Politics, Power &
Resistance
Week 6: A Clash of Civilizations?
A/Prof Alana Lentin
a.lentin@uws.edu.au
Tuesday, 1 April 14
Overview
The uses of ideology
The clash of civilizations
‘With us or with the terrorists’
Liberals and fundamentalists
Too...
Ideology
Tuesday, 1 April 14
Origins
•Coined by Antoine de Stutt Tracy (1796)
•Enlightenment rationality against metaphysi...
Ideology
The origins of
ideology
Tuesday, 1 April 14
Origins
•Coined by Antoine de Stutt Tracy (1796)
•Enlightenment ratio...
Ideology
The origins of
ideology
Changes in meaning
Tuesday, 1 April 14
Origins
•Coined by Antoine de Stutt Tracy (1796)
•...
Ideology
The origins of
ideology
Changes in meaning
Marxist critiques
Tuesday, 1 April 14
Origins
•Coined by Antoine de St...
Ideology
The origins of
ideology
Changes in meaning
Marxist critiques
Contemporary uses
Tuesday, 1 April 14
Origins
•Coine...
The Clash of
Civilizations
“Huntington is an ideologist, someone who wants to make ‘civilizations’ and
‘identities’ into w...
The Clash of
Civilizations
“Huntington is an ideologist, someone who wants to make ‘civilizations’ and
‘identities’ into w...
‘With us or with the
terrorists’
Tuesday, 1 April 14
1. The post-9/11 world
For many political analysts, and certainly for...
‘With us or with the
terrorists’
The post-9/11 world
Tuesday, 1 April 14
1. The post-9/11 world
For many political analyst...
‘With us or with the
terrorists’
The post-9/11 world
Politics of fear
Tuesday, 1 April 14
1. The post-9/11 world
For many ...
‘With us or with the
terrorists’
The post-9/11 world
Politics of fear
Hearts & minds
Tuesday, 1 April 14
1. The post-9/11 ...
‘With us or with the
terrorists’
The post-9/11 world
Politics of fear
Hearts & minds
State of exception
Tuesday, 1 April 1...
‘With us or with the
terrorists’
The post-9/11 world
Politics of fear
Hearts & minds
State of exception
Tuesday, 1 April 1...
Liberals and
Fundamentalists
“There’s a definite urge - don’t you have it? - to say, ‘The
Muslim community will have to su...
Liberals and
Fundamentalists
“There’s a definite urge - don’t you have it? - to say, ‘The
Muslim community will have to su...
Too Much Diversity
Tuesday, 1 April 14
1. Multicultural crisis
Many of the problems associated with the perceived clash of...
Too Much Diversity
Multicultural
crisis
Tuesday, 1 April 14
1. Multicultural crisis
Many of the problems associated with t...
Too Much Diversity
Multicultural
crisis
The tyranny of
guilt
Tuesday, 1 April 14
1. Multicultural crisis
Many of the probl...
Too Much Diversity
Multicultural
crisis
The tyranny of
guilt
A decaying West
Tuesday, 1 April 14
1. Multicultural crisis
M...
Gender Faultlines
Tuesday, 1 April 14
1. Burqas and bikinis
Time cover of Aisha/Nazia demonstrates how brown/Muslim women’...
Gender Faultlines
Burkas & bikinis
Tuesday, 1 April 14
1. Burqas and bikinis
Time cover of Aisha/Nazia demonstrates how br...
Gender Faultlines
Burkas & bikinis
‘Hijack this,
Fags’
Tuesday, 1 April 14
1. Burqas and bikinis
Time cover of Aisha/Nazia...
Stereotype
Discussion
What are the most common stereotypes
about Middle Eastern / Muslim attitudes
to gender and sexuality...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Politics, Power and resistance Week 6: A Clash of Civilizations?

913

Published on

In the aftermath of the Cold War, at the beginning of the 1990s, American political scientist, Samuel Huntington, published the paper ‘The Clash of Civilizations?’ He predicted that the world would no longer be ideologically divided between liberal democracy and communism, but between incompatible cultural blocks, which he called civilizations. In particular, Huntington saw the Islamic civilization as utterly irreconcilable with ‘Western liberal values’ such as pluralism, individualism and democracy. The idea that value systems are not universal but culturally dictated has become the cornerstone of the new world order, particularly in the aftermath of 9/11. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the more recent NATO bombing of Libya were sold to western populations as struggles for the democratization of regions which posed a threat to the security and freedom of western nations. While the wars and occupations were portrayed as liberatory, domestic policy in post-immigration countries, such as Australia, was reoriented around a less ‘tolerant’ attitude to religious and ethnic minorities, Muslims in particular who were seen as posing a threat within. Against this ideological division of the world into ‘liberal and ‘illiberal’ camps, several theorists have been questioning the supremacy of the idea of secularism, pointing how, far from being open, liberal and tolerant, the rejection of ‘fundamentalism’ is in itself a form of extremism which seeks to impose one vision of the world – the western – upon the majority of the world. The notion that there is a fundamental clash of civilizations is at the heart of many political decisions around war, peace, security, but also education, gender rights, and immigration.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
913
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Politics, Power and resistance Week 6: A Clash of Civilizations?

