Commentary
The one-year anniversary of the July 22 massacre of 77 people near Oslo is a grim reminder of how deadly the consequences of a decade of polarised public debate over identity can be, even in a small, wealthy country such as Norway. Only hours before he began his killings, Anders Breivik published online a 1,500-page manifesto titled “2083: A European Declaration of Independence”. As many commentators have observed, Breivik did not dream up the philosophy presented in his manifesto. One can easily piece it together from the hundreds of right-wing and Islamophobic forums that have sprung up online in the past 10 years. At the risk of oversimplifying things, three basic arguments can be identified, all relevant to deep-seated fears regarding Europe’s identity. While most visible in the radical-right discourse, these three arguments also have entered the broader public debate about Europe and Islam.
First, an apocalyptic scenario is presented: Europe will lose its identity and turn into “Eurabia,” because of a supposed demographic conquest devised by Arab and Turkish immigrants. In this view, Europe is perceived as the defender of faith and civilisation. The Middle Ages are back again. In a second strand, Islam is denounced as “Islamofascism”, with no distinction between Islam and its radical aberrations. In a third setting, resentments are directed not only at Muslim minorities but also at liberal elites who stand accused of betraying their countries, their histories and their cultures. As Ian Buruma observed in a May 2012 commentary for the online magazine Reset-DoC:
“Now the language of these resentments against elites is partly the language of betrayal – ‘the elites have betrayed us, they have taken our country away from us’ – and partly, Europe being Europe and recent history being recent history, the resentments are still fought out in the terminology of World War II, which is why so often these discussions degenerate into finger pointing about appeasers, ‘islamo-fascists’, cowards versus resistants.”
This combination of deep-seated fear, historical trauma, xenophobic tradition and knee-jerk reaction against elitism and globalisation is preventing rational discourses about the underlying social, economic and political problems that affect European immigration societies. The result is a constant tension within European societies. Some see the liberal order and values created in post-war European societies as under threat from a largely undefined Muslim community. Immigrants – regardless of their origins, social status, political or religious beliefs – are collectively labelled “Muslims”, in turn generating a discourse that lumps together religion and culture. Even if debates are often more sophisticated than they appear to be (many media outlets in many European countries are better than their reputation suggests), immigrants see themselves as confronted with a new ethnic and xenophobic discourse – drummed up and exploited by populist parties and politicians.
To create a more-inclusive Europe, where fears of and stereotypes about immigrants and non-white people are reduced to a minimum, the reshaping of public debate is of central importance.
How is it possible to move beyond this messy ideological state of affairs? There is no general recipe. Xenophobia never will be stamped out for good, I am afraid. And the special European blend of traumas, fears and myths will serve as a source not to be exhausted any time soon. However, we have to do our utmost to create a Europe where the racist discourses that fuelled the hatred of Andreas Breivik do not have any room to be issued and heard. To create a more-inclusive Europe, where fears of and stereotypes about immigrants and non-white people are reduced to a minimum, the reshaping of public debate is of central importance. Here is what I propose.
In Germany, I sometimes wonder why many of my friends from Turkey, Lebanon, Iran and Morocco are conveyed in the public discourse as “Muslims” and only Muslims. Quite a few of them have not seen the inside of a mosque for years.
First, we need to stop the “islamisation” of the discourse on integration and the ongoing practice of labelling immigrants from Morocco, Iran or Turkey as “Muslims”. This leads to a simplified perception of societal issues – one that is seductive but dangerous. We have to differentiate between religious, social, educational and economic issues in order to find pragmatic and practical solutions.
In Germany, I sometimes wonder why many of my friends from Turkey, Lebanon, Iran and Morocco are conveyed in the public discourse as “Muslims” and only Muslims. Quite a few of them have not seen the inside of a mosque for years. Other friends of mine refer to themselves as believers and observe ceremonies such as Ramadan, but instead of “Muslims”, they prefer to be addressed as German citizens. Government programs, conferences and seminars have reached out to Germany’s Muslim population for years now – normally with the intention to facilitate their integration into German society and recognise their rights of religious freedom. But as an unintended side effect, this outreach has created the impression that people of Turkish or Arab origin have to be defined and addressed without exception as devout followers of Islam. We can safely assume that this culturist discourse – even if it is meant to defend Muslims and their cultural rights – is very alive in programs and discourses of the European Commission as well.
