ideas. Thereare some beginnings, a fewscattered articulations published in themore progressive academic literature and, more often, essays written by a fewMizrahi womenthatare internally circulated.' Iwouldliketo shed some light onthis emerging Mizrahi feminist discourse, butbefore Iwould like tothank the following friends and colleagues who encouraged me and providedhelp in various ways during the long months and years that led to the writing of this article:Vicki Shiran, Niza Yanai, CathyFerguson, Riv-Ellen Prell, NaderaShalhoub- Kevorkian, Adriana Kemp,SigalNagar-Ron, RuthKnafo Setton, andDebbieBernstein.The anonymous reviewersof this articlewere particularlyhelpful in theircommentsand sugges- tions, and they deserve my gratitude. 1 Dahan-Kalev's essay aboutMizrahi feminism, an essay thatis citedbelowas a draft paper circulatingamong a few feminist scholars, was finallypublished in Hebrewin 1999. [Signs: Journalof Womenin Cultureand Society2001, vol. 26, no. 3] ?2001 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0097-9740/2001/2603-0003$02.00 This content downloaded from 128.205.114.91 on Mon, 10 Aug 2015 21:05:53 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions698IMotzafi-Haller698IMotzafi-Haller698IMotzafi-Haller698IMotzafi-Haller698IMotzafi-Haller698IMotzafi-Haller698IMotzafi-Haller698IMotzafi-Haller698IMotzafi-Haller698IMotzafi-Haller698IMotzafi-Haller698IMotzafi-Haller698IMotzafi-Haller698IMotzafi-Haller698IMotzafi-Haller doing thisIwishto pose two questions:(1) Why isthere such a small, hesitant, and little-known body of work on Mizrahi womenas subjects - a body ofworkthat places Mizrahi womenat itscenter? (2) Why isit emerging only now, in the course of the past four or five years? I wouldlike to suggest that part of the answer to these questions lies in thenature ofthedominantsocial and intellectual discourse in Israel that has effectively silenced such voices by delegitimizing the very definition of theMizrahi womanas a speaking subject. ThediscussionIofferabout thewayMizrahi womenhave beenconstructed as a social category and simultaneously silenced in Israeli scholarly discourse leads to several obser- vations about the sociology and politics of knowledge in Israel. 1. Howare categories of knowledge defined in Israel and by whom? 2.Whodecides whatis worthy of"serious" research, and whatis the "exotic" marginalized domain of knowledge reserved for womenscholars and/or anthropologists? Finally, the most critical question I raise here is: 3.What dowelearn fromthis focusedcase study, which explores the links between scholarship and identity, about multiple systems of domina- tionandthe way they defineaccess to power and privilege and shape people's identities and experiences in Israel and elsewhere? Whoarewe talking about? If I were to followthe accepted positivist style of mainstream Israeli scholarship, Iwould begin witha simple definitionofour "subject matter," somethingalong these lines: "Mizrahim, also known as Sephardim or Ori- entals, are Jews who migrated toIsrael from Asia and Africa, mostly from Muslim societies. Jews who migrated from Europe and America are known as Ashkenazim." I wouldcite the thoroughly documentedfact that Miz- rahim in Israel constitute the lower socioeconomic ranksof the Jewish pop- ulationinIsrael and then proceed tonotethat the position ofMizrahi womenis even lower than that oftheir menfolk. Mizrahi womencluster at "the bottomof the female labor market, in service and production jobs" (Bernstein 1993,195). I might thenadd that Mizrahim, especially those of the first generation of immigration, are "traditional people" and, turning to Mizrahi women, might speak about their unenviable position in patriar- chal families. Following such a model implies, of course, that weare deal- ing here witha predefined social category-asegment ofthe population distinguished bv their gender and place of origin. doing thisIwishto pose two questions:(1) Why isthere such a small, hesitant, and little-known body of work on Mizrahi womenas subjects - a body ofworkthat places Mizrahi womenat itscenter? (2) Why isit emerging only now, in the course of the past four or five years? I wouldlike to suggest that part of the answer to these questions lies in thenature ofthedominantsocial and intellectual discourse in Israel that has effectively silenced such voices by delegitimizing the very definition of theMizrahi womanas a speaking subject. ThediscussionIofferabout thewayMizrahi womenhave beenconstructed as a social category and simultaneously silenced in Israeli scholarly discourse leads to several obser- vations about the sociology and politics of knowledge in Israel. 1. Howare categories of knowledge defined in Israel and by whom? 2.Whodecides whatis worthy of"serious" research, and whatis the "exotic" marginalized domain of knowledge reserved for womenscholars and/or anthropologists? Finally, the most critical question I raise here is: 3.What dowelearn fromthis focusedcase study, which explores the links between scholarship and identity, about multiple systems of domina- tionandthe way they defineaccess to power and privilege and shape people's identities and experiences in Israel and elsewhere? Whoarewe talking about? If I were to followthe accepted positivist style of mainstream Israeli scholarship, Iwould begin witha simple definitionofour "subject matter," somethingalong these lines: "Mizrahim, also known as Sephardim or Ori- entals, are Jews who migrated toIsrael from Asia and Africa, mostly from Muslim societies. Jews who migrated from Europe and America are known as Ashkenazim." I wouldcite the thoroughly documentedfact that Miz- rahim in Israel constitute the lower socioeconomic ranksof the Jewish pop- ulationinIsrael and then proceed tonotethat the position ofMizrahi womenis even lower than that oftheir menfolk. Mizrahi womencluster at "the bottomof the female labor market, in service and production jobs" (Bernstein 1993,195). I might thenadd that Mizrahim, especially those of the first generation of immigration, are "traditional people" and, turning to Mizrahi women, might speak about their unenviable position in patriar- chal families. Following such a model implies, of course, that weare deal- ing here witha predefined social category-asegment ofthe population distinguished bv their gender and place of origin. doing thisIwishto pose two questions:(1) Why isthere such a small, hesitant, and little-known body of work on Mizrahi womenas subjects - a body ofworkthat places Mizrahi womenat itscenter? (2) Why isit emerging only now, in the course of the past four or five years? I wouldlike to suggest that part of the answer to these questions lies in thenature ofthedominantsocial and intellectual discourse in Israel that has effectively silenced such voices by delegitimizing the very definition of theMizrahi womanas a speaking subject. ThediscussionIofferabout thewayMizrahi womenhave beenconstructed as a social category and simultaneously silenced in Israeli scholarly discourse leads to several obser- vations about the sociology and politics of knowledge in Israel. 