Stereotypes are at times representative of reality as well as misleading at times. In both circumstances, it holds an intimate relationship with the real and serves the purpose of communication. But neither representation nor misperception can encompass the plural aspects of the real. It only leads us to conclude our reading(s) in a very shallow manner. Though stereotypes homogenises multiplicities involved in human beings, e.g. many understand Islam as one, at the same time various other stereotypes that are culturally situated in different locations can be used to defy the overarching hegemonic stereotype about Islam. For example, there is a stereotype in India that Muslims eat beef. Surely, they do just as many others do, including certain castes/sections of Hindu community who eat beef. At the same time, cow is a sacred animal in the country where a specific hegemonic religious ideology opposes beef eating. This opposition can only be relevant if there is a community, whose presence is visible, that allows beef eating as legitimate practice. This brings Muslims into confrontation with the hegemonic religious ideology of Hindus that helps in carving out a space for such stereotypes. But this stereotype – ‘beef eating Muslims’ – may not necessarily be attached with Islamic population in Europe. Hence, stereotypes may differ with variations in cultural interactions.
Stereotypes are also the outcome of a process in which agency is denied to the community, or individual, or both, on which such stereotypes are applied. My hypothesis suggests that much of the urge felt towards a dialogue emanates from a quest of such subjects to regain agency, to carve out a legitimate space for its expression, which it considers rightful. Such stereotyping leads to a situation where the presence of the Muslim is characterised by a subcutaneous, subversive undertone or sudden ruptures, all of which seem meaningful with reference to such an urge to regain agency where migrant community, perhaps, clung to its identity as a political posing out of a threat perception. But to treat the subject as such would be talking only about its outer faith where as there is also the question of inner faith, which is equally vexed and, probably, inaccessible to the European public as well as to an analysing observer. A search for the traces of the way these meanings are configured would begin in the way the socio-economic location of the various populations following Islam came to happen. What were the ways Islam was articulated in the lives of migrants from the earliest times? A study of the nature of institutions not restricted merely to the institutions claiming to be overtly ‘Islamic’ or conceived along the lines of the stereotype would be a key means. The challenge is thus to discover a process of internal disputation and resolution where the tension between an Islam that seeks to react to this situation through a permanent hostility and one which seeks merely the clarification of stereotypes which is directed towards the European citizen state. The relationship of stereotypes with the agents of dialogue is thus a broad frame in the context of existence in a citizen state.
Stereotypes are also the outcome of a process in which agency is denied to the community, or individual, or both, on which such stereotypes are applied. My hypothesis suggests that much of the urge felt towards a dialogue emanates from a quest of such subjects to regain agency, to carve out a legitimate space for its expression, which it considers rightful. Such stereotyping leads to a situation where the presence of the Muslim is characterised by a subcutaneous, subversive undertone or sudden ruptures, all of which seem meaningful with reference to such an urge to regain agency where migrant community, perhaps, clung to its identity as a political posing out of a threat perception. But to treat the subject as such would be talking only about its outer faith where as there is also the question of inner faith, which is equally vexed and, probably, inaccessible to the European public as well as to an analysing observer. A search for the traces of the way these meanings are configured would begin in the way the socio-economic location of the various populations following Islam came to happen. What were the ways Islam was articulated in the lives of migrants from the earliest times? A study of the nature of institutions not restricted merely to the institutions claiming to be overtly ‘Islamic’ or conceived along the lines of the stereotype would be a key means. The challenge is thus to discover a process of internal disputation and resolution where the tension between an Islam that seeks to react to this situation through a permanent hostility and one which seeks merely the clarification of stereotypes which is directed towards the European citizen state. The relationship of stereotypes with the agents of dialogue is thus a broad frame in the context of existence in a citizen state.
