Producing the Conjugal Patriarchal Family in Maulana Thanvi’s Heavenly Ornaments: Biopolotics, ‘Shariatic Modernity’ and Managing Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Written in the 1930s for Muslim women in north India by Maulana Ashraf Thanvi (1864-1943), Bahishti Zewar or Heavenly Ornaments, has been influential in defining proper feminine etiquette and household management. The household type that is produced is nuclear and with a clearly defined male patriarch. The most mundane of tasks are outlined and related to religious duty. What is central to my analysis is how the meticulous details of household management, bodily comportment and etiquette articulate a regime not of repressive power but rather a (modern) productive modality of power that produce trained docile bodies (Foucault, 1975) and complementary gendered Muslim subjectivities. Thus the tropes Thanvi uses to produce a manual for the self-management of women cannot be divorced from certain logics of modernity and modernist reform; but instead of medico-scientific discourses producing women’s subjectivity, Thanvi uses shariatic principles as the vector through which a modern vision of a managed patriarchal conjugal family infiltrates the household. I am thus depending on Foucault’s notion of biopower that characterizes a modern modality of power. In order to justify my use of this concept, I will outline how Thanvi’s reformist ideas are not inherently oppositional to the logics of Bourgeois modernist production of the conjugal family and the scientific management of the private sphere (Abu-Lughod, 1998). Though I am not claiming that a European Victorian mode of modernity was synonymous with Thanvi’s reformist sentiments, I will reveal that the Bahishti Zewar can be thought of as a modern text, though one articulating an alternative modernity (Göle, 2002; Zaidi, 2006; Gaonkar, 2001) organized around Thanvi’s selective interpretation of shariatic principles. This will reveal the ability to rethink modernity’s relationship with reformist Islamic sentiment and challenge the denial of coavelesence (Fabian, 1983) between modernity’s temporality and Islam, as well as challenging the idea that Thanvi refuted modernity (Naeem, 2003: 2).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".