Socially Mediated Publicness in Networked Society for Indonesian Muslim Women

Abstract

This paper addresses discursive processes that generated 'jilboobs' term. It

Hijabers on Instagram: Using Visual Social Media to Construct the Ideal Muslim Woman

“…In the 1980s, veiling served as a sign of opposition to the authoritarian New Order regime, which was determined to quash the growth of political Islam. But after the Suharto regime relaxed restrictions on political Islam in the 1990s, and as the consumer economy began to expand, notions of consumer choice began to infuse veiling practices, rendering veiling a sign of the individual transformation consumerism makes possible (Beta, 2014, 2016; Bucar, 2016; Jones, 2010, 2017)…”

“…1 The designers employed strategies common to the cultivation of microcelebrity—a global phenomenon in which ordinary people draw on social media affordances to develop popular following among niche audiences, typically using performative strategies that evince an authentic self well within reach of his or her fans (Abidin, 2016; Marwick, 2015; Senft, 2008). They adopted the term hijab to distinguish their style of veiling from practices associated with the jilbab and deemed “improper.” The so-called “ jilbab gaul” (trendy veil), and later “ jilboobs ,” phenomenon, by which women combined jilbab wearing with tight-fitting jeans and tops showing their curves and sometimes their skin—was criticized by Islamic scholars, who deemed it failed to qualify as Islamic dress (Beta, 2016, p. 26). 2 The hijabers’ use of the term hijab worked to differentiate the style from jilbab gaul , but it also worked to mark it with global nuances.…”

“…In the 1980s, veiling served as a sign of opposition to the authoritarian New Order regime, which was determined to quash the growth of political Islam. But after the Suharto regime relaxed restrictions on political Islam in the 1990s, and as the consumer economy began to expand, notions of consumer choice began to infuse veiling practices, rendering veiling a sign of the individual transformation consumerism makes possible (Beta, 2014(Beta, , 2016Bucar, 2016;Jones, 2010Jones, , 2017 In the Indonesian context, then, hijab-wearing needs to be understood as a socially progressive move linked to women's increasing visibility with the expansion of consumer culture, rather than a socially conservative move aimed at preserving long-standing notions of Muslim femininity. As Slama and Barendregt (2018) point out, many young Southeast Asians are opting "to live 'the modern life' religiously and often in ways more orthodox than their parents or grandparents would have done only one or two generations before them" (p. 4).…”

“… 2. Beta (2016), in her analysis of the jilboobs phenomenon, argues that the moral panic about jilboobs overstates its actual prevalence. Similarly, the specter of jilbab gaul perhaps speaks more to male anxieties about women’s sartorial choices, and their impulse to regulate women’s bodies, than it does to the prevalence of jilbab gaul phenomena per se. …”

Hijabers on Instagram: Using Visual Social Media to Construct the Ideal Muslim Woman

“…In the 1980s, veiling served as a sign of opposition to the authoritarian New Order regime, which was determined to quash the growth of political Islam. But after the Suharto regime relaxed restrictions on political Islam in the 1990s, and as the consumer economy began to expand, notions of consumer choice began to infuse veiling practices, rendering veiling a sign of the individual transfor-mation consumerism makes possible (Beta, 2014(Beta, , 2016Bucar, 2016;Jones, 2010Jones, , 2017 In the Indonesian context, then, hijab-wearing needs to be understood as a socially progressive move linked to women's increasing visibility with the expansion of consumer culture, rather than a socially conservative move aimed at preserving long-standing notions of Muslim femininity. As Slama and Barendregt (2018) point out, many young Southeast Asians are opting "to live 'the modern life' religiously and often in ways more orthodox than their parents or grandparents would have done only one or two generations before them" (p. 4).…”