In the context of Europe, does this generate a completely novel structure in terms of continuities of cultural existence? Though Muslim population in Europe is public from outside, but when Islam came to Indonesia, it became Indonesian Islam; when it spread over to Africa it became African Islam; and when it entered South Asia, it became south Asian Islam. Is there anything called Euro-Islam? Or is it just a diasporic manifestation of different Islams that we have in Europe? The answer to this query can only lie in an understanding that sees the ways in which the continuous presence of Islamic society as an immigrant society has been possible in Europe. This perspective differs from a solution that identifies the occurrence of terrorism as the beginning of its quest. This means trying to understand how Islam is an agency of communication between immigrants functioned in terms of location in the new circumstance of Europe. The dynamics of location that is intimately associated with colonial designs and power politics of the 19th century came to be reflected in the conception of Islam as an agency. This is a realm where Islam is a means of translation, or a means through which mediation with the ‘other’ faced in the context of everyday life is addressed. Here actions are representative of their participation in the public of the ‘other’. The clearer understanding of Islam hence will be determined by developments of these indicators and through the dialogic praxis between the Europe and the Islamic population.
Any dialogue happens only when there is a difference – of opinion, values, interests, or any kind. Sameness cannot create the ground for dialogue. What is this dialogue all about? Apart from simply an effort aiming at conflict resolution, i.e. at times seen as an alternative to war, it also means resolving certain differences, or arriving at certain consensus to make peace on new grounds to build bridges between different cultures through inter-cultural understanding that is based on ethical, religious, and political issues in order to identify both the differences and mutual interests of all parties concerned as they can share an intellectual history, morality and values affecting one another. Does this cross-cultural approach of bridging the gaps lead to, or search for, establishing an international morality. And what morality is that? Equally damaging for dialogue is to limit it in geographical terms e.g. the Middle East region as is often associated with Islam. Where as the largest numbers of Muslims live in South and Southeast Asia, where innovative solutions for the above-mentioned problems have been developed which can certainly be a site for learning how Islam(s) negotiate(s) its space from the ‘other’. At the same time, we have to acknowledge the fact that Islam, as a political, religious, or cultural phenomenon, is very diverse. Tibi holds the view that Islam is not solely a religion but also a civilization, a very specific civilizational awareness, where Muslims share certain basics – of Islamic history and morality. Having a civilizational self-awareness is what distinguishes them from others. I am not too sure about this claim but one can certainly say that there are moments when one identifies with Islamic identity and at the same time one can differ from this and take refuge in other identity – for example, regional, sectarian or caste identity as it works in South Asia – that is equally ascribed in the citizens of the state. In South Asian context, the creation of Bangladesh can be seen on these lines as demand for separation or assertion of difference cannot belong to the sameness.
The study of dialogue is thus primarily as moment of silent communication where the meanings of the actions can be derived from the context in which they were enacted. Seen from a historical perspective the way in which Islamists were associated with radical politics in France in the mid 20th century or the way Muslims came to occupy a cultural space in the configuration of the late 20th century German nation are the sort of broad areas where the location of institutions and personalities as the constituents of cultural intercourse can be understood in their moments of action. Such ‘events’ are remembered usually as markers in the everyday presence even as topics of conversation in gatherings. The phenomenon of gathering is a common phenomenon with a formalised characteristic that enables it to represent an occasion when a collective is required. This makes its form a significant means through which the everyday life of an immigrant is constituted. The location of these as the sites of dialogue can reveal important insights into the understanding the continuities of existence as an immigrant.
In Europe, the image of Islam is increasingly being characterised by negative clichés, at the same time widespread distorted images of the West and its ‘imperialist interest’ have experienced a revival in the Muslim societies where they favour anti-Western ways of thinking and acting. In both cases, the ‘other’ culture is seen as monolithic enemy. So there are perceptions and misperceptions about the other, but the way the observer perceives it can surely differ. Stereotyping of the image of Islam, in popular international media, is not a post 9/11 phenomenon. In fact, Iranian Revolution, Gulf War and Rushdie Affair are three major events that occurred in the contemporary history of international media, which concerned both Muslim and non-Muslim world. These events, together with 9/11 and subsequent terrorist attacks elsewhere, led to a direct impact of stereotyping, generalization, and oversimplification, where Muslims became the targets and the victims of ‘guilt’ by associating to these stereotypes. Muslims in Europe usually claim that Islamic traditions are portrayed without adequate consideration of historic truths or Muslim sensibilities.