1. Howare categories of knowledge defined in Israel and by whom? 2.Whodecides whatis worthy of"serious" research, and whatis the "exotic" marginalized domain of knowledge reserved for womenscholars and/or anthropologists? Finally, the most critical question I raise here is: 3.What dowelearn fromthis focusedcase study, which explores the links between scholarship and identity, about multiple systems of domina- tionandthe way they defineaccess to power and privilege and shape people's identities and experiences in Israel and elsewhere? Whoarewe talking about? If I were to followthe accepted positivist style of mainstream Israeli scholarship, Iwould begin witha simple definitionofour "subject matter," somethingalong these lines: "Mizrahim, also known as Sephardim or Ori- entals, are Jews who migrated toIsrael from Asia and Africa, mostly from Muslim societies. Jews who migrated from Europe and America are known as Ashkenazim." I wouldcite the thoroughly documentedfact that Miz- rahim in Israel constitute the lower socioeconomic ranksof the Jewish pop- ulationinIsrael and then proceed tonotethat the position ofMizrahi womenis even lower than that oftheir menfolk. Mizrahi womencluster at "the bottomof the female labor market, in service and production jobs" (Bernstein 1993,195). I might thenadd that Mizrahim, especially those of the first generation of immigration, are "traditional people" and, turning to Mizrahi women, might speak about their unenviable position in patriar- chal families. Following such a model implies, of course, that weare deal- ing here witha predefined social category-asegment ofthe population distinguished bv their gender and place of origin. doing thisIwishto pose two questions:(1) Why isthere such a small, hesitant, and little-known body of work on Mizrahi womenas subjects - a body ofworkthat places Mizrahi womenat itscenter? (2) Why isit emerging only now, in the course of the past four or five years? I wouldlike to suggest that part of the answer to these questions lies in thenature ofthedominantsocial and intellectual discourse in Israel that has effectively silenced such voices by delegitimizing the very definition of theMizrahi womanas a speaking subject. ThediscussionIofferabout thewayMizrahi womenhave beenconstructed as a social category and simultaneously silenced in Israeli scholarly discourse leads to several obser- vations about the sociology and politics of knowledge in Israel. 1. Howare categories of knowledge defined in Israel and by whom? 2.Whodecides whatis worthy of"serious" research, and whatis the "exotic" marginalized domain of knowledge reserved for womenscholars and/or anthropologists? Finally, the most critical question I raise here is: 3.What dowelearn fromthis focusedcase study, which explores the links between scholarship and identity, about multiple systems of domina- tionandthe way they defineaccess to power and privilege and shape people's identities and experiences in Israel and elsewhere? Whoarewe talking about? If I were to followthe accepted positivist style of mainstream Israeli scholarship, Iwould begin witha simple definitionofour "subject matter," somethingalong these lines: "Mizrahim, also known as Sephardim or Ori- entals, are Jews who migrated toIsrael from Asia and Africa, mostly from Muslim societies. Jews who migrated from Europe and America are known as Ashkenazim." I wouldcite the thoroughly documentedfact that Miz- rahim in Israel constitute the lower socioeconomic ranksof the Jewish pop- ulationinIsrael and then proceed tonotethat the position ofMizrahi womenis even lower than that oftheir menfolk. Mizrahi womencluster at "the bottomof the female labor market, in service and production jobs" (Bernstein 1993,195). I might thenadd that Mizrahim, especially those of the first generation of immigration, are "traditional people" and, turning to Mizrahi women, might speak about their unenviable position in patriar- chal families. Following such a model implies, of course, that weare deal- ing here witha predefined social category-asegment ofthe population distinguished bv their gender and place of origin. doing thisIwishto pose two questions:(1) Why isthere such a small, hesitant, and little-known body of work on Mizrahi womenas subjects - a body ofworkthat places Mizrahi womenat itscenter? (2) Why isit emerging only now, in the course of the past four or five years? I wouldlike to suggest that part of the answer to these questions lies in thenature ofthedominantsocial and intellectual discourse in Israel that has effectively silenced such voices by delegitimizing the very definition of theMizrahi womanas a speaking subject. ThediscussionIofferabout thewayMizrahi womenhave beenconstructed as a social category and simultaneously silenced in Israeli scholarly discourse leads to several obser- vations about the sociology and politics of knowledge in Israel. 1. Howare categories of knowledge defined in Israel and by whom? 2.Whodecides whatis worthy of"serious" research, and whatis the "exotic" marginalized domain of knowledge reserved for womenscholars and/or anthropologists? Finally, the most critical question I raise here is: 3.What dowelearn fromthis focusedcase study, which explores the links between scholarship and identity, about multiple systems of domina- tionandthe way they defineaccess to power and privilege and shape people's identities and experiences in Israel and elsewhere? Whoarewe talking about? If I were to followthe accepted positivist style of mainstream Israeli scholarship, Iwould begin witha simple definitionofour "subject matter," somethingalong these lines: "Mizrahim, also known as Sephardim or Ori- entals, are Jews who migrated toIsrael from Asia and Africa, mostly from Muslim societies. Jews who migrated from Europe and America are known as Ashkenazim." I wouldcite the thoroughly documentedfact that Miz- rahim in Israel constitute the lower socioeconomic ranksof the Jewish pop- ulationinIsrael and then proceed tonotethat the position ofMizrahi womenis even lower than that oftheir menfolk. Mizrahi womencluster at "the bottomof the female labor market, in service and production jobs" (Bernstein 1993,195). I might thenadd that Mizrahim, especially