  1. 1. Politics, Power & Resistance Week 6: A Clash of Civilizations? A/Prof Alana Lentin a.lentin@uws.edu.au Tuesday, 1 April 14
  2. 2. Overview The uses of ideology The clash of civilizations ‘With us or with the terrorists’ Liberals and fundamentalists Too much diversity Gender faultlines Tuesday, 1 April 14
  3. 3. Ideology Tuesday, 1 April 14 Origins •Coined by Antoine de Stutt Tracy (1796) •Enlightenment rationality against metaphysics/theology •Science of Ideas •‘Queen of theories’ - necessary for the development of all other ideas. Changes in meaning •Advocated by secular, republican, liberal thinkers •So becomes associated with political doctrine •Used pejoratively against the radical ideologues •Birth of the notion of competing political stances as ideologies In Marx (The German ideology) •Pejorative against Hegelians •Idealist philosophy unable to bring change •Ideologues = bourgeois liberals •Against intellectuals who use ideas to sustain dominant political and economic order (against working class) •Engels: ‘False consciousness’ - crude distinction between ‘Marxist science’ and ‘bourgeois ideology’ •Lenin: Socialism becomes an ideology battling others Contemporary use The Marxist critique of ideology remains dominant in western thinking. Ideologues are seen as dogmatic individuals, unwilling to take part in rational debate. Things that are taken to be western ‘principles’ such as liberal values, democracy, tolerance, respect for the rule of law etc. are rarely seen as ideological in nature. They are portrayed as neutral and universal and thus opposed to ideologies - dogmas - which are said to be the preserve of dictators and religious fundamentalists. This one-sided view of ideology creates a divide between western and non-western ways of thinking which underpin very different ways of life. The western way of life - seen as free from ideology - is deemed to be more positive because it is seen as free from ideological dogmatism, while non-western ways of life (in particular the Muslim world) is seen as unfree because wedded to strict and unyielding ideological structures dictated by anti- modern religious precepts.
  4. 4. Ideology The origins of ideology Tuesday, 1 April 14 Origins •Coined by Antoine de Stutt Tracy (1796) •Enlightenment rationality against metaphysics/theology •Science of Ideas •‘Queen of theories’ - necessary for the development of all other ideas. Changes in meaning •Advocated by secular, republican, liberal thinkers •So becomes associated with political doctrine •Used pejoratively against the radical ideologues •Birth of the notion of competing political stances as ideologies In Marx (The German ideology) •Pejorative against Hegelians •Idealist philosophy unable to bring change •Ideologues = bourgeois liberals •Against intellectuals who use ideas to sustain dominant political and economic order (against working class) •Engels: ‘False consciousness’ - crude distinction between ‘Marxist science’ and ‘bourgeois ideology’ •Lenin: Socialism becomes an ideology battling others Contemporary use The Marxist critique of ideology remains dominant in western thinking. Ideologues are seen as dogmatic individuals, unwilling to take part in rational debate. Things that are taken to be western ‘principles’ such as liberal values, democracy, tolerance, respect for the rule of law etc. are rarely seen as ideological in nature. They are portrayed as neutral and universal and thus opposed to ideologies - dogmas - which are said to be the preserve of dictators and religious fundamentalists. This one-sided view of ideology creates a divide between western and non-western ways of thinking which underpin very different ways of life. The western way of life - seen as free from ideology - is deemed to be more positive because it is seen as free from ideological dogmatism, while non-western ways of life (in particular the Muslim world) is seen as unfree because wedded to strict and unyielding ideological structures dictated by anti- modern religious precepts.
  5. 5. Ideology The origins of ideology Changes in meaning Tuesday, 1 April 14 Origins •Coined by Antoine de Stutt Tracy (1796) •Enlightenment rationality against metaphysics/theology •Science of Ideas •‘Queen of theories’ - necessary for the development of all other ideas. Changes in meaning •Advocated by secular, republican, liberal thinkers •So becomes associated with political doctrine •Used pejoratively against the radical ideologues •Birth of the notion of competing political stances as ideologies In Marx (The German ideology) •Pejorative against Hegelians •Idealist philosophy unable to bring change •Ideologues = bourgeois liberals •Against intellectuals who use ideas to sustain dominant political and economic order (against working class) •Engels: ‘False consciousness’ - crude distinction between ‘Marxist science’ and ‘bourgeois ideology’ •Lenin: Socialism becomes an ideology battling others Contemporary use The Marxist critique of ideology remains dominant in western thinking. Ideologues are seen as dogmatic individuals, unwilling to take part in rational debate. Things that are taken to be western ‘principles’ such as liberal values, democracy, tolerance, respect for the rule of law etc. are rarely seen as ideological in nature. They are portrayed as neutral and universal and thus opposed to ideologies - dogmas - which are said to be the preserve of dictators and religious fundamentalists. This one-sided view of ideology creates a divide between western and non-western ways of thinking which underpin very different ways of life. The western way of life - seen as free from ideology - is deemed to be more positive because it is seen as free from ideological dogmatism, while non-western ways of life (in particular the Muslim world) is seen as unfree because wedded to strict and unyielding ideological structures dictated by anti- modern religious precepts.
  6. 6. Ideology The origins of ideology Changes in meaning Marxist critiques Tuesday, 1 April 14 Origins •Coined by Antoine de Stutt Tracy (1796) •Enlightenment rationality against metaphysics/theology •Science of Ideas •‘Queen of theories’ - necessary for the development of all other ideas. Changes in meaning •Advocated by secular, republican, liberal thinkers •So becomes associated with political doctrine •Used pejoratively against the radical ideologues •Birth of the notion of competing political stances as ideologies In Marx (The German ideology) •Pejorative against Hegelians •Idealist philosophy unable to bring change •Ideologues = bourgeois liberals •Against intellectuals who use ideas to sustain dominant political and economic order (against working class) •Engels: ‘False consciousness’ - crude distinction between ‘Marxist science’ and ‘bourgeois ideology’ •Lenin: Socialism becomes an ideology battling others Contemporary use The Marxist critique of ideology remains dominant in western thinking. Ideologues are seen as dogmatic individuals, unwilling to take part in rational debate. Things that are taken to be western ‘principles’ such as liberal values, democracy, tolerance, respect for the rule of law etc. are rarely seen as ideological in nature. They are portrayed as neutral and universal and thus opposed to ideologies - dogmas - which are said to be the preserve of dictators and religious fundamentalists. This one-sided view of ideology creates a divide between western and non-western ways of thinking which underpin very different ways of life. The western way of life - seen as free from ideology - is deemed to be more positive because it is seen as free from ideological dogmatism, while non-western ways of life (in particular the Muslim world) is seen as unfree because wedded to strict and unyielding ideological structures dictated by anti- modern religious precepts.
