Language and its Use in the Debate of Saudi Arabian Women Driving

Women have limited freedoms in Saudi Arabia, and it has been this way for some time now. They are not allowed to go anywhere without permission from a male or the company of a male relative such as their son. According to many Saudi religious authorities and scholars, the act of women driving is completely forbidden for strict religious reasons. It is also forbidden because it could force women to have interaction with non-mahram males. Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world to prohibit female driving. This debate has become incredibly heated on both sides with supporters and protestors displaying fiery emotion over the issue. Critics of the driving ban in Saudi Arabia say that it causes a violation of gender segregation customs and that it is a social issue instead of a political one. They also contend that the ban on women driving creates an unnecessary financial burden on women by forcing them to take taxis everywhere they go. Each side of the debate uses contradicting and polarizing language in an attempt to prove that women driving in Saudi Arabia would be beneficial or wrong.

In order to understand this debate, it is essential to take a look at how women's rights are lagging in the county of Saudi Arabia. The Quran is basically the Bible for Muslims, and it is regarded as the finest piece of Arabian literature by many. The Quran is also believed to be the only book that has been protected from corruption by God. The Quran dictates that women are lower than men, and it makes no qualms about condoning the unequal treatment of women. According to the Religion of Peace website, women are basically seen as being worth half of what a man is worth: “In the Qur'an (4:11, Inheritance) The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females” (Religion of Peace). Not only are women not allowed to look men in the eye, but they are also considered to be dirty. According to the Quran, “If ye are unclean, purify yourselves. And if ye are sick or on a journey, or one of you cometh from the closet, or ye have had contact with women, and ye find not water, then go to clean, high ground and rub your faces and your hands with some of it" (Religion of Peace). In other words, men should wash their hands with dirt after coming into contact with a woman if they do not have access to water. These are only a few examples of the way women are seen in the religious texts of Saudi Arabia and in the eyes of men all around the world.

Both men and women have differing opinions as to whether or not women should be able to drive in Saudi Arabia. Women who live in the country say that prohibiting them from driving is an issue that is not political, and therefore it should not be decided by the government. Even the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia, Prince Saud al-Faisal, said that “for us, it is not a political issue, it is a social issue. We believe that this is something for the families to decide, for the people to decide, and not to be forced by the government, either to drive or not to drive” (Ambah). Even King Abdullah has said that he does not oppose allowing women to drive. This shows that the debate is not a political one at all, but a social issue that is polarized by language on both sides.

The opposition of women driving in Saudi Arabia has sparked emotional and even violent protests. Facebook seems to be a popular platform for women and men alike to protest the ban on women driving as well as support it. A petition on Facebook of more than one thousand women asked the King to not lift the ban for many reasons. They contend that women driving will result in evil as well as a loss of religion:

[There are] great evils resulting from a woman driving, warning it would lead to a loss of religion and to ‘deviant principles’ that would undermine stability in Saudi Arabia. Another Facebook group had men swearing they would use their ‘iqals,’ the black cord used to hold down their headdress, to beat women drivers in the street (a counter group said they’d used their iqals to beat those doing the beating. (Setrakian)

In the deeply religious and patriarchal culture of Saudi Arabia, many people think that allowing women to drive could lead to an inappropriate openness and an erosion of traditional values. Other reasons why women are prohibited to drive include the fact that driving can lead to women leaving their houses more often. Those who oppose women driving also say that it involves an uncovering of the face, which is against religious rules. Driving may also result in women having interaction with non-mahram males at possible car accidents as well as overcrowding of streets. Furthermore, they contend that women driving may deprive young men of the opportunity to drive and that it would be the beginning of gender segregation in the country.

People who reject the driving ban say that it is simply not supported by the Quran. They also contend that the ban causes a financial burden on families because women are forced to spend a great deal of money on taxis to get around. In fact, the average woman spends almost 40% of her income on taxis (Setrakian). They also say that the ban impedes the education and employment of women since they have no way of getting to school or work.

Those who are opposed to the driving ban say that it also forces women to “rely on foreign chauffeurs, entrusting them with their children’s safety, and bars women from driving to the hospital in an emergency. Those voices against lifting the ban argue that chaos will overcome the roads, that men will harass solo females, that a stronger public transportation system is the right remedy for low-income women” (Setrakian, 2011). Opposers also say that men will harass solo women drivers and that a stronger public transportation system is the right solution for women.