those of the first generation of immigration, are "traditional people" and, turning to Mizrahi women, might speak about their unenviable position in patriar- chal families. Following such a model implies, of course, that weare deal- ing here witha predefined social category-asegment ofthe population distinguished bv their gender and place of origin. doing thisIwishto pose two questions:(1) Why isthere such a small, hesitant, and little-known body of work on Mizrahi womenas subjects - a body ofworkthat places Mizrahi womenat itscenter? (2) Why isit emerging only now, in the course of the past four or five years? I wouldlike to suggest that part of the answer to these questions lies in thenature ofthedominantsocial and intellectual discourse in Israel that has effectively silenced such voices by delegitimizing the very definition of theMizrahi womanas a speaking subject. ThediscussionIofferabout thewayMizrahi womenhave beenconstructed as a social category and simultaneously silenced in Israeli scholarly discourse leads to several obser- vations about the sociology and politics of knowledge in Israel. 1. Howare categories of knowledge defined in Israel and by whom? 2.Whodecides whatis worthy of"serious" research, and whatis the "exotic" marginalized domain of knowledge reserved for womenscholars and/or anthropologists? Finally, the most critical question I raise here is: 3.What dowelearn fromthis focusedcase study, which explores the links between scholarship and identity, about multiple systems of domina- tionandthe way they defineaccess to power and privilege and shape people's identities and experiences in Israel and elsewhere? Whoarewe talking about? If I were to followthe accepted positivist style of mainstream Israeli scholarship, Iwould begin witha simple definitionofour "subject matter," somethingalong these lines: "Mizrahim, also known as Sephardim or Ori- entals, are Jews who migrated toIsrael from Asia and Africa, mostly from Muslim societies. Jews who migrated from Europe and America are known as Ashkenazim." I wouldcite the thoroughly documentedfact that Miz- rahim in Israel constitute the lower socioeconomic ranksof the Jewish pop- ulationinIsrael and then proceed tonotethat the position ofMizrahi womenis even lower than that oftheir menfolk. Mizrahi womencluster at "the bottomof the female labor market, in service and production jobs" (Bernstein 1993,195). I might thenadd that Mizrahim, especially those of the first generation of immigration, are "traditional people" and, turning to Mizrahi women, might speak about their unenviable position in patriar- chal families. Following such a model implies, of course, that weare deal- ing here witha predefined social category-asegment ofthe population distinguished bv their gender and place of origin. doing thisIwishto pose two questions:(1) Why isthere such a small, hesitant, and little-known body of work on Mizrahi womenas subjects - a body ofworkthat places Mizrahi womenat itscenter? (2) Why isit emerging only now, in the course of the past four or five years? I wouldlike to suggest that part of the answer to these questions lies in thenature ofthedominantsocial and intellectual discourse in Israel that has effectively silenced such voices by delegitimizing the very definition of theMizrahi womanas a speaking subject. ThediscussionIofferabout thewayMizrahi womenhave beenconstructed as a social category and simultaneously silenced in Israeli scholarly discourse leads to several obser- vations about the sociology and politics of knowledge in Israel. 1. Howare categories of knowledge defined in Israel and by whom? 2.Whodecides whatis worthy of"serious" research, and whatis the "exotic" marginalized domain of knowledge reserved for womenscholars and/or anthropologists? Finally, the most critical question I raise here is: 3.What dowelearn fromthis focusedcase study, which explores the links between scholarship and identity, about multiple systems of domina- tionandthe way they defineaccess to power and privilege and shape people's identities and experiences in Israel and elsewhere? Whoarewe talking about? If I were to followthe accepted positivist style of mainstream Israeli scholarship, Iwould begin witha simple definitionofour "subject matter," somethingalong these lines: "Mizrahim, also known as Sephardim or Ori- entals, are Jews who migrated toIsrael from Asia and Africa, mostly from Muslim societies. Jews who migrated from Europe and America are known as Ashkenazim." I wouldcite the thoroughly documentedfact that Miz- rahim in Israel constitute the lower socioeconomic ranksof the Jewish pop- ulationinIsrael and then proceed tonotethat the position ofMizrahi womenis even lower than that oftheir menfolk. Mizrahi womencluster at "the bottomof the female labor market, in service and production jobs" (Bernstein 1993,195). I might thenadd that Mizrahim, especially those of the first generation of immigration, are "traditional people" and, turning to Mizrahi women, might speak about their unenviable position in patriar- chal families. Following such a model implies, of course, that weare deal- ing here witha predefined social category-asegment ofthe population distinguished bv their gender and place of origin. doing thisIwishto pose two questions:(1) Why isthere such a small, hesitant, and little-known body of work on Mizrahi womenas subjects - a body ofworkthat places Mizrahi womenat itscenter? (2) Why isit emerging only now, in the course of the past four or five years? I wouldlike to suggest that part of the answer to these questions lies in thenature ofthedominantsocial and intellectual discourse in Israel that has effectively silenced such voices by delegitimizing the very definition of theMizrahi womanas a speaking subject. ThediscussionIofferabout thewayMizrahi womenhave beenconstructed as a social category and simultaneously silenced in Israeli scholarly discourse leads to several obser- vations about the sociology and politics of knowledge in Israel. 