I've been thinking about my last post and the comments made after it for nearly a week now. Instead of responding directly to any one comment, I've been taking some time to consider my reactions to them in hopes of finding a fresh path for this post; a path that would start from the last comment and yet lead to a new place. After something I heard this morning, I think I'm ready to do that.
When writing about people or places, we must be very careful, perhaps extraordinarily so, to avoid relying on one story. This was the message in this morning's talk given by a Nigerian-born writer, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie (available here: http://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story.html). While I would not do her talk justice by recounting its contents here, I think the overall message is a strong one. More than that, it speaks directly to my previous post, some of the comments made after it and the more ambitious goals of my research.
If we rely on only one story of Muslims, several things happen. First we group a huge amount of people into one group; people who come from different countries and cultures, who speak different languages, who practice different customs and who interpret their religion differently (that's a point of importance only because we choose to identify them primarily through their religion insinuating that there is only one Islam, which we know is false). By doing this, we not only rob those individuals of a vast diversity and their very individuality, but we create a false picture. We flatten a multitude of experiences into one all-encompassing vision or story. Second, we write that story negatively. In other words, the one story we develop to define Muslims is one which characterises them as belligerent, intolerant, cruel, irrational, 'fundamentalist' (forgetting that the word 'fundamentalist' actually stems from Christianity to describe a certain branch of Christian believers), illiberal and otherwise barbaric.
To add insult to injury, how many of us even know a person who's Muslim? And if we know some, can we claim to know ALL in a way that would be sufficient to support claims of how Muslims act, what Muslims want or when they should do any of these things? Who do we mean exactly when we talk about Muslims? For those of us who grew up in the US, at least, making such grandiose statements about, say, African-American people would be unthinkable (or at least should be with our awareness of the value of letting others speak for themselves and the detriment that befalls others when they aren't allowed that voice). Why, then, are we so willing to group Muslims together and then to discuss what's wrong with them?
This question leads me to a discussion of media coverage and the hegemonic messaging that it promotes, but I will leave my comments there for a while and leave it all to you.
Friday, 11 December 2009
Friday, 4 December 2009
Shocking intolerance
I've just been reading the comments following a column posted in a local web-based news magazine. There is a Muslim man who writes a weekly column about various topics, generally about the day-to-day living of a Muslim in Britain. It's well written and thought-provoking. His existence, or the contents of his columns, is not what is driving me to write today. It's the comments that follow them.
I've never paid too much attention to comments until I noticed that there were upwards of 200 comments to one 500-word column. It seemed like an excessive amount, especially when I noticed that the column itself wasn't saying too much. It was advocating a stance of engagement with negativity and differing opinions, over a dismissal of them, in order to help quell misinformation and misunderstanding (specifically about Muslims). It seemed a fair and even enough stance to make--no finger pointing, but rather a call for more understanding and discussion. It turns out that the short column was the columnist's extended explanation of a week's prior column, which was met with such a torrent that all comments were taken off the posting and no further ones were allowed. He was writing this week (the one I'm talking about) to apologise for the erasure of so many comments, something over which he had no control, and to take the opportunity to say that he believes that such erasures do nothing to advance deeper understandings or common grounding between people with different ideas, opinions, or notions of the good.
That all seemed healthy and politically positive enough. But the comments (remember I said there were so many) were all manners of venom. Take the following several examples from various posts:
"is...misunderstanding...anything to do with the atrocities committed in the name of Islam, supported by the teachings of Muhammed? Or is it because of the special status you demand as Muslims, special treatment that other people in this country do not receive."
"You claim to want better understanding of your religion and people, and want better integration, yet your people isolate themselves in "communities" like ghettos."
"What we need are Muslims protesting against terrorism, not against cartoons and teddy bears"
First of all, it's a joke to try to insinuate or just blatantly claim that Muslims get anything like 'special treatment' in any western society in which they live. They generally (based on actual statistics of several western European countries) live at the worst socio-economic levels, have the least access to formal education, and must contend with serious prejudice rooted in and fired by associations with terrorism, backwardness and perceptions of being anti-Western.
Second of all, claiming that people 'isolate themselves in communities like ghettos' shows a SERIOUS lack of appreciation for the element of choice absent in the experience of ghettos (and, some might add, Muslims' experience of choosing where and how to live in Britain). Ghettos aren't places where anyone chooses to live, but where people were and are MADE to live based on the majority's discrimination against them. It's practically laughable that a contributor could accuse Muslims of choosing to put themselves into something which is not chosen.
The third comment which claims Muslims aren't being active enough against terrorism not only insinuates their complicity with it, but also suggests a levity to their political and religious concerns, making it seem as though they only get excited over 'child's play' issues (cartoons and teddy bears). This does a great disservice to Muslims, yes, but it does a greater one to the people of Britain as a whole, characterising them as a shining example of the intolerance they seek to ascribe to Muslims.