Second, once the European white majority has recognised that people with a migration background are a group as heterogeneous as it is, we need to work for a much more-open attitude in this often-messy discourse on immigration. We need to dismiss politically correct impulses and acknowledge that there are anxieties in our societies concerning the immigration of non-European people. Together with the people who are confronted with the negative reactions engendered by these fears, we need to find a way of communication through which everybody can feel involved. We need to, as the late US author David Foster Wallace once said, “be just a little less arrogant.” He wanted to “have just a little critical awareness about myself and my certainties,” because, he said, “a huge percentage of the stuff that I tend to be automatically certain of is, it turns out, totally wrong and deluded.” This is true for our own individual perception of issues and certainties in the discourse about Islam in Europe.
At the same time, there are without question social, economic and – yes – cultural issues that result from large numbers of immigrants. Thirty to 40 years ago, Germany invited “guest workers” from Turkey and Morocco who have since settled into European societies. Immigrants and their families normally were forced to settle in the socially-disadvantaged districts of European cities, such as the Neukölln area in Berlin. In these districts, the indigenous populations normally had little knowledge of the cultural and ethnic backgrounds of their new neighbours. Communication and living together often was – and still is – not easy. Minor issues like loud noise or strange smells can bring about resentment and even conflict. Even more problematic is the process of social and ethnic re-homogenisation in these districts as the better-off inhabitants (including immigrants who manage to move up the socio-economic ladder) eventually go to other parts of town, leaving the more-recent comers mostly among themselves. Lasting social problems in these troubled areas, such as unemployment and low-level education, may then lead to new prejudices that can exclude a whole generation of youngsters living in the particular parts of town. Sermons and campaigns against xenophobia and racism do little to improve these situations. Rather, they may reinforce the “victimisation” of people, who may in fact ignore or resist such programs.
My third proposal comes from the renowned political theorist Benjamin Barber, who has written that multiculturalism has “put a tremendous strain not just on liberal tolerance, but also on democracy itself and its capacity to reach a peaceful resolution around differences.” I strongly endorse Barber’s plea to create a “European civic religion”, the notion that common secular and civic beliefs can bind the people of Europe together.
To sum up, nothing less than a new narrative for the European project is needed, based on the acknowledgement and endorsement of our differences. Immensely important for this narrative will be the voices of the younger generation, which are more and more comfortable with diversity. The content of this narrative will have to be negotiated on platforms – best provided by civil society and agencies for citizenship education. As a result, a more-open European identity will emerge, and it should be more welcome to people from Turkey, Tunisia and Morocco, allowing them not only to have a European passport but also to feel like European citizens.
Tags:
Commentary
European Identity Vis-à-Vis the Challenge of Islam and Immigration
Commentary
The one-year anniversary of the July 22 massacre of 77 people near Oslo is a grim reminder of how deadly the consequences of a decade of polarised public debate over identity can be, even in a small, wealthy country such as Norway. Only hours before he began his killings, Anders Breivik published online a 1,500-page manifesto titled “2083: A European Declaration of Independence”. As many commentators have observed, Breivik did not dream up the philosophy presented in his manifesto. One can easily piece it together from the hundreds of right-wing and Islamophobic forums that have sprung up online in the past 10 years. At the risk of oversimplifying things, three basic arguments can be identified, all relevant to deep-seated fears regarding Europe’s identity. While most visible in the radical-right discourse, these three arguments also have entered the broader public debate about Europe and Islam.
First, an apocalyptic scenario is presented: Europe will lose its identity and turn into “Eurabia,” because of a supposed demographic conquest devised by Arab and Turkish immigrants. In this view, Europe is perceived as the defender of faith and civilisation. The Middle Ages are back again. In a second strand, Islam is denounced as “Islamofascism”, with no distinction between Islam and its radical aberrations. In a third setting, resentments are directed not only at Muslim minorities but also at liberal elites who stand accused of betraying their countries, their histories and their cultures. As Ian Buruma observed in a May 2012 commentary for the online magazine Reset-DoC:
“Now the language of these resentments against elites is partly the language of betrayal – ‘the elites have betrayed us, they have taken our country away from us’ – and partly, Europe being Europe and recent history being recent history, the resentments are still fought out in the terminology of World War II, which is why so often these discussions degenerate into finger pointing about appeasers, ‘islamo-fascists’, cowards versus resistants.”
This combination of deep-seated fear, historical trauma, xenophobic tradition and knee-jerk reaction against elitism and globalisation is preventing rational discourses about the underlying social, economic and political problems that affect European immigration societies. The result is a constant tension within European societies. Some see the liberal order and values created in post-war European societies as under threat from a largely undefined Muslim community. Immigrants – regardless of their origins, social status, political or religious beliefs – are collectively labelled “Muslims”, in turn generating a discourse that lumps together religion and culture. Even if debates are often more sophisticated than they appear to be (many media outlets in many European countries are better than their reputation suggests), immigrants see themselves as confronted with a new ethnic and xenophobic discourse – drummed up and exploited by populist parties and politicians.