1. Howare categories of knowledge defined in Israel and by whom? 2.Whodecides whatis worthy of"serious" research, and whatis the "exotic" marginalized domain of knowledge reserved for womenscholars and/or anthropologists? Finally, the most critical question I raise here is: 3.What dowelearn fromthis focusedcase study, which explores the links between scholarship and identity, about multiple systems of domina- tionandthe way they defineaccess to power and privilege and shape people's identities and experiences in Israel and elsewhere? Whoarewe talking about? If I were to followthe accepted positivist style of mainstream Israeli scholarship, Iwould begin witha simple definitionofour "subject matter," somethingalong these lines: "Mizrahim, also known as Sephardim or Ori- entals, are Jews who migrated toIsrael from Asia and Africa, mostly from Muslim societies. Jews who migrated from Europe and America are known as Ashkenazim." I wouldcite the thoroughly documentedfact that Miz- rahim in Israel constitute the lower socioeconomic ranksof the Jewish pop- ulationinIsrael and then proceed tonotethat the position ofMizrahi womenis even lower than that oftheir menfolk. Mizrahi womencluster at "the bottomof the female labor market, in service and production jobs" (Bernstein 1993,195). I might thenadd that Mizrahim, especially those of the first generation of immigration, are "traditional people" and, turning to Mizrahi women, might speak about their unenviable position in patriar- chal families. Following such a model implies, of course, that weare deal- ing here witha predefined social category-asegment ofthe population distinguished bv their gender and place of origin. doing thisIwishto pose two questions:(1) Why isthere such a small, hesitant, and little-known body of work on Mizrahi womenas subjects - a body ofworkthat places Mizrahi womenat itscenter? (2) Why isit emerging only now, in the course of the past four or five years? I wouldlike to suggest that part of the answer to these questions lies in thenature ofthedominantsocial and intellectual discourse in Israel that has effectively silenced such voices by delegitimizing the very definition of theMizrahi womanas a speaking subject. ThediscussionIofferabout thewayMizrahi womenhave beenconstructed as a social category and simultaneously silenced in Israeli scholarly discourse leads to several obser- vations about the sociology and politics of knowledge in Israel. 1. Howare categories of knowledge defined in Israel and by whom? 2.Whodecides whatis worthy of"serious" research, and whatis the "exotic" marginalized domain of knowledge reserved for womenscholars and/or anthropologists? Finally, the most critical question I raise here is: 3.What dowelearn fromthis focusedcase study, which explores the links between scholarship and identity, about multiple systems of domina- tionandthe way they defineaccess to power and privilege and shape people's identities and experiences in Israel and elsewhere? Whoarewe talking about? If I were to followthe accepted positivist style of mainstream Israeli scholarship, Iwould begin witha simple definitionofour "subject matter," somethingalong these lines: "Mizrahim, also known as Sephardim or Ori- entals, are Jews who migrated toIsrael from Asia and Africa, mostly from Muslim societies. Jews who migrated from Europe and America are known as Ashkenazim." I wouldcite the thoroughly documentedfact that Miz- rahim in Israel constitute the lower socioeconomic ranksof the Jewish pop- ulationinIsrael and then proceed tonotethat the position ofMizrahi womenis even lower than that oftheir menfolk. Mizrahi womencluster at "the bottomof the female labor market, in service and production jobs" (Bernstein 1993,195). I might thenadd that Mizrahim, especially those of the first generation of immigration, are "traditional people" and, turning to Mizrahi women, might speak about their unenviable position in patriar- chal families. Following such a model implies, of course, that weare deal- ing here witha predefined social category-asegment ofthe population distinguished bv their gender and place of origin. doing thisIwishto pose two questions:(1) Why isthere such a small, hesitant, and little-known body of work on Mizrahi womenas subjects - a body ofworkthat places Mizrahi womenat itscenter? (2) Why isit emerging only now, in the course of the past four or five years? I wouldlike to suggest that part of the answer to these questions lies in thenature ofthedominantsocial and intellectual discourse in Israel that has effectively silenced such voices by delegitimizing the very definition of theMizrahi womanas a speaking subject. ThediscussionIofferabout thewayMizrahi womenhave beenconstructed as a social category and simultaneously silenced in Israeli scholarly discourse leads to several obser- vations about the sociology and politics of knowledge in Israel. 1. Howare categories of knowledge defined in Israel and by whom? 2.Whodecides whatis worthy of"serious" research, and whatis the "exotic" marginalized domain of knowledge reserved for womenscholars and/or anthropologists? Finally, the most critical question I raise here is: 3.What dowelearn fromthis focusedcase study, which explores the links between scholarship and identity, about multiple systems of domina- tionandthe way they defineaccess to power and privilege and shape people's identities and experiences in Israel and elsewhere? Whoarewe talking about? If I were to followthe accepted positivist style of mainstream Israeli scholarship, Iwould begin witha simple definitionofour "subject matter," somethingalong these lines: "Mizrahim, also known as Sephardim or Ori- entals, are Jews who migrated toIsrael from Asia and Africa, mostly from Muslim societies. Jews who migrated from Europe and America are known as Ashkenazim." I wouldcite the thoroughly documentedfact that Miz- rahim in Israel constitute the lower socioeconomic ranksof the Jewish pop- ulationinIsrael and then proceed tonotethat the position ofMizrahi womenis even lower than that oftheir menfolk. Mizrahi womencluster at "the bottomof the female labor market, in service and production jobs" (Bernstein 1993,195). I might thenadd that Mizrahim, especially those of the first generation of immigration, are "traditional people" and, turning to Mizrahi women, might speak about their unenviable position in patriar- chal families. Following such a model implies, of course, that weare deal- ing here witha predefined social category-asegment ofthe population distinguished bv their gender and place of origin. doing thisIwishto pose two questions:(1) Why isthere such a small, hesitant, and little-known body of work on Mizrahi womenas subjects - a body ofworkthat places Mizrahi womenat itscenter? (2) Why isit emerging only now, in the course of the past four or five years? I wouldlike to suggest that part of the answer to these questions lies in thenature ofthedominantsocial and intellectual discourse in Israel that has effectively silenced such voices by delegitimizing the very definition of theMizrahi womanas a speaking subject. ThediscussionIofferabout thewayMizrahi womenhave beenconstructed as a social category and simultaneously silenced in Israeli scholarly discourse leads to several obser- vations about the sociology and politics of knowledge in Israel. 