  7. 7. Ideology The origins of ideology Changes in meaning Marxist critiques Contemporary uses Tuesday, 1 April 14 Origins •Coined by Antoine de Stutt Tracy (1796) •Enlightenment rationality against metaphysics/theology •Science of Ideas •‘Queen of theories’ - necessary for the development of all other ideas. Changes in meaning •Advocated by secular, republican, liberal thinkers •So becomes associated with political doctrine •Used pejoratively against the radical ideologues •Birth of the notion of competing political stances as ideologies In Marx (The German ideology) •Pejorative against Hegelians •Idealist philosophy unable to bring change •Ideologues = bourgeois liberals •Against intellectuals who use ideas to sustain dominant political and economic order (against working class) •Engels: ‘False consciousness’ - crude distinction between ‘Marxist science’ and ‘bourgeois ideology’ •Lenin: Socialism becomes an ideology battling others Contemporary use The Marxist critique of ideology remains dominant in western thinking. Ideologues are seen as dogmatic individuals, unwilling to take part in rational debate. Things that are taken to be western ‘principles’ such as liberal values, democracy, tolerance, respect for the rule of law etc. are rarely seen as ideological in nature. They are portrayed as neutral and universal and thus opposed to ideologies - dogmas - which are said to be the preserve of dictators and religious fundamentalists. This one-sided view of ideology creates a divide between western and non-western ways of thinking which underpin very different ways of life. The western way of life - seen as free from ideology - is deemed to be more positive because it is seen as free from ideological dogmatism, while non-western ways of life (in particular the Muslim world) is seen as unfree because wedded to strict and unyielding ideological structures dictated by anti- modern religious precepts.
  8. 8. The Clash of Civilizations “Huntington is an ideologist, someone who wants to make ‘civilizations’ and ‘identities’ into what they are not: shut-down, sealed-off entities that have been purged of the myriad currents and countercurrents that animate human history, and that over centuries have made it possible for that history not only to contain wars of religion and imperial conquest but also to be one of exchange, cross-fertilization and sharing.” Edward Said (2001) Tuesday, 1 April 14 Said critique
  9. 9. The Clash of Civilizations “Huntington is an ideologist, someone who wants to make ‘civilizations’ and ‘identities’ into what they are not: shut-down, sealed-off entities that have been purged of the myriad currents and countercurrents that animate human history, and that over centuries have made it possible for that history not only to contain wars of religion and imperial conquest but also to be one of exchange, cross-fertilization and sharing.” Edward Said (2001) Tuesday, 1 April 14 Said critique
  10. 10. ‘With us or with the terrorists’ Tuesday, 1 April 14 1. The post-9/11 world For many political analysts, and certainly for the dominant political class in the US, the UK and their allies, the world changed forever on the 11th of September 2001. For Samuel Huntington and his followers, the attacks on New York and Washington were proof of the clash of civilizations he had posited in the early 1990s. As Steven Howe points out, the world is actually a less - not more - violent place since 2001. There are less conflicts around the globe and citizens of the UK are in fact less at risk from terrorist attacks than they were in the 1980s and 90s. However, there is a perception that global conflict and insecurity are on the rise. The cataclysmic events of 9/11 have enabled an ideological shift to occur. Due to the nature of the events themselves, but also to the decision to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, there is a global perception that the west is at war with the Muslim world in a clash of civilizations the outcome of which will determine how we all live our lives in the future. As many commentators have observed, the world is not as different post-9/11 as this view would have us think. Many of the policies put in place after 9/11 were in fact continuing a political drive that had already begun in the 1980s and 1990s. The war in Afghanistan, for example, can be seen as a continuation of the war already fought against the Soviets there in the 1980s, with different enemies. The ongoing conflict in the Middle East predates 9/11. What has changed is the reframing of these type of conflicts as a global war (rather than one waged by a few nations) against something called Islam. This view paradoxically accepts the conservative Muslim belief in the ‘umma’ - the single Muslim nation. As Steven Howe puts it, ‘Once upon a time, Britain’s inhabitants included several hundred thousand Pakistanis and Bangladeshis - or people with family origins in these countries - plus smaller but significant communities of Egyptians, Turks, Somalis and many more. Remarkably, they have all vanished in the past decade or so. In the places where they used to live, a completely new set of people has replaced them: people called Muslims. This vast act of ethnic cleansing has happened silently, almost without remark.’ What do you think of this statement? Critical Muslim scholars critique people like Howe for erasing Muslim experience, in particular the internationalism
  11. 11. ‘With us or with the terrorists’ The post-9/11 world Tuesday, 1 April 14 1. The post-9/11 world For many political analysts, and certainly for the dominant political class in the US, the UK and their allies, the world changed forever on the 11th of September 2001. For Samuel Huntington and his followers, the attacks on New York and Washington were proof of the clash of civilizations he had posited in the early 1990s. As Steven Howe points out, the world is actually a less - not more - violent place since 2001. There are less conflicts around the globe and citizens of the UK are in fact less at risk from terrorist attacks than they were in the 1980s and 90s. However, there is a perception that global conflict and insecurity are on the rise. The cataclysmic events of 9/11 have enabled an ideological shift to occur. Due to the nature of the events themselves, but also to the decision to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, there is a global perception that the west is at war with the Muslim world in a clash of civilizations the outcome of which will determine how we all live our lives in the future. As many commentators have observed, the world is not as different post-9/11 as this view would have us think. Many of the policies put in place after 9/11 were in fact continuing a political drive that had already begun in the 1980s and 1990s. The war in Afghanistan, for example, can be seen as a continuation of the war already fought against the Soviets there in the 1980s, with different enemies. The ongoing conflict in the Middle East predates 9/11. What has changed is the reframing of these type of conflicts as a global war (rather than one waged by a few nations) against something called Islam. This view paradoxically accepts the conservative Muslim belief in the ‘umma’ - the single Muslim nation. As Steven Howe puts it, ‘Once upon a time, Britain’s inhabitants included several hundred thousand Pakistanis and Bangladeshis - or people with family origins in these countries - plus smaller but significant communities of Egyptians, Turks, Somalis and many more. Remarkably, they have all vanished in the past decade or so. In the places where they used to live, a completely new set of people has replaced them: people called Muslims. This vast act of ethnic cleansing has happened silently, almost without remark.’ What do you think of this statement? Critical Muslim scholars critique people like Howe for erasing Muslim experience, in particular the internationalism
