Europe and Immigrants

Introduction

Politicians as well as the wider public have recently started to discuss the failure of the exclusive approach toward immigrants in Europe, the multiculturalism. On one hand, politization of the whole issue emphasizing the immigrants’ role in the process of socio-economic destabilization within the receiving country’s society is often linked to populism of politicians to whom it serves as widening their electoral base. On the other hand, a rise of right-wing extremism and islamophobia reflects changes in perception over diversified societies of different ethnic minorities and consequently the changes towards multicultural approach as such.

The skip from a pure liberalism to a distrustful neo-conservatism has been significantly increased after the attacks of 9/11. This event and its linkage to Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations seen through the prism of reasons for Islamic terrorism brought an irrational hysteria onto a public scene. A consequent suspicious behavior of receiving country’s citizens towards the immigrants, namely those of Arabic origin or Muslim faith – often merged into one homogenous minority – have egested problems unconsciously present in the public awareness. Problems with understanding cultural differences understood in an orientalist manner create a mistrust leading to conflicts within society and challenges the concept of multiculturalism which, however, clashes with certain features of the European entity’s establishment as it is explained below on an example of secularism.

This paper aims to explain that besides the populist usage of the term “Failure of Multiculturalism”, a deflection from this approach has real preconditions. The first part of this essay deals with the deconstruction of the 9/11 which is here seen as a catalyst for rise of extremism and an exaggeration of bias present in the diversified societies leading to surfacing these preconditions of the mentioned failure. The first precondition is discussed in the viewpoint which assumes that secularization of European states is in an antagonism with multiculturalism as such. The second condition is linked to Jacques Derrida’s deconstruction of the word ‘tolerance’ which is based in the European attitude towards other ethnicities. The final requirement for failure of multicultural approach refers to neo-orientalism and the European understanding of religious symbols and behavior of Muslim immigrants to Europe, and examines the breakdown of the communication circle as seen by Jurgen Habermas.

9/11 as a Trigger

The event of 9/11 brought many changes onto the international scene both political, in the sense of War on Terror, as well as the societal in terms of extremism’s aggrandizement. Almost over night, the rise of the right-wing parties in almost all EU member states exploiting public fear started to center on Muslim immigrants rather than any other ethnicities. Thus, in liaison with the multiculturalists approach to immigrants, 9/11 is responsible for an increased over-sensitiveness to any signs of Islamic fellowship. Furthermore, attacks on the WTC often serve as a justification and truth’s verification of Samuel Huntington’s Clash of the Civilizations.[1] The 9/11 is depicted not just as a barbaric Muslim attack on the democratic Christians but as a civilizations conflict in which Islam is violent, aggressive, unresponsive to change, and unable to share values in common with other cultures. Islam is also often blamed to be irrational and primitive. This misunderstanding emanating from Orientalism persisting in public consciousness shows the Western fear to accept any culture which seems to be too different. [2]

Nevertheless, blaming religion for serving as a support for violence reminds one the theory of Cosmic Wars of Mark Juergensmeyer’s who came with a comparative analysis of religion-inspired violence. According to this theory, religions are used as images of a divine (metaphysical) struggle between good and evil (that are larger than life, hence cosmic wars) “in the service of worldly political battles”, using them as an excuse for violence. Juergensmeyer further argues that the word ‘war’ itself is a great source of mobilization, societal unity and identity. To live in a state of war is to live in a world in which individuals know who they are, why they have suffered, by whose hand they have been humiliated, and at what expense they have persevered.[3] The attacks of 9/11 explained in a religious prism thus pose Islam as a threat for the Christianity and Western cultures which later justifies the US policy towards some Middle Eastern inconvenient regimes and authorities, or the European radicalization toward Muslim immigrants.

Furthermore, the role of media is a central idea of Derrida’s deconstruction of 9/11 understood as an artificially constructed event of a great significance. He argues that the way and frequency of the WTC destruction on TV shaped the public opinion. Thereby the media (initiated by the politicians) became responsible for construction of a fear arising from the assurances that the enemy could attack the Western society anytime and anywhere again and thus, created a large scale enemy out of one exaggerated event.[4] Seen in Ferdinand de Saussure’s perspective[5], the 9/11 is not just a signifier in the sense of justification of later Western policy but as well as the signified in terms of creating image of victims. The use of language and construction of the ‘9/11 text’ in sense of ignition of public understanding other cultures as a threat further enabled a creation of a hostile milieu towards other ethnicities those of Muslim faith and Arabic descent. Hence, the utilization of a single event in a religious framework makes the ‘religious terrorism’ an empty signifier.