1. Howare categories of knowledge defined in Israel and by whom? 2.Whodecides whatis worthy of"serious" research, and whatis the "exotic" marginalized domain of knowledge reserved for womenscholars and/or anthropologists? Finally, the most critical question I raise here is: 3.What dowelearn fromthis focusedcase study, which explores the links between scholarship and identity, about multiple systems of domina- tionandthe way they defineaccess to power and privilege and shape people's identities and experiences in Israel and elsewhere? Whoarewe talking about? If I were to followthe accepted positivist style of mainstream Israeli scholarship, Iwould begin witha simple definitionofour "subject matter," somethingalong these lines: "Mizrahim, also known as Sephardim or Ori- entals, are Jews who migrated toIsrael from Asia and Africa, mostly from Muslim societies. Jews who migrated from Europe and America are known as Ashkenazim." I wouldcite the thoroughly documentedfact that Miz- rahim in Israel constitute the lower socioeconomic ranksof the Jewish pop- ulationinIsrael and then proceed tonotethat the position ofMizrahi womenis even lower than that oftheir menfolk. Mizrahi womencluster at "the bottomof the female labor market, in service and production jobs" (Bernstein 1993,195). I might thenadd that Mizrahim, especially those of the first generation of immigration, are "traditional people" and, turning to Mizrahi women, might speak about their unenviable position in patriar- chal families. Following such a model implies, of course, that weare deal- ing here witha predefined social category-asegment ofthe population distinguished bv their gender and place of origin. doing thisIwishto pose two questions:(1) Why isthere such a small, hesitant, and little-known body of work on Mizrahi womenas subjects - a body ofworkthat places Mizrahi womenat itscenter? (2) Why isit emerging only now, in the course of the past four or five years? I wouldlike to suggest that part of the answer to these questions lies in thenature ofthedominantsocial and intellectual discourse in Israel that has effectively silenced such voices by delegitimizing the very definition of theMizrahi womanas a speaking subject. ThediscussionIofferabout thewayMizrahi womenhave beenconstructed as a social category and simultaneously silenced in Israeli scholarly discourse leads to several obser- vations about the sociology and politics of knowledge in Israel. 1. Howare categories of knowledge defined in Israel and by whom? 2.Whodecides whatis worthy of"serious" research, and whatis the "exotic" marginalized domain of knowledge reserved for womenscholars and/or anthropologists? Finally, the most critical question I raise here is: 3.What dowelearn fromthis focusedcase study, which explores the links between scholarship and identity, about multiple systems of domina- tionandthe way they defineaccess to power and privilege and shape people's identities and experiences in Israel and elsewhere? Whoarewe talking about? If I were to followthe accepted positivist style of mainstream Israeli scholarship, Iwould begin witha simple definitionofour "subject matter," somethingalong these lines: "Mizrahim, also known as Sephardim or Ori- entals, are Jews who migrated toIsrael from Asia and Africa, mostly from Muslim societies. Jews who migrated from Europe and America are known as Ashkenazim." I wouldcite the thoroughly documentedfact that Miz- rahim in Israel constitute the lower socioeconomic ranksof the Jewish pop- ulationinIsrael and then proceed tonotethat the position ofMizrahi womenis even lower than that oftheir menfolk. Mizrahi womencluster at "the bottomof the female labor market, in service and production jobs" (Bernstein 1993,195). I might thenadd that Mizrahim, especially those of the first generation of immigration, are "traditional people" and, turning to Mizrahi women, might speak about their unenviable position in patriar- chal families. Following such a model implies, of course, that weare deal- ing here witha predefined social category-asegment ofthe population distinguished bv their gender and place of origin. doing thisIwishto pose two questions:(1) Why isthere such a small, hesitant, and little-known body of work on Mizrahi womenas subjects - a body ofworkthat places Mizrahi womenat itscenter? (2) Why isit emerging only now, in the course of the past four or five years? I wouldlike to suggest that part of the answer to these questions lies in thenature ofthedominantsocial and intellectual discourse in Israel that has effectively silenced such voices by delegitimizing the very definition of theMizrahi womanas a speaking subject. ThediscussionIofferabout thewayMizrahi womenhave beenconstructed as a social category and simultaneously silenced in Israeli scholarly discourse leads to several obser- vations about the sociology and politics of knowledge in Israel. 1. Howare categories of knowledge defined in Israel and by whom? 2.Whodecides whatis worthy of"serious" research, and whatis the "exotic" marginalized domain of knowledge reserved for womenscholars and/or anthropologists? Finally, the most critical question I raise here is: 3.What dowelearn fromthis focusedcase study, which explores the links between scholarship and identity, about multiple systems of domina- tionandthe way they defineaccess to power and privilege and shape people's identities and experiences in Israel and elsewhere? Whoarewe talking about? If I were to followthe accepted positivist style of mainstream Israeli scholarship, Iwould begin witha simple definitionofour "subject matter," somethingalong these lines: "Mizrahim, also known as Sephardim or Ori- entals, are Jews who migrated toIsrael from Asia and Africa, mostly from Muslim societies. Jews who migrated from Europe and America are known as Ashkenazim." I wouldcite the thoroughly documentedfact that Miz- rahim in Israel constitute the lower socioeconomic ranksof the Jewish pop- ulationinIsrael and then proceed tonotethat the position ofMizrahi womenis even lower than that oftheir menfolk. Mizrahi womencluster at "the bottomof the female labor market, in service and production jobs" (Bernstein 1993,195). I might thenadd that Mizrahim, especially those of the first generation of immigration, are "traditional people" and, turning to Mizrahi women, might speak about their unenviable position in patriar- chal families. Following such a model implies, of course, that weare deal- ing here witha predefined social category-asegment ofthe population distinguished bv their gender and place of origin. doing thisIwishto pose two questions:(1) Why isthere such a small, hesitant, and little-known body of work on Mizrahi womenas subjects - a body ofworkthat places Mizrahi womenat itscenter? (2) Why isit emerging only now, in the course of the past four or five years? I wouldlike to suggest that part of the answer to these questions lies in thenature ofthedominantsocial and intellectual discourse in Israel that has effectively silenced such voices by delegitimizing the very definition of theMizrahi womanas a speaking subject. ThediscussionIofferabout thewayMizrahi womenhave beenconstructed as a social category and simultaneously silenced in Israeli scholarly discourse leads to several obser- vations about the sociology and politics of knowledge in Israel. 