To strengthen both sides of the argument regarding women driving in Saudi Arabia, debaters have relied on the use of language to strengthen their opinion on the matter. The theories of language that Kenneth Burke explains in “Terministic Screens” from Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature and Method can be used to analyze the language associated with the debate on women driving in Saudi Arabia. One of the theories of language that Burke presents is the two approaches to language, the scientific and the dramatic approaches. Burke stresses that these two approaches can overlap each other considerably, but they are very different indeed.

According to Burke, “the quickest way to indicate the differences of direction might be by this formula: “The ‘scientific’ approach builds the edifice of language with primary stress upon a proposition such as ‘It is, or it is not’” (Burke 44). He states that the dramatic approach to language puts the primary stress upon such hortatory expressions as ‘thou shalt, or thou shalt not” (Burke 44). Burke also says that the scientific approach to language is associated with symbolic logic as opposed to the dramatic approach which gets support from theologies and mythologies.

What Burke is saying is that the scientific approach to language involves facts and things that can ultimately be proved. Those who are against the ban on women driving in Saudi Arabia could argue that Burke’s scientific approach to language is used in expressing any opposition. In other words, they contend that it is simply wrong for many logical reasons. The dramatic approach to the issue involves the idea that driving is wrong for women under The Quran and that it is against the religion of Muslims.

People who are against Saudi Arabian women drivers use the Quran and terminology in it to support their reasoning for their opposition. Under Burke’s theory, the religious terminology used to show why women should not be allowed to drive is an example of a theological terminology of motives. Instead of the word “God,” they use Allah to confirm their argument.

The language approach of continuity/discontinuity is used to persuade people to believe that women driving in Saudi Arabia is a bad thing. According to Burke, this technique is used quite frequently in politics:

But often such divisiveness (or discontinuity) can be healed when the warring factions join in a common cause against an alien enemy (the division elsewhere thus serving to reestablish the principle of continuity at home). It should be apparent how either situation sets up the conditions for its particular kind of scapegoat, as a device that unifies all those who share the same enemy. (Burke 51)

In the driving debate, it appears that those who are for the ban want everyone to band together and bash women in the country of Saudi Arabia. By using words such as “khalwa” (illegal mixing with a non-mahram man) and referring to women drivers as “harlots,” women appear to be undeserving of driving rights even if they simply want to drive in order to get an education or make money for their family. The language used by those who are for the driving ban makes women appear cheap, useless, and untrustworthy.

Interestingly, Saudi Arabia actually does not have a written ban on women driving. However, the law requires that citizens use a locally issued license while in Saudi Arabia. The irony is that these licenses are not issued to women. This inevitably makes it illegal for women to drive. It seems that the language used in the debate is not the only thing that is used in an attempt to persuade people to be against women drivers in the country; the circular argument of the law makes it impossible for the ban to even make any sense to the average person.

The language used by those who are against female drivers supports the notion of the divided nation in terms of Saudi men and women. While religious beliefs are the scapegoat for the way that women are treated in the country, the underlying issue is that women are regarded as second-class citizens. It has nothing to do with the fact that they may overcrowd the streets or talk to men. The issue has to do with trust. The women are simply not trusted by men to be able to drive. The society is deeply divided by sexism, and the language used to support the beliefs that women worth half as much as men enforce the argument even more.

The phrases that are used to describe Saudi Arabian women invoke a passionate response from those who believe that women are beneath men. Phrases like “women drivers are evil” and “women driving will lead to gender segregation” also scapegoat phrases to convey division and instill fear in those who stand up for women drivers.

The debate over whether or not women in Saudi Arabia should be allowed to drive continues to this very day. It is possible that part of the reason for this stagnation in a permanent decision to lift the ban is due to the language that is used in the debate. When people can acknowledge that the use of polarizing language is the reason for the ongoing debate, perhaps the issue can finally be resolved for Saudi women.

Works Cited

Ambah, Faiza Saleh. "Saudi Women See a Brighter Road on Rights." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 31 Jan. 2008. Web. 5 Dec. 2013. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013003805.html>.

Burke, Kenneth. "Terministic Screens." Language as symbolic action: essays on life, literature, and method. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966. 45-62. Print.

Setrakian, Lara. "Saudi Women Driving Engine of Change." ABC News. ABC News Network, 13 June 2011. Web. 5 Dec. 2013. <http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/06/saudi-women-driving-engine-of-change-in-conservative-kingdom/>.

"TheReligionofPeace - Islam: A Woman is Worth Less than a Man." TheReligionofPeace - Islam: A Woman is Worth Less than a Man. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Dec. 2013. <http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/010-women-worth-less.htm>.