To create a more-inclusive Europe, where fears of and stereotypes about immigrants and non-white people are reduced to a minimum, the reshaping of public debate is of central importance.
How is it possible to move beyond this messy ideological state of affairs? There is no general recipe. Xenophobia never will be stamped out for good, I am afraid. And the special European blend of traumas, fears and myths will serve as a source not to be exhausted any time soon. However, we have to do our utmost to create a Europe where the racist discourses that fuelled the hatred of Andreas Breivik do not have any room to be issued and heard. To create a more-inclusive Europe, where fears of and stereotypes about immigrants and non-white people are reduced to a minimum, the reshaping of public debate is of central importance. Here is what I propose.
In Germany, I sometimes wonder why many of my friends from Turkey, Lebanon, Iran and Morocco are conveyed in the public discourse as “Muslims” and only Muslims. Quite a few of them have not seen the inside of a mosque for years.
First, we need to stop the “islamisation” of the discourse on integration and the ongoing practice of labelling immigrants from Morocco, Iran or Turkey as “Muslims”. This leads to a simplified perception of societal issues – one that is seductive but dangerous. We have to differentiate between religious, social, educational and economic issues in order to find pragmatic and practical solutions.
In Germany, I sometimes wonder why many of my friends from Turkey, Lebanon, Iran and Morocco are conveyed in the public discourse as “Muslims” and only Muslims. Quite a few of them have not seen the inside of a mosque for years. Other friends of mine refer to themselves as believers and observe ceremonies such as Ramadan, but instead of “Muslims”, they prefer to be addressed as German citizens. Government programs, conferences and seminars have reached out to Germany’s Muslim population for years now – normally with the intention to facilitate their integration into German society and recognise their rights of religious freedom. But as an unintended side effect, this outreach has created the impression that people of Turkish or Arab origin have to be defined and addressed without exception as devout followers of Islam. We can safely assume that this culturist discourse – even if it is meant to defend Muslims and their cultural rights – is very alive in programs and discourses of the European Commission as well.
Second, once the European white majority has recognised that people with a migration background are a group as heterogeneous as it is, we need to work for a much more-open attitude in this often-messy discourse on immigration. We need to dismiss politically correct impulses and acknowledge that there are anxieties in our societies concerning the immigration of non-European people. Together with the people who are confronted with the negative reactions engendered by these fears, we need to find a way of communication through which everybody can feel involved. We need to, as the late US author David Foster Wallace once said, “be just a little less arrogant.” He wanted to “have just a little critical awareness about myself and my certainties,” because, he said, “a huge percentage of the stuff that I tend to be automatically certain of is, it turns out, totally wrong and deluded.” This is true for our own individual perception of issues and certainties in the discourse about Islam in Europe.
At the same time, there are without question social, economic and – yes – cultural issues that result from large numbers of immigrants. Thirty to 40 years ago, Germany invited “guest workers” from Turkey and Morocco who have since settled into European societies. Immigrants and their families normally were forced to settle in the socially-disadvantaged districts of European cities, such as the Neukölln area in Berlin. In these districts, the indigenous populations normally had little knowledge of the cultural and ethnic backgrounds of their new neighbours. Communication and living together often was – and still is – not easy. Minor issues like loud noise or strange smells can bring about resentment and even conflict. Even more problematic is the process of social and ethnic re-homogenisation in these districts as the better-off inhabitants (including immigrants who manage to move up the socio-economic ladder) eventually go to other parts of town, leaving the more-recent comers mostly among themselves. Lasting social problems in these troubled areas, such as unemployment and low-level education, may then lead to new prejudices that can exclude a whole generation of youngsters living in the particular parts of town. Sermons and campaigns against xenophobia and racism do little to improve these situations. Rather, they may reinforce the “victimisation” of people, who may in fact ignore or resist such programs.
My third proposal comes from the renowned political theorist Benjamin Barber, who has written that multiculturalism has “put a tremendous strain not just on liberal tolerance, but also on democracy itself and its capacity to reach a peaceful resolution around differences.” I strongly endorse Barber’s plea to create a “European civic religion”, the notion that common secular and civic beliefs can bind the people of Europe together.
To sum up, nothing less than a new narrative for the European project is needed, based on the acknowledgement and endorsement of our differences. Immensely important for this narrative will be the voices of the younger generation, which are more and more comfortable with diversity. The content of this narrative will have to be negotiated on platforms – best provided by civil society and agencies for citizenship education. As a result, a more-open European identity will emerge, and it should be more welcome to people from Turkey, Tunisia and Morocco, allowing them not only to have a European passport but also to feel like European citizens.
Tags: Commentary