1. Howare categories of knowledge defined in Israel and by whom? 2.Whodecides whatis worthy of"serious" research, and whatis the "exotic" marginalized domain of knowledge reserved for womenscholars and/or anthropologists? Finally, the most critical question I raise here is: 3.What dowelearn fromthis focusedcase study, which explores the links between scholarship and identity, about multiple systems of domina- tionandthe way they defineaccess to power and privilege and shape people's identities and experiences in Israel and elsewhere? Whoarewe talking about? If I were to followthe accepted positivist style of mainstream Israeli scholarship, Iwould begin witha simple definitionofour "subject matter," somethingalong these lines: "Mizrahim, also known as Sephardim or Ori- entals, are Jews who migrated toIsrael from Asia and Africa, mostly from Muslim societies. Jews who migrated from Europe and America are known as Ashkenazim." I wouldcite the thoroughly documentedfact that Miz- rahim in Israel constitute the lower socioeconomic ranksof the Jewish pop- ulationinIsrael and then proceed tonotethat the position ofMizrahi womenis even lower than that oftheir menfolk. Mizrahi womencluster at "the bottomof the female labor market, in service and production jobs" (Bernstein 1993,195). I might thenadd that Mizrahim, especially those of the first generation of immigration, are "traditional people" and, turning to Mizrahi women, might speak about their unenviable position in patriar- chal families. Following such a model implies, of course, that weare deal- ing here witha predefined social category-asegment ofthe population distinguished bv their gender and place of origin. doing thisIwishto pose two questions:(1) Why isthere such a small, hesitant, and little-known body of work on Mizrahi womenas subjects - a body ofworkthat places Mizrahi womenat itscenter? (2) Why isit emerging only now, in the course of the past four or five years? I wouldlike to suggest that part of the answer to these questions lies in thenature ofthedominantsocial and intellectual discourse in Israel that has effectively silenced such voices by delegitimizing the very definition of theMizrahi womanas a speaking subject. ThediscussionIofferabout thewayMizrahi womenhave beenconstructed as a social category and simultaneously silenced in Israeli scholarly discourse leads to several obser- vations about the sociology and politics of knowledge in Israel. 1. Howare categories of knowledge defined in Israel and by whom? 2.Whodecides whatis worthy of"serious" research, and whatis the "exotic" marginalized domain of knowledge reserved for womenscholars and/or anthropologists? Finally, the most critical question I raise here is: 3.What dowelearn fromthis focusedcase study, which explores the links between scholarship and identity, about multiple systems of domina- tionandthe way they defineaccess to power and privilege and shape people's identities and experiences in Israel and elsewhere? Whoarewe talking about? If I were to followthe accepted positivist style of mainstream Israeli scholarship, Iwould begin witha simple definitionofour "subject matter," somethingalong these lines: "Mizrahim, also known as Sephardim or Ori- entals, are Jews who migrated toIsrael from Asia and Africa, mostly from Muslim societies. Jews who migrated from Europe and America are known as Ashkenazim." I wouldcite the thoroughly documentedfact that Miz- rahim in Israel constitute the lower socioeconomic ranksof the Jewish pop- ulationinIsrael and then proceed tonotethat the position ofMizrahi womenis even lower than that oftheir menfolk. Mizrahi womencluster at "the bottomof the female labor market, in service and production jobs" (Bernstein 1993,195). I might thenadd that Mizrahim, especially those of the first generation of immigration, are "traditional people" and, turning to Mizrahi women, might speak about their unenviable position in patriar- chal families. Following such a model implies, of course, that weare deal- ing here witha predefined social category-asegment ofthe population distinguished bv their gender and place of origin. This content downloaded from 128.205.114.91 on Mon, 10 Aug 2015 21:05:53 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsSIGNS Spring 2001I699SIGNS Spring 2001I699SIGNS Spring 2001I699SIGNS Spring 2001I699SIGNS Spring 2001I699SIGNS Spring 2001I699SIGNS Spring 2001I699SIGNS Spring 2001I699SIGNS Spring 2001I699SIGNS Spring 2001I699SIGNS Spring 2001I699SIGNS Spring 2001I699SIGNS Spring 2001I699SIGNS Spring 2001I699SIGNS Spring 2001I699 Mystarting point forthisarticle rejects suchan essentialist modelof identity. I opt for what Margaret Andersen and Collins (1995) call an "in- teractive model." I wishto conceptualize Mizrahi womenas a social category that is shaped ina movingprocess that determines not only ethnic and gender identities but also patterns of inequality and power. Ethnicity and gender, I wishto argue here, are constitutive elementsin Israeli life. They affect access to power and privilege; they construct meanings and shape people's everyday experience. Saying that Mizrahi women emerge as asocial category inamatrix ofdominationand meaning doesnot say, however, that they are a homogeneousgroup withouttensionsandin- ternal contradictions.Itis precisely thesevaried experiences ofMizrahi womenat factories and in peripheral towns, inthe margins ofacademic life and in muted public discourses, that must be explored. This article is written touncover the very process of silencing; its goal is to expose the exclusionary practices that have inhibited the emergence ofan internal Mizrahi exploration ofour ownmuted experiences.2 "Once it is understood that subjects are formed through exclusionary operations," feminist theorist Joan Scott has written, "it becomes necessary totrace the operations ofthat construction and erasure" (quoted in Nicholson 1995, 12). I wouldlike tofocus this article ononearena of the wider process of such construction and erasure