What are the factors in play when we see more "westernized" images of women wearing the hijab. This style of dress not only calls up stereotypes as to who is underneath, it also stimulates an urge to make them more like us. In those instances where they actually do look more like us, however, to what extent is this a factor of Islamic liberalization, western glamorization, commercial exploitation or just plain voyeurism?
This image comes from the MSNBC "Pictures of the Week" gallery from the period of February 24- March 3. They titled it: Eye to eye. Here's the caption:
Supporters of terror suspect Babar Ahmad, who is facing extradition to the United States, protest outside a court in London on March 2. Britain began extradition hearing for Ahmad, who is wanted in the United States for allegedly running terrorist Web sites, but Muslim groups said he should be tried at home.
So, should we start with the positive space, or the negative?
I assume there are standard ways the western eye (or guy) tends to glamorize these cloaked women -- starting with the "eye window" as some kind of teaser. What really tilts this photo to the west, however, is the fact these eyes and lashes are so made up. You can almost hear the sigh of assurance that these women are more educated and middle class.
Or, you could start with one blue pair of eyes and one brown pair. Because the blue associates more with white culture while the brown associates more to, well... brown, one could say the image sets up an East-West dichotomy.
If you subscribe to the East-West argument, you could also say that the blue or west-leaning eyes are "good," while the brown represent those followers of Islam we have to look out for. The picture also reinforces this interpretation through facial gesture. The "good" blue eyes, for example, bear a decidedly more benign expression. The other figure, however, has a look that could almost be read as scheming.
You can also get a conspiratorial sense from how the figures interact. It looks like they are literally "putting their heads together." The impression is that the one on the right is discretely whispering something, while the one on the left is playing it low key.
If you think I am overplaying the association to threat, it's easy to say that I've been set up by the caption. But then, this caption is guilty of a lot of things. By linking the photo to a court proceeding, it implies the picture is newsworthy. So, are these women protesters? Or, more libelously, are they supporters of the suspect, or even "supporters of terror?" Before answering that, however, perhaps one needs to consider the virtue of associating such a suggestive photo (politically, and otherwise) to a provocative news event few readers have ever heard of. (If you ask me, I'd say it puts us back in the neighborhood of exploitation and voyeurism again.)
At my very first look at this pricture I saw something totally different at first. What I saw was one face being formed by the two faces. Not the faces of woman but of one face looking straight at the viewer. I don't know what this says about the meaning of this image but to me it conveys the idea that these women can or could be as hostile towards the west as anyone else involved with terror. The positive—negative effect in "Islamic Eyes" that I see now is the classic "vase or face" optical illusion.
MSNBC wouldn't be doing any kind of Subliminal Seduction propaganda would they?
This image comes from the MSNBC "Pictures of the Week" gallery from the period of February 24- March 3. They titled it: Eye to eye. Here's the caption: 