I'm generally shocked that people have the nerve to post such things, freedom of speech or not. That 'freedom of speech' covers all manners of sin, it seems to me, although I don't mean to suggest we throw it away. Merely that people seem to use is as a crutch to support what can be, essentially, hate speech; ugly, misinformed, ignorant thoughts meant to make other people feel unwelcome. In the same tone as several of these comments were ones which seemed to accuse all Muslims in Britain of not integrating and feeling a part of the society. In light of these daggers, it's no wonder they might struggle to feel a part and yet so many of them do. We should all take a bit more time to feel inspired by that.
I've never paid too much attention to comments until I noticed that there were upwards of 200 comments to one 500-word column. It seemed like an excessive amount, especially when I noticed that the column itself wasn't saying too much. It was advocating a stance of engagement with negativity and differing opinions, over a dismissal of them, in order to help quell misinformation and misunderstanding (specifically about Muslims). It seemed a fair and even enough stance to make--no finger pointing, but rather a call for more understanding and discussion. It turns out that the short column was the columnist's extended explanation of a week's prior column, which was met with such a torrent that all comments were taken off the posting and no further ones were allowed. He was writing this week (the one I'm talking about) to apologise for the erasure of so many comments, something over which he had no control, and to take the opportunity to say that he believes that such erasures do nothing to advance deeper understandings or common grounding between people with different ideas, opinions, or notions of the good.
That all seemed healthy and politically positive enough. But the comments (remember I said there were so many) were all manners of venom. Take the following several examples from various posts:
"is...misunderstanding...anything to do with the atrocities committed in the name of Islam, supported by the teachings of Muhammed? Or is it because of the special status you demand as Muslims, special treatment that other people in this country do not receive."
"You claim to want better understanding of your religion and people, and want better integration, yet your people isolate themselves in "communities" like ghettos."
"What we need are Muslims protesting against terrorism, not against cartoons and teddy bears"
First of all, it's a joke to try to insinuate or just blatantly claim that Muslims get anything like 'special treatment' in any western society in which they live. They generally (based on actual statistics of several western European countries) live at the worst socio-economic levels, have the least access to formal education, and must contend with serious prejudice rooted in and fired by associations with terrorism, backwardness and perceptions of being anti-Western.
Second of all, claiming that people 'isolate themselves in communities like ghettos' shows a SERIOUS lack of appreciation for the element of choice absent in the experience of ghettos (and, some might add, Muslims' experience of choosing where and how to live in Britain). Ghettos aren't places where anyone chooses to live, but where people were and are MADE to live based on the majority's discrimination against them. It's practically laughable that a contributor could accuse Muslims of choosing to put themselves into something which is not chosen.
The third comment which claims Muslims aren't being active enough against terrorism not only insinuates their complicity with it, but also suggests a levity to their political and religious concerns, making it seem as though they only get excited over 'child's play' issues (cartoons and teddy bears). This does a great disservice to Muslims, yes, but it does a greater one to the people of Britain as a whole, characterising them as a shining example of the intolerance they seek to ascribe to Muslims.
I'm generally shocked that people have the nerve to post such things, freedom of speech or not. That 'freedom of speech' covers all manners of sin, it seems to me, although I don't mean to suggest we throw it away. Merely that people seem to use is as a crutch to support what can be, essentially, hate speech; ugly, misinformed, ignorant thoughts meant to make other people feel unwelcome. In the same tone as several of these comments were ones which seemed to accuse all Muslims in Britain of not integrating and feeling a part of the society. In light of these daggers, it's no wonder they might struggle to feel a part and yet so many of them do. We should all take a bit more time to feel inspired by that.
Wednesday, 2 December 2009
Talk about...what?
Admittedly, this 'blogging' thing is harder than I thought. Or, at least, what I'd like to get out of it is harder to get than I thought. Of course, it's easy to sit here and type whatever pops into my head. It's easy to go on in such a one-sided manner...sending words out without any knowledge of how, when or if they'll be received by anyone. Does that really make them public? Or does it make them more like something I've thrown into a bin...
What do YOU want to talk about?
Post a comment and let me know what is interesting to you, what you're thinking about at the moment...
What do YOU want to talk about?
Post a comment and let me know what is interesting to you, what you're thinking about at the moment...
Thursday, 26 November 2009
A slight shift: from theory to practice
So a couple days ago I started this blog to try to encapsulate some of what I'm researching in hopes of gathering input from the world wide web of blog-surfers and browsers. But, its seems rather difficult to generate any sort of interest by sticking to theoretical musings...(not that I won't drift back into them from time to time)...So, after wondering whether I should ditch this blog idea, I've decided to stick with it, but to take a slightly different approach.
I'm going to use it to catalog my research experience. At the very least, I'm hoping that will help other researchers (since we're too often isolated in the midst of our own work) and entertain those who stop by for a browse (believe me, some of what goes on IS actually very funny...or at least odd enough to qualify as funny).
As always, comments are not only welcome, but invited. I'm finding the blog experience to be much too one-sided--so far, it seems like the premise is: I sit here, write out whatever self-indulgent business comes into my head, and then publish it. End of story. (Like a public diary. Yuck! Believe me, NO ONE wants to see the mass of gunk I've piled up over the years in diaries.) Perhaps one or two people make a comment (and for those, I am sincerely grateful), but it's not exactly the sort of grand open forum I'm hoping to encourage.