of Mizrahi women's subjectivity in Israel - academic discourse.3 Tounderstand the way Israeli academic discourse has conceptualized Mizrahi womenone must untangle two intertwined key concepts: Mizrah- iyut- a collective identity claimed by people of Mizrahi origin - and Israeli feminism.Theintellectual thought ofMizrahiwomenhasto struggle against adouble process oferasure and silencing thathascombinedto challenge its very right toexist. As Mizrahiyot, as the female members of a subordinated ethnic cass, Mizrahi womenintellectuals face hostilere- actionstotheir very claim that Mizrahiyut isa viable basis fortheirac- tion and thought.4 The negation of Mizrahi collective identity (mizrahiyut) as a basis for distinctive claims, material and symbolic, isa powerful one 2 HereIdraw on Spivak's argument inher provocative 1985 essay, "Can theSubaltern Speak?" Such tracing of Mizrahi women's subjectivity might seem, at first glance, an essentialist practice, but it is necessary against the very powerful erasure ofsuch claims by dominant discourses. 3 There are, of course, other sites where this process of erasure works itself out.Shohat's brilliant bookIsraeli Cinema: East/West and the Politics of Representation(1989) isthemost powerful exploration of this process within the Israeli film industry. Laor's 1995and Rattok's 1997work are examples of the erasure of the Mizrahi subject in Israeli literature. 4 For an analysis of Israel as an "ethnocracy," see Yiftachel 1997, 1998. Mystarting point forthisarticle rejects suchan essentialist modelof identity. I opt for what Margaret Andersen and Collins (1995) call an "in- teractive model." I wishto conceptualize Mizrahi womenas a social category that is shaped ina movingprocess that determines not only ethnic and gender identities but also patterns of inequality and power. Ethnicity and gender, I wishto argue here, are constitutive elementsin Israeli life. They affect access to power and privilege; they construct meanings and shape people's everyday experience. Saying that Mizrahi women emerge as asocial category inamatrix ofdominationand meaning doesnot say, however, that they are a homogeneousgroup withouttensionsandin- ternal contradictions.Itis precisely thesevaried experiences ofMizrahi womenat factories and in peripheral towns, inthe margins ofacademic life and in muted public discourses, that must be explored. This article is written touncover the very process of silencing; its goal is to expose the exclusionary practices that have inhibited the emergence ofan internal Mizrahi exploration ofour ownmuted experiences.2 "Once it is understood that subjects are formed through exclusionary operations," feminist theorist Joan Scott has written, "it becomes necessary totrace the operations ofthat construction and erasure" (quoted in Nicholson 1995, 12). I wouldlike tofocus this article ononearena of the wider process of such construction and erasure of Mizrahi women's subjectivity in Israel - academic discourse.3 Tounderstand the way Israeli academic discourse has conceptualized Mizrahi womenone must untangle two intertwined key concepts: Mizrah- iyut- a collective identity claimed by people of Mizrahi origin - and Israeli feminism.Theintellectual thought ofMizrahiwomenhasto struggle against adouble process oferasure and silencing thathascombinedto challenge its very right toexist. As Mizrahiyot, as the female members of a subordinated ethnic cass, Mizrahi womenintellectuals face hostilere- actionstotheir very claim that Mizrahiyut isa viable basis fortheirac- tion and thought.4 The negation of Mizrahi collective identity (mizrahiyut) as a basis for distinctive claims, material and symbolic, isa powerful one 2 HereIdraw on Spivak's argument inher provocative 1985 essay, "Can theSubaltern Speak?" Such tracing of Mizrahi women's subjectivity might seem, at first glance, an essentialist practice, but it is necessary against the very powerful erasure ofsuch claims by dominant discourses. 3 There are, of course, other sites where this process of erasure works itself out.Shohat's brilliant bookIsraeli Cinema: East/West and the Politics of Representation(1989) isthemost powerful exploration of this process within the Israeli film industry. Laor's 1995and Rattok's 1997work are examples of the erasure of the Mizrahi subject in Israeli literature. 4 For an analysis of Israel as an "ethnocracy," see Yiftachel 1997, 1998. Mystarting point forthisarticle rejects suchan essentialist modelof identity. I opt for what Margaret Andersen and Collins (1995) call an "in- teractive model." I wishto conceptualize Mizrahi womenas a social category that is shaped ina movingprocess that determines not only ethnic and gender identities but also patterns of inequality and power. Ethnicity and gender, I wishto argue here, are constitutive elementsin Israeli life. They affect access to power and privilege; they construct meanings and shape people's everyday experience. Saying that Mizrahi women emerge as asocial category inamatrix ofdominationand meaning doesnot say, however, that they are a homogeneousgroup withouttensionsandin- ternal contradictions.Itis precisely thesevaried experiences ofMizrahi womenat factories and in peripheral towns, inthe margins ofacademic life and in muted public discourses, that must be explored. This article is written touncover the very process of silencing; its goal is to expose the exclusionary practices that have inhibited the emergence ofan internal Mizrahi exploration ofour ownmuted experiences.2 "Once it is understood that subjects are formed through exclusionary operations," feminist theorist Joan Scott has written, "it becomes necessary totrace the operations ofthat construction and erasure" (quoted in Nicholson 1995, 12). I wouldlike tofocus this article ononearena of the wider process of such construction and erasure of Mizrahi women's subjectivity in Israel - academic discourse.3 Tounderstand the way Israeli academic discourse has conceptualized Mizrahi womenone must untangle two intertwined key concepts: Mizrah- iyut- a collective identity claimed by people of Mizrahi origin - and Israeli feminism.Theintellectual thought ofMizrahiwomenhasto struggle against adouble process oferasure and silencing thathascombinedto challenge its very right toexist. As Mizrahiyot, as the female members of a subordinated ethnic cass, Mizrahi womenintellectuals face hostilere- actionstotheir very claim that Mizrahiyut isa viable basis fortheirac- tion and thought.4 The negation of Mizrahi collective identity (mizrahiyut) as a basis for distinctive claims, material and symbolic, isa powerful one 2 HereIdraw on Spivak's argument inher provocative 1985 essay, "Can theSubaltern Speak?" Such tracing of Mizrahi women's subjectivity might seem, at first glance, an essentialist practice, but it is necessary against the very powerful erasure ofsuch claims by dominant discourses. 