  12. 12. ‘With us or with the terrorists’ The post-9/11 world Politics of fear Tuesday, 1 April 14 1. The post-9/11 world For many political analysts, and certainly for the dominant political class in the US, the UK and their allies, the world changed forever on the 11th of September 2001. For Samuel Huntington and his followers, the attacks on New York and Washington were proof of the clash of civilizations he had posited in the early 1990s. As Steven Howe points out, the world is actually a less - not more - violent place since 2001. There are less conflicts around the globe and citizens of the UK are in fact less at risk from terrorist attacks than they were in the 1980s and 90s. However, there is a perception that global conflict and insecurity are on the rise. The cataclysmic events of 9/11 have enabled an ideological shift to occur. Due to the nature of the events themselves, but also to the decision to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, there is a global perception that the west is at war with the Muslim world in a clash of civilizations the outcome of which will determine how we all live our lives in the future. As many commentators have observed, the world is not as different post-9/11 as this view would have us think. Many of the policies put in place after 9/11 were in fact continuing a political drive that had already begun in the 1980s and 1990s. The war in Afghanistan, for example, can be seen as a continuation of the war already fought against the Soviets there in the 1980s, with different enemies. The ongoing conflict in the Middle East predates 9/11. What has changed is the reframing of these type of conflicts as a global war (rather than one waged by a few nations) against something called Islam. This view paradoxically accepts the conservative Muslim belief in the ‘umma’ - the single Muslim nation. As Steven Howe puts it, ‘Once upon a time, Britain’s inhabitants included several hundred thousand Pakistanis and Bangladeshis - or people with family origins in these countries - plus smaller but significant communities of Egyptians, Turks, Somalis and many more. Remarkably, they have all vanished in the past decade or so. In the places where they used to live, a completely new set of people has replaced them: people called Muslims. This vast act of ethnic cleansing has happened silently, almost without remark.’ What do you think of this statement? Critical Muslim scholars critique people like Howe for erasing Muslim experience, in particular the internationalism
  13. 13. ‘With us or with the terrorists’ The post-9/11 world Politics of fear Hearts & minds Tuesday, 1 April 14 1. The post-9/11 world For many political analysts, and certainly for the dominant political class in the US, the UK and their allies, the world changed forever on the 11th of September 2001. For Samuel Huntington and his followers, the attacks on New York and Washington were proof of the clash of civilizations he had posited in the early 1990s. As Steven Howe points out, the world is actually a less - not more - violent place since 2001. There are less conflicts around the globe and citizens of the UK are in fact less at risk from terrorist attacks than they were in the 1980s and 90s. However, there is a perception that global conflict and insecurity are on the rise. The cataclysmic events of 9/11 have enabled an ideological shift to occur. Due to the nature of the events themselves, but also to the decision to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, there is a global perception that the west is at war with the Muslim world in a clash of civilizations the outcome of which will determine how we all live our lives in the future. As many commentators have observed, the world is not as different post-9/11 as this view would have us think. Many of the policies put in place after 9/11 were in fact continuing a political drive that had already begun in the 1980s and 1990s. The war in Afghanistan, for example, can be seen as a continuation of the war already fought against the Soviets there in the 1980s, with different enemies. The ongoing conflict in the Middle East predates 9/11. What has changed is the reframing of these type of conflicts as a global war (rather than one waged by a few nations) against something called Islam. This view paradoxically accepts the conservative Muslim belief in the ‘umma’ - the single Muslim nation. As Steven Howe puts it, ‘Once upon a time, Britain’s inhabitants included several hundred thousand Pakistanis and Bangladeshis - or people with family origins in these countries - plus smaller but significant communities of Egyptians, Turks, Somalis and many more. Remarkably, they have all vanished in the past decade or so. In the places where they used to live, a completely new set of people has replaced them: people called Muslims. This vast act of ethnic cleansing has happened silently, almost without remark.’ What do you think of this statement? Critical Muslim scholars critique people like Howe for erasing Muslim experience, in particular the internationalism
  14. 14. ‘With us or with the terrorists’ The post-9/11 world Politics of fear Hearts & minds State of exception Tuesday, 1 April 14 1. The post-9/11 world For many political analysts, and certainly for the dominant political class in the US, the UK and their allies, the world changed forever on the 11th of September 2001. For Samuel Huntington and his followers, the attacks on New York and Washington were proof of the clash of civilizations he had posited in the early 1990s. As Steven Howe points out, the world is actually a less - not more - violent place since 2001. There are less conflicts around the globe and citizens of the UK are in fact less at risk from terrorist attacks than they were in the 1980s and 90s. However, there is a perception that global conflict and insecurity are on the rise. The cataclysmic events of 9/11 have enabled an ideological shift to occur. Due to the nature of the events themselves, but also to the decision to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, there is a global perception that the west is at war with the Muslim world in a clash of civilizations the outcome of which will determine how we all live our lives in the future. As many commentators have observed, the world is not as different post-9/11 as this view would have us think. Many of the policies put in place after 9/11 were in fact continuing a political drive that had already begun in the 1980s and 1990s. The war in Afghanistan, for example, can be seen as a continuation of the war already fought against the Soviets there in the 1980s, with different enemies. The ongoing conflict in the Middle East predates 9/11. What has changed is the reframing of these type of conflicts as a global war (rather than one waged by a few nations) against something called Islam. This view paradoxically accepts the conservative Muslim belief in the ‘umma’ - the single Muslim nation. As Steven Howe puts it, ‘Once upon a time, Britain’s inhabitants included several hundred thousand Pakistanis and Bangladeshis - or people with family origins in these countries - plus smaller but significant communities of Egyptians, Turks, Somalis and many more. Remarkably, they have all vanished in the past decade or so. In the places where they used to live, a completely new set of people has replaced them: people called Muslims. This vast act of ethnic cleansing has happened silently, almost without remark.’ What do you think of this statement? Critical Muslim scholars critique people like Howe for erasing Muslim experience, in particular the internationalism
  15. 15. ‘With us or with the terrorists’ The post-9/11 world Politics of fear Hearts & minds State of exception Tuesday, 1 April 14 1. The post-9/11 world For many political analysts, and certainly for the dominant political class in the US, the UK and their allies, the world changed forever on the 11th of September 2001. For Samuel Huntington and his followers, the attacks on New York and Washington were proof of the clash of civilizations he had posited in the early 1990s. As Steven Howe points out, the world is actually a less - not more - violent place since 2001. There are less conflicts around the globe and citizens of the UK are in fact less at risk from terrorist attacks than they were in the 1980s and 90s. However, there is a perception that global conflict and insecurity are on the rise. The cataclysmic events of 9/11 have enabled an ideological shift to occur. Due to the nature of the events themselves, but also to the decision to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, there is a global perception that the west is at war with the Muslim world in a clash of civilizations the outcome of which will determine how we all live our lives in the future. As many commentators have observed, the world is not as different post-9/11 as this view would have us think. Many of the policies put in place after 9/11 were in fact continuing a political drive that had already begun in the 1980s and 1990s. The war in Afghanistan, for example, can be seen as a continuation of the war already fought against the Soviets there in the 1980s, with different enemies. The ongoing conflict in the Middle East predates 9/11. What has changed is the reframing of these type of conflicts as a global war (rather than one waged by a few nations) against something called Islam. This view paradoxically accepts the conservative Muslim belief in the ‘umma’ - the single Muslim nation. As Steven Howe puts it, ‘Once upon a time, Britain’s inhabitants included several hundred thousand Pakistanis and Bangladeshis - or people with family origins in these countries - plus smaller but significant communities of Egyptians, Turks, Somalis and many more. Remarkably, they have all vanished in the past decade or so. In the places where they used to live, a completely new set of people has replaced them: people called Muslims. This vast act of ethnic cleansing has happened silently, almost without remark.’ What do you think of this statement? Critical Muslim scholars critique people like Howe for erasing Muslim experience, in particular the internationalism
  16. 16. Liberals and Fundamentalists “There’s a definite urge - don’t you have it? - to say, ‘The Muslim community will have to suffer until its gets its house in order’... They hate us for letting our children have sex and take drugs - well, they’ve got to stop their children killing people.” Martin Amis (2006) Tuesday, 1 April 14 The spat between Martin Amis and Terry Eagleton has become emblematic of the ideological framing of the war on terror and the clash of civilizations as a fight for liberty and modernity against unfreedom and a return to what some see as the ‘dark ages’. While, for Martin Amis, suppression of the rights of Muslims is justified because of what he sees as their attack on western values and societies, others such as Eagleton see this as arrogant, racist imperialism. [SHOW INTRO TO I/VIEW] There are two main themes expressed in the Amis-Eagleton argument which are exemplary of the wider ideological debate instigated by the politics of the post 9/11 world. The first relates to the idea of liberty and political liberalism. The second concerns secularism and religion and the question of whether we are living through a post-secular age. This question has led secularists such as Amis, as well as people like Richard Dawkins, to question whether there is a challenge to modernity from religion, in particular Islam. Liberty For many in the West, the rise of political Islam poses a fundamental threat to the values of liberty which are deemed to be uniquely western in origin. Rhetoric about the non-western world, in general, and the Muslim world in particular is filled with references to its lack of individual freedom as opposed to the West. However, while on the one hand, populations of countries such as Iraq under Saddam Hussein or Libya under Col. Gaddafi are portrayed as yearning for western style freedoms, on the other, Muslim/Arab culture (the two are often confused) are often seen as fundamentally unfree. For example, Claudia Aradau notes how “Faced with the looting that the demise of Saddam Hussein triggered in Iraq, the US defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, expressed the challenge of excessive freedom for the rationalities of order and discipline: “Freedom’s untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. . . . They’re also free to live their lives and do wonderful things. And that’s what’s going to happen here.” The approach to the clash of civilizations within European countries in particular focused on the need for liberalism to prevail over what is seen as Muslim illiberalism. Examples of Muslim illiberalism included the veil,
  17. 17. Liberals and Fundamentalists “There’s a definite urge - don’t you have it? - to say, ‘The Muslim community will have to suffer until its gets its house in order’... They hate us for letting our children have sex and take drugs - well, they’ve got to stop their children killing people.” Martin Amis (2006) Tuesday, 1 April 14 The spat between Martin Amis and Terry Eagleton has become emblematic of the ideological framing of the war on terror and the clash of civilizations as a fight for liberty and modernity against unfreedom and a return to what some see as the ‘dark ages’. While, for Martin Amis, suppression of the rights of Muslims is justified because of what he sees as their attack on western values and societies, others such as Eagleton see this as arrogant, racist imperialism. [SHOW INTRO TO I/VIEW] There are two main themes expressed in the Amis-Eagleton argument which are exemplary of the wider ideological debate instigated by the politics of the post 9/11 world. The first relates to the idea of liberty and political liberalism. The second concerns secularism and religion and the question of whether we are living through a post-secular age. This question has led secularists such as Amis, as well as people like Richard Dawkins, to question whether there is a challenge to modernity from religion, in particular Islam. Liberty For many in the West, the rise of political Islam poses a fundamental threat to the values of liberty which are deemed to be uniquely western in origin. Rhetoric about the non-western world, in general, and the Muslim world in particular is filled with references to its lack of individual freedom as opposed to the West. However, while on the one hand, populations of countries such as Iraq under Saddam Hussein or Libya under Col. Gaddafi are portrayed as yearning for western style freedoms, on the other, Muslim/Arab culture (the two are often confused) are often seen as fundamentally unfree. For example, Claudia Aradau notes how “Faced with the looting that the demise of Saddam Hussein triggered in Iraq, the US defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, expressed the challenge of excessive freedom for the rationalities of order and discipline: “Freedom’s untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. . . . They’re also free to live their lives and do wonderful things. And that’s what’s going to happen here.” The approach to the clash of civilizations within European countries in particular focused on the need for liberalism to prevail over what is seen as Muslim illiberalism. Examples of Muslim illiberalism included the veil,