Any dialogue happens only when there is a difference – of opinion, values, interests, or any kind. Sameness cannot create the ground for dialogue. What is this dialogue all about? Apart from simply an effort aiming at conflict resolution, i.e. at times seen as an alternative to war, it also means resolving certain differences, or arriving at certain consensus to make peace on new grounds to build bridges between different cultures through inter-cultural understanding that is based on ethical, religious, and political issues in order to identify both the differences and mutual interests of all parties concerned as they can share an intellectual history, morality and values affecting one another. Does this cross-cultural approach of bridging the gaps lead to, or search for, establishing an international morality. And what morality is that? Equally damaging for dialogue is to limit it in geographical terms e.g. the Middle East region as is often associated with Islam. Where as the largest numbers of Muslims live in South and Southeast Asia, where innovative solutions for the above-mentioned problems have been developed which can certainly be a site for learning how Islam(s) negotiate(s) its space from the ‘other’. At the same time, we have to acknowledge the fact that Islam, as a political, religious, or cultural phenomenon, is very diverse. Tibi holds the view that Islam is not solely a religion but also a civilization, a very specific civilizational awareness, where Muslims share certain basics – of Islamic history and morality. Having a civilizational self-awareness is what distinguishes them from others. I am not too sure about this claim but one can certainly say that there are moments when one identifies with Islamic identity and at the same time one can differ from this and take refuge in other identity – for example, regional, sectarian or caste identity as it works in South Asia – that is equally ascribed in the citizens of the state. In South Asian context, the creation of Bangladesh can be seen on these lines as demand for separation or assertion of difference cannot belong to the sameness.
The study of dialogue is thus primarily as moment of silent communication where the meanings of the actions can be derived from the context in which they were enacted. Seen from a historical perspective the way in which Islamists were associated with radical politics in France in the mid 20th century or the way Muslims came to occupy a cultural space in the configuration of the late 20th century German nation are the sort of broad areas where the location of institutions and personalities as the constituents of cultural intercourse can be understood in their moments of action. Such ‘events’ are remembered usually as markers in the everyday presence even as topics of conversation in gatherings. The phenomenon of gathering is a common phenomenon with a formalised characteristic that enables it to represent an occasion when a collective is required. This makes its form a significant means through which the everyday life of an immigrant is constituted. The location of these as the sites of dialogue can reveal important insights into the understanding the continuities of existence as an immigrant.
In Europe, the image of Islam is increasingly being characterised by negative clichés, at the same time widespread distorted images of the West and its ‘imperialist interest’ have experienced a revival in the Muslim societies where they favour anti-Western ways of thinking and acting. In both cases, the ‘other’ culture is seen as monolithic enemy. So there are perceptions and misperceptions about the other, but the way the observer perceives it can surely differ. Stereotyping of the image of Islam, in popular international media, is not a post 9/11 phenomenon. In fact, Iranian Revolution, Gulf War and Rushdie Affair are three major events that occurred in the contemporary history of international media, which concerned both Muslim and non-Muslim world. These events, together with 9/11 and subsequent terrorist attacks elsewhere, led to a direct impact of stereotyping, generalization, and oversimplification, where Muslims became the targets and the victims of ‘guilt’ by associating to these stereotypes. Muslims in Europe usually claim that Islamic traditions are portrayed without adequate consideration of historic truths or Muslim sensibilities.
The above article comes out from my research on 'Stereotypes and Agents of Dialogue(s) with Islam(s) in Europe'. The research was carried out during Nov. 2005 to Feb. 2006 at Islamwissenschaft, Universität Erfurt, Germany.
Comments