Moreover, by examination Huntington’s book, an admittance of such a construction might be observed in his own words; “For creating and re-emerging of nations’ own identity it is necessary to create enemies; and the most potentially dangerous enmity emerges on the borders of different civilizations.”[6] Besides the political reasons for 2001 WTC attack’s exaggeration serving for justification of the US policy toward the Muslim ummah (society)[7], a construction of the 9/11 as an event of a significant importance further raises a question of a state of the Western identity. Huntington himself later discussed the crisis of the US identity in his book Who Are We in which he expressed a fear from loosing the American identity.[8] Similar feelings might be observed in the EU in which a lack of own identity is not a consequent reaction on Muslim immigration’s increase or a cultural clash, but a reaction on a decline of European values. Such decline might be incurred by globalization causing a loss of personal identity, by a post-modern lifestyle’s declension of religiousness, and by an insufficient integration of European states which consequently miss a higher representation of common European identity.[9] Thus, the European uncertainty leads to rallying around the ‘anti-Islam’ flag - supported by justification of Huntington’s civilizations clashing and by the construction of the 9/11 as a significant event - in the sense of European/Western values’ defense which initiate a deflection from any liberal approach towards immigration, namely the multiculturalism.

Secularism

Besides a considerable impact of the 9/11 on the European radicalization and the rise of Islamophobia, a failure of multiculturalism is rooted in a systemic predisposition of the social establishment. One of the problematic issues is the secularism of the European legislative. The complications occur when it comes to the discussion how far the right to ‘manifest religion or belief’ as guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union[10] extends, and what should be considered a matter of public affairs which, according to secular EU, should stay free of any religiosity.

In case of Muslim girls, a wearing of a head scarf is an expression of modesty referring to social stratification[11] and thus, a culturally rooted habit or a dress code differing family by family, country by country, and tribe by tribe rather than just a simple sign of Islamic faith or Muslim ummah. Moreover, from the perspective of belonging to a certain cultural or religious group, there is no difference in wearing head scarves and for example wearing a cross pendant or using turbans by Sikhs.[12] However, Sikhs’ turbans or nun’s wimples are rarely a target of a public denunciation as a symbol of religious adherence and consequently implicit gender subordination. Such differentiation points at human rights inequality throughout the society in terms of emphasizing the socio-historical experience of the inherited Christian culture. Thus, it is disputable if the religiosity shown in public presents a problem in secular Europe as such or if this kind of over-sensitiveness has a flavor of an anti-Islamic xenophobia. Therefore, banning any kind of clothes except for the security check may be seen as a sign of oppression in the European democracy-established society which is in a direct antagonism with liberal approaches of multiculturalism’s kind.

Furthermore, the need of secularism serving as a main argument against certain ‘Islamic features’ of clothing or architectonical elements of Islamic buildings is undermined by the European states themselves. There are many European countries with strong religious groups in political power (e.g. Italy or Poland; many European states have a state religion such as the UK or Scandinavian countries) but the religion is not seen as an obstacle to the above mentioned values.[13] In southern Italy and Sicily, the state churchmanship is being unconsciously embedded in public awareness since childhood trough huge crucifixes and Madonnas placed in each class of public schools.[14] Such a demonstration of religion in public and state institutions is directly opposing the secularism required by all EU member states’ governments.

Another problem arises when it comes to the relation between secularism and multiculturalism as such. Since the multiculturalism is based on an interaction of side by side living ethnically diversified groups and allowing a full expression of their affiliation to these particular groups,[15] secularism with its restrictive precondition of exclusion of any religious manifestation is in a clear opposition to this approach. Thus, calling for a need of secular society merely serves as a justification for neo-conservative right wing parties in sense of elimination of any other culture’s input. Moreover, as it might be observed in case of Italian religiosity or tolerance towards Sikh turbans, a secular exclusion of religious manifestation is neither necessary nor needed. In addition, it does not comply with multiculturalism per se.

Concept of ‘Tolerance’

Another presumption for failure of multiculturalism may be observed in the semiotic meaning of the word tolerance as examined by Derrida. He points at the Christian overtones of this word which consequently predetermines the course of attitude toward various cultures coming to Europe. According to Derrida, the word ‘tolerance’ has a religious core with a paternalistic gesture due to which the others are not understood as equal partners but are seen in a subordinated role.[16]  Such a relationship brings the assimilation approach towards immigrants rather than the multiculturalism’s acceptation of incoming ethnicities.

Moreover, in case of this word a level of ‘forbearance’ is necessary to be established which brings a subjective concept onto a scene. Such a level differs from country to country based on its socio-historical habits and experience. Thus, the ‘forbearance’ of