  18. 18. Too Much Diversity Tuesday, 1 April 14 1. Multicultural crisis Many of the problems associated with the perceived clash of civilizations have been put down to a crisis of multiculturalism in western societies. The notion that multiculturalism has become excessive and overly permissive gained ground in the early 2000s. For example, in a highly influential Prospect magazine article, David Goodhart argued that European immigration societies had become ‘too diverse’, leading to a lack of social solidarity between citizens. He claimed that the welfare state can only function if people recognise their fellow citizens as similar to them; once societies become too diverse, with too many people of immigrant origin, people no longer to participate in a common society as they fear that their taxes will be used to pay for people with whom they have nothing in common. In the same year - 2004 - the head of the then Commission for Racial Equality in the UK, Trevor Philips, claimed that British society was ‘sleepwalking to segregation’ and that a multicultural ideal based on different cultural groups who knew nothing about each other’s way of life was leading Britain down the road of ghettoes and the break-down of society. In reality, Britain has the highest number of people of mixed-heritage in Europe. In 2010, European leaders such as David Cameron and Angela Merkel also spoke out against multiculturalism. Merkel called it an ‘utter failure’ while Cameron spoke of a ‘state doctrine of multiculturalism’ that has enabled radicalisation and terrorism. He said that “we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism.” However, as my latest book reveals, the critique of multiculturalism is not so much an attack on multicultural policies which have been very patchy and still continue in some form or another. In fact, the crisis of multiculturalism is the expression of having a problem with too much culture of the wrong kind. There is a fear that European no longer know their own culture because they have been too open to the cultures of others. In response there has been a renewed emphasis on national values and a crackdown on immigration as well as a focus on integration, both for new migrants and for citizens of European countries from immigrant backgrounds. 2. The tyranny of guilt Several public thinkers have claimed that too much openness, liberality and tolerance to other cultures and ways of life is at the root of the problems with multiculturalism. For example, the French philosopher Pascal Bruckner published a book called ‘The Tyranny of Guilt: an essay on European masochism’ in which he said that European nations have been a victim of their own guilt for colonialism and that this has been responsible for allowing fundamentalist minorities to gain the upper hand, both in Europe and globally. What is needed is an unabashed
  19. 19. Too Much Diversity Multicultural crisis Tuesday, 1 April 14 1. Multicultural crisis Many of the problems associated with the perceived clash of civilizations have been put down to a crisis of multiculturalism in western societies. The notion that multiculturalism has become excessive and overly permissive gained ground in the early 2000s. For example, in a highly influential Prospect magazine article, David Goodhart argued that European immigration societies had become ‘too diverse’, leading to a lack of social solidarity between citizens. He claimed that the welfare state can only function if people recognise their fellow citizens as similar to them; once societies become too diverse, with too many people of immigrant origin, people no longer to participate in a common society as they fear that their taxes will be used to pay for people with whom they have nothing in common. In the same year - 2004 - the head of the then Commission for Racial Equality in the UK, Trevor Philips, claimed that British society was ‘sleepwalking to segregation’ and that a multicultural ideal based on different cultural groups who knew nothing about each other’s way of life was leading Britain down the road of ghettoes and the break-down of society. In reality, Britain has the highest number of people of mixed-heritage in Europe. In 2010, European leaders such as David Cameron and Angela Merkel also spoke out against multiculturalism. Merkel called it an ‘utter failure’ while Cameron spoke of a ‘state doctrine of multiculturalism’ that has enabled radicalisation and terrorism. He said that “we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism.” However, as my latest book reveals, the critique of multiculturalism is not so much an attack on multicultural policies which have been very patchy and still continue in some form or another. In fact, the crisis of multiculturalism is the expression of having a problem with too much culture of the wrong kind. There is a fear that European no longer know their own culture because they have been too open to the cultures of others. In response there has been a renewed emphasis on national values and a crackdown on immigration as well as a focus on integration, both for new migrants and for citizens of European countries from immigrant backgrounds. 2. The tyranny of guilt Several public thinkers have claimed that too much openness, liberality and tolerance to other cultures and ways of life is at the root of the problems with multiculturalism. For example, the French philosopher Pascal Bruckner published a book called ‘The Tyranny of Guilt: an essay on European masochism’ in which he said that European nations have been a victim of their own guilt for colonialism and that this has been responsible for allowing fundamentalist minorities to gain the upper hand, both in Europe and globally. What is needed is an unabashed
  20. 20. Too Much Diversity Multicultural crisis The tyranny of guilt Tuesday, 1 April 14 1. Multicultural crisis Many of the problems associated with the perceived clash of civilizations have been put down to a crisis of multiculturalism in western societies. The notion that multiculturalism has become excessive and overly permissive gained ground in the early 2000s. For example, in a highly influential Prospect magazine article, David Goodhart argued that European immigration societies had become ‘too diverse’, leading to a lack of social solidarity between citizens. He claimed that the welfare state can only function if people recognise their fellow citizens as similar to them; once societies become too diverse, with too many people of immigrant origin, people no longer to participate in a common society as they fear that their taxes will be used to pay for people with whom they have nothing in common. In the same year - 2004 - the head of the then Commission for Racial Equality in the UK, Trevor Philips, claimed that British society was ‘sleepwalking to segregation’ and that a multicultural ideal based on different cultural groups who knew nothing about each other’s way of life was leading Britain down the road of ghettoes and the break-down of society. In reality, Britain has the highest number of people of mixed-heritage in Europe. In 2010, European leaders such as David Cameron and Angela Merkel also spoke out against multiculturalism. Merkel called it an ‘utter failure’ while Cameron spoke of a ‘state doctrine of multiculturalism’ that has enabled radicalisation and terrorism. He said that “we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism.” However, as my latest book reveals, the critique of multiculturalism is not so much an attack on multicultural policies which have been very patchy and still continue in some form or another. In fact, the crisis of multiculturalism is the expression of having a problem with too much culture of the wrong kind. There is a fear that European no longer know their own culture because they have been too open to the cultures of others. In response there has been a renewed emphasis on national values and a crackdown on immigration as well as a focus on integration, both for new migrants and for citizens of European countries from immigrant backgrounds. 2. The tyranny of guilt Several public thinkers have claimed that too much openness, liberality and tolerance to other cultures and ways of life is at the root of the problems with multiculturalism. For example, the French philosopher Pascal Bruckner published a book called ‘The Tyranny of Guilt: an essay on European masochism’ in which he said that European nations have been a victim of their own guilt for colonialism and that this has been responsible for allowing fundamentalist minorities to gain the upper hand, both in Europe and globally. What is needed is an unabashed
  21. 21. Too Much Diversity Multicultural crisis The tyranny of guilt A decaying West Tuesday, 1 April 14 1. Multicultural crisis Many of the problems associated with the perceived clash of civilizations have been put down to a crisis of multiculturalism in western societies. The notion that multiculturalism has become excessive and overly permissive gained ground in the early 2000s. For example, in a highly influential Prospect magazine article, David Goodhart argued that European immigration societies had become ‘too diverse’, leading to a lack of social solidarity between citizens. He claimed that the welfare state can only function if people recognise their fellow citizens as similar to them; once societies become too diverse, with too many people of immigrant origin, people no longer to participate in a common society as they fear that their taxes will be used to pay for people with whom they have nothing in common. In the same year - 2004 - the head of the then Commission for Racial Equality in the UK, Trevor Philips, claimed that British society was ‘sleepwalking to segregation’ and that a multicultural ideal based on different cultural groups who knew nothing about each other’s way of life was leading Britain down the road of ghettoes and the break-down of society. In reality, Britain has the highest number of people of mixed-heritage in Europe. In 2010, European leaders such as David Cameron and Angela Merkel also spoke out against multiculturalism. Merkel called it an ‘utter failure’ while Cameron spoke of a ‘state doctrine of multiculturalism’ that has enabled radicalisation and terrorism. He said that “we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism.” However, as my latest book reveals, the critique of multiculturalism is not so much an attack on multicultural policies which have been very patchy and still continue in some form or another. In fact, the crisis of multiculturalism is the expression of having a problem with too much culture of the wrong kind. There is a fear that European no longer know their own culture because they have been too open to the cultures of others. In response there has been a renewed emphasis on national values and a crackdown on immigration as well as a focus on integration, both for new migrants and for citizens of European countries from immigrant backgrounds. 2. The tyranny of guilt Several public thinkers have claimed that too much openness, liberality and tolerance to other cultures and ways of life is at the root of the problems with multiculturalism. For example, the French philosopher Pascal Bruckner published a book called ‘The Tyranny of Guilt: an essay on European masochism’ in which he said that European nations have been a victim of their own guilt for colonialism and that this has been responsible for allowing fundamentalist minorities to gain the upper hand, both in Europe and globally. What is needed is an unabashed
  22. 22. Gender Faultlines Tuesday, 1 April 14 1. Burqas and bikinis Time cover of Aisha/Nazia demonstrates how brown/Muslim women’s bodies have been used as a battleground in the ideological consensus building post-9/11. War in Afghanistan sold as a war to liberate Afghan women from Taliban although we know their plight is same/ worse today Western focus on honour killings and forced marriages portrays Muslims as diabolic - capable of worse crimes. So calling it honour killing rather than murder sets tis crime apart from other murders giving the impression that domestic violence is more prevalent amongst Muslims while statistically this is not the case. Joan W. Scott refers to the western approach to the treatment of women in Islam as ‘sexularism’. According to Scott, sexularism refers to the way in which secular European or western modernity is seen as leading naturally to sexual liberation and gender equality. However, this denies the fact that gender equality is anything but achieved in western contexts and makes presumptions about the link between the wearing of the veil/burka and women’s subjugation. As Lila Abu-Lughod argues, the increase in veiling in the Arab world in the 1970s and 80s was in fact a symbol of modernisation and independence for many women. Similarly, many women who wear the veil today describe doing so as a sign of their political allegiance and critique of the West’s actions in the Muslim world. This view problematizes the view of the veil/burka as always a symbol of women’s oppression. 2. Hijack this... Sexuality has also been used as a means for dividing between ‘liberal’ and ‘illiberal’ societies. We give in an example in the book (from Lisa Duggan) of mainstream gay organisations who “objected during the invasion of Afghanistan to the publication of an AP photograph of a US warhead emblazoned with the words ‘Hijack this Fags’ not because of opposition to the war but because ‘“the message equates gays with the enemy”’ and dishonours gay servicemen objected during the invasion of Afghanistan to the publication of an AP photograph of a US warhead emblazoned with the words ‘Hijack this Fags’ not because of opposition to the war but because ‘“the message equates gays with the enemy”’ and dishonours gay servicemen.” This is what some theorists such as Jasbir Puar have referred to as ‘homonationalism’ in which homosexuality is normalised in western societies in opposition to non-western ones despite the fact that equality for gays is far from achieved.