3 There are, of course, other sites where this process of erasure works itself out.Shohat's brilliant bookIsraeli Cinema: East/West and the Politics of Representation(1989) isthemost powerful exploration of this process within the Israeli film industry. Laor's 1995and Rattok's 1997work are examples of the erasure of the Mizrahi subject in Israeli literature. 4 For an analysis of Israel as an "ethnocracy," see Yiftachel 1997, 1998. Mystarting point forthisarticle rejects suchan essentialist modelof identity. I opt for what Margaret Andersen and Collins (1995) call an "in- teractive model." I wishto conceptualize Mizrahi womenas a social category that is shaped ina movingprocess that determines not only ethnic and gender identities but also patterns of inequality and power. Ethnicity and gender, I wishto argue here, are constitutive elementsin Israeli life. They affect access to power and privilege; they construct meanings and shape people's everyday experience. Saying that Mizrahi women emerge as asocial category inamatrix ofdominationand meaning doesnot say, however, that they are a homogeneousgroup withouttensionsandin- ternal contradictions.Itis precisely thesevaried experiences ofMizrahi womenat factories and in peripheral towns, inthe margins ofacademic life and in muted public discourses, that must be explored. This article is written touncover the very process of silencing; its goal is to expose the exclusionary practices that have inhibited the emergence ofan internal Mizrahi exploration ofour ownmuted experiences.2 "Once it is understood that subjects are formed through exclusionary operations," feminist theorist Joan Scott has written, "it becomes necessary totrace the operations ofthat construction and erasure" (quoted in Nicholson 1995, 12). I wouldlike tofocus this article ononearena of the wider process of such construction and erasure of Mizrahi women's subjectivity in Israel - academic discourse.3 Tounderstand the way Israeli academic discourse has conceptualized Mizrahi womenone must untangle two intertwined key concepts: Mizrah- iyut- a collective identity claimed by people of Mizrahi origin - and Israeli feminism.Theintellectual thought ofMizrahiwomenhasto struggle against adouble process oferasure and silencing thathascombinedto challenge its very right toexist. As Mizrahiyot, as the female members of a subordinated ethnic cass, Mizrahi womenintellectuals face hostilere- actionstotheir very claim that Mizrahiyut isa viable basis fortheirac- tion and thought.4 The negation of Mizrahi collective identity (mizrahiyut) as a basis for distinctive claims, material and symbolic, isa powerful one 2 HereIdraw on Spivak's argument inher provocative 1985 essay, "Can theSubaltern Speak?" Such tracing of Mizrahi women's subjectivity might seem, at first glance, an essentialist practice, but it is necessary against the very powerful erasure ofsuch claims by dominant discourses. 3 There are, of course, other sites where this process of erasure works itself out.Shohat's brilliant bookIsraeli Cinema: East/West and the Politics of Representation(1989) isthemost powerful exploration of this process within the Israeli film industry. Laor's 1995and Rattok's 1997work are examples of the erasure of the Mizrahi subject in Israeli literature. 4 For an analysis of Israel as an "ethnocracy," see Yiftachel 1997, 1998. Mystarting point forthisarticle rejects suchan essentialist modelof identity. I opt for what Margaret Andersen and Collins (1995) call an "in- teractive model." I wishto conceptualize Mizrahi womenas a social category that is shaped ina movingprocess that determines not only ethnic and gender identities but also patterns of inequality and power. Ethnicity and gender, I wishto argue here, are constitutive elementsin Israeli life. They affect access to power and privilege; they construct meanings and shape people's everyday experience. Saying that Mizrahi women emerge as asocial category inamatrix ofdominationand meaning doesnot say, however, that they are a homogeneousgroup withouttensionsandin- ternal contradictions.Itis precisely thesevaried experiences ofMizrahi womenat factories and in peripheral towns, inthe margins ofacademic life and in muted public discourses, that must be explored. This article is written touncover the very process of silencing; its goal is to expose the exclusionary practices that have inhibited the emergence ofan internal Mizrahi exploration ofour ownmuted experiences.2 "Once it is understood that subjects are formed through exclusionary operations," feminist theorist Joan Scott has written, "it becomes necessary totrace the operations ofthat construction and erasure" (quoted in Nicholson 1995, 12). I wouldlike tofocus this article ononearena of the wider process of such construction and erasure of Mizrahi women's subjectivity in Israel - academic discourse.3 Tounderstand the way Israeli academic discourse has conceptualized Mizrahi womenone must untangle two intertwined key concepts: Mizrah- iyut- a collective identity claimed by people of Mizrahi origin - and Israeli feminism.Theintellectual thought ofMizrahiwomenhasto struggle against adouble process oferasure and silencing thathascombinedto challenge its very right toexist. As Mizrahiyot, as the female members of a subordinated ethnic cass, Mizrahi womenintellectuals face hostilere- actionstotheir very claim that Mizrahiyut isa viable basis fortheirac- tion and thought.4 The negation of Mizrahi collective identity (mizrahiyut) as a basis for distinctive claims, material and symbolic, isa powerful one 2 HereIdraw on Spivak's argument inher provocative 1985 essay, "Can theSubaltern Speak?" Such tracing of Mizrahi women's subjectivity might seem, at first glance, an essentialist practice, but it is necessary against the very powerful erasure ofsuch claims by dominant discourses. 3 There are, of course, other sites where this process of erasure works itself out.Shohat's brilliant bookIsraeli Cinema: East/West and the Politics of Representation(1989) isthemost powerful exploration of this process within the Israeli film industry. Laor's 1995and Rattok's 1997work are examples of the erasure of the Mizrahi subject in Israeli literature. 4 For an analysis of Israel as an "ethnocracy," see Yiftachel 1997, 1998. Mystarting point forthisarticle rejects suchan essential

pnina motzafi-haller_scholarship, identity, and power- mizrahi women in israel

Documents