{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02237991266375546, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0032751091703056767, 'mean_word_length': 5.308089500860585, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Insiders/Outsiders: Emic/Etic Study of Women and Gender in the New Millennium

The 'Insiders/Outsiders' conversation was convened as a virtual mini-conference (over email) with four panelists and sixty-five participants organized and moderated by Zuhur for five weeks from September through October of 2000. Although sponsored by the Association for Middle East Women's Studies (AMEWS), participants were not necessarily AMEWS members. The conversation was subsequently held at MESA 2000 and moderated by Jamal. Some of the participants in the virtual conversation also attended the real-time event. This thematic conversation explored the impact of debates regarding insider versus outsider perceptions upon teaching and research on women and gender in the Middle East. While a great deal of the discussion concerned identity politics or the nature of the dichotomy under discussion, some participants and panelists also addressed the more formalized divide between the emic versus the etic approach to observation and understanding, and their respective valuation. The virtual event began with Sondra Hale's comparisons of certain aspects of the course content—for example, the avoidance of discussions of sexuality in the Middle East, the use of 'gender studies' as a title opposed to 'women's studies,' differences in pedagogical approaches, and the social location of the classroom in the Middle East as opposed to that in the US. Hale noted that despite differences, women's studies in both settings retains a modernist and linear foundation. She also contextualized her presentation with a description of her own location vis-a-vis the topic. Discussion ensued over a 'definition' of feminist pedagogies and 'liberatory' pedagogy (as in Paolo Freire's work) and their efficacy. Marilyn Booth noted that gender has become a staple of the academy, but is not necessarily accepted within it, and may be viewed as a 'foreign import' even by Western students. Eleanor Doumato suggested that historians should ignore the internal versus external observer debate as it represents a false dichotomy. Insiders and outsiders may overlap, the two categories may contain highly dissimilar views even in the same genres, and insider perspectives may be difficult for the historian to obtain. She referred to the ways one might compare the authors of the 1911 Cairo Conference with letters of their contemporaries. She also mentioned Gertrude Bell's avoidance of women in her writings, and the example of Lady Anne Blunt, arguing that knowledge of their positionality was not very useful; rather, she believes the historian should primarily consider the material they produced. Discussion focused on the ways in which positionality can affect the material, with participants citing examples, and various readings of historical and literary materials with an understanding of an author's positionality. Zuhur considered the validity of two potentially misleading dichotomies, the divide between rural and urban women and the notions of conservative or traditional behavior assigned to the rural sphere versus more 'liberal' behavior that is commonly thought to develop in the urban sphere. Rural women in northeastern Lebanon utilize these dichotomies in their own discourse. She explained the utility of the notion of insider 'discourse' which can be learned and internalized by the researcher as a means of subverting the emic/etic debate. Najwa Adra pointed out the ways that the rural/urban categories may be mediated or redefined through globalization, or regional influences as in Yemen, and Amal Sedki Winters also remarked on the constant references in the litera-