  23. 23. Gender Faultlines Burkas & bikinis Tuesday, 1 April 14 1. Burqas and bikinis Time cover of Aisha/Nazia demonstrates how brown/Muslim women’s bodies have been used as a battleground in the ideological consensus building post-9/11. War in Afghanistan sold as a war to liberate Afghan women from Taliban although we know their plight is same/ worse today Western focus on honour killings and forced marriages portrays Muslims as diabolic - capable of worse crimes. So calling it honour killing rather than murder sets tis crime apart from other murders giving the impression that domestic violence is more prevalent amongst Muslims while statistically this is not the case. Joan W. Scott refers to the western approach to the treatment of women in Islam as ‘sexularism’. According to Scott, sexularism refers to the way in which secular European or western modernity is seen as leading naturally to sexual liberation and gender equality. However, this denies the fact that gender equality is anything but achieved in western contexts and makes presumptions about the link between the wearing of the veil/burka and women’s subjugation. As Lila Abu-Lughod argues, the increase in veiling in the Arab world in the 1970s and 80s was in fact a symbol of modernisation and independence for many women. Similarly, many women who wear the veil today describe doing so as a sign of their political allegiance and critique of the West’s actions in the Muslim world. This view problematizes the view of the veil/burka as always a symbol of women’s oppression. 2. Hijack this... Sexuality has also been used as a means for dividing between ‘liberal’ and ‘illiberal’ societies. We give in an example in the book (from Lisa Duggan) of mainstream gay organisations who “objected during the invasion of Afghanistan to the publication of an AP photograph of a US warhead emblazoned with the words ‘Hijack this Fags’ not because of opposition to the war but because ‘“the message equates gays with the enemy”’ and dishonours gay servicemen objected during the invasion of Afghanistan to the publication of an AP photograph of a US warhead emblazoned with the words ‘Hijack this Fags’ not because of opposition to the war but because ‘“the message equates gays with the enemy”’ and dishonours gay servicemen.” This is what some theorists such as Jasbir Puar have referred to as ‘homonationalism’ in which homosexuality is normalised in western societies in opposition to non-western ones despite the fact that equality for gays is far from achieved.
  24. 24. Gender Faultlines Burkas & bikinis ‘Hijack this, Fags’ Tuesday, 1 April 14 1. Burqas and bikinis Time cover of Aisha/Nazia demonstrates how brown/Muslim women’s bodies have been used as a battleground in the ideological consensus building post-9/11. War in Afghanistan sold as a war to liberate Afghan women from Taliban although we know their plight is same/ worse today Western focus on honour killings and forced marriages portrays Muslims as diabolic - capable of worse crimes. So calling it honour killing rather than murder sets tis crime apart from other murders giving the impression that domestic violence is more prevalent amongst Muslims while statistically this is not the case. Joan W. Scott refers to the western approach to the treatment of women in Islam as ‘sexularism’. According to Scott, sexularism refers to the way in which secular European or western modernity is seen as leading naturally to sexual liberation and gender equality. However, this denies the fact that gender equality is anything but achieved in western contexts and makes presumptions about the link between the wearing of the veil/burka and women’s subjugation. As Lila Abu-Lughod argues, the increase in veiling in the Arab world in the 1970s and 80s was in fact a symbol of modernisation and independence for many women. Similarly, many women who wear the veil today describe doing so as a sign of their political allegiance and critique of the West’s actions in the Muslim world. This view problematizes the view of the veil/burka as always a symbol of women’s oppression. 2. Hijack this... Sexuality has also been used as a means for dividing between ‘liberal’ and ‘illiberal’ societies. We give in an example in the book (from Lisa Duggan) of mainstream gay organisations who “objected during the invasion of Afghanistan to the publication of an AP photograph of a US warhead emblazoned with the words ‘Hijack this Fags’ not because of opposition to the war but because ‘“the message equates gays with the enemy”’ and dishonours gay servicemen objected during the invasion of Afghanistan to the publication of an AP photograph of a US warhead emblazoned with the words ‘Hijack this Fags’ not because of opposition to the war but because ‘“the message equates gays with the enemy”’ and dishonours gay servicemen.” This is what some theorists such as Jasbir Puar have referred to as ‘homonationalism’ in which homosexuality is normalised in western societies in opposition to non-western ones despite the fact that equality for gays is far from achieved.
  25. 25. Stereotype Discussion What are the most common stereotypes about Middle Eastern / Muslim attitudes to gender and sexuality? What are the most common stereotypes about women in general? List the differences and similarities between these two sets of stereotypes Tuesday, 1 April 14

×