People talk about the internet as a way of shaping our public conversation (and even our political participation) and I think that, in a way, that is true. It is shaping it by providing another outlet for some sort of communication which is public in the sense that it is no longer reserved for some intimate, personal sphere. Now, instead of calling my Mom to tell her I passed a class or calling my best friend to tell her that I finally tried that 'thing' she was recommending, I can just post it on Facebook...or Twitter...or my blog. In that way, I'm looking at public and private in terms of 'where'. But, some talk about public and private in terms of 'what'--in terms of their contents. There seems no limit to the content of what people will broadcast on the internet, discussing the most intimate of sexual acts up to proclamations for or against world leaders, but if it's broadcast, if it's placed somewhere for all to access, then it's public--it's available to people beyond those the broadcaster may choose and for a length of time no longer in his or her control. Perhaps, then, a key difference between public and private is control?
Well, obviously, this isn't going to be solved during the length of my blog today, nor even over the next two years of my project. Next up: I'm translating my theoretical suppositions into interview questions. That's right! It's time to actually go talk to people to see what they have to say and to see if their words support what I've been writing about in the isolation of my thoughts, my mentors and the academics who've come before me. As always, I'd appreciate interjections, musings and/or arguments from anyone reading. See you soon!
I'm going to use it to catalog my research experience. At the very least, I'm hoping that will help other researchers (since we're too often isolated in the midst of our own work) and entertain those who stop by for a browse (believe me, some of what goes on IS actually very funny...or at least odd enough to qualify as funny).
As always, comments are not only welcome, but invited. I'm finding the blog experience to be much too one-sided--so far, it seems like the premise is: I sit here, write out whatever self-indulgent business comes into my head, and then publish it. End of story. (Like a public diary. Yuck! Believe me, NO ONE wants to see the mass of gunk I've piled up over the years in diaries.) Perhaps one or two people make a comment (and for those, I am sincerely grateful), but it's not exactly the sort of grand open forum I'm hoping to encourage.
People talk about the internet as a way of shaping our public conversation (and even our political participation) and I think that, in a way, that is true. It is shaping it by providing another outlet for some sort of communication which is public in the sense that it is no longer reserved for some intimate, personal sphere. Now, instead of calling my Mom to tell her I passed a class or calling my best friend to tell her that I finally tried that 'thing' she was recommending, I can just post it on Facebook...or Twitter...or my blog. In that way, I'm looking at public and private in terms of 'where'. But, some talk about public and private in terms of 'what'--in terms of their contents. There seems no limit to the content of what people will broadcast on the internet, discussing the most intimate of sexual acts up to proclamations for or against world leaders, but if it's broadcast, if it's placed somewhere for all to access, then it's public--it's available to people beyond those the broadcaster may choose and for a length of time no longer in his or her control. Perhaps, then, a key difference between public and private is control?
Well, obviously, this isn't going to be solved during the length of my blog today, nor even over the next two years of my project. Next up: I'm translating my theoretical suppositions into interview questions. That's right! It's time to actually go talk to people to see what they have to say and to see if their words support what I've been writing about in the isolation of my thoughts, my mentors and the academics who've come before me. As always, I'd appreciate interjections, musings and/or arguments from anyone reading. See you soon!
Wednesday, 25 November 2009
Let's talk...
Welcome.
I've started this space as a way to try to generate a conversation. What do we consider public? What do we consider private? Are 'private' things the same as 'personal' stuff? What's political--can anything be?
I have to be honest and say that I'm in the middle of a PhD for which I'm studying identity as public and/or private. I spend a lot of time reading, writing and theorizing, and soon I'll be interviewing actual people (yey!) about what they think, but there is some doubt as to how much of a 'public space' the internet really can be, so I thought I'd check it out this way--let's call it testing my own assumptions.
Comments are not only welcome, but absolutely necessary. If no one writes, nothing happens because, believe me, I'm not here to go on and on into a silent void :). I want to know if people actually access blogs, if they use them, how they use them, if they think of them in the same way they'd consider a coffeeshop or other public venue in which they interact with people...what sort of stuff do people share on blogs...if they're sharing their whole lives in a forum like this, is there any difference between what is private or personal and what is public?
I've started this space as a way to try to generate a conversation. What do we consider public? What do we consider private? Are 'private' things the same as 'personal' stuff? What's political--can anything be?
I have to be honest and say that I'm in the middle of a PhD for which I'm studying identity as public and/or private. I spend a lot of time reading, writing and theorizing, and soon I'll be interviewing actual people (yey!) about what they think, but there is some doubt as to how much of a 'public space' the internet really can be, so I thought I'd check it out this way--let's call it testing my own assumptions.
Comments are not only welcome, but absolutely necessary. If no one writes, nothing happens because, believe me, I'm not here to go on and on into a silent void :). I want to know if people actually access blogs, if they use them, how they use them, if they think of them in the same way they'd consider a coffeeshop or other public venue in which they interact with people...what sort of stuff do people share on blogs...if they're sharing their whole lives in a forum like this, is there any difference between what is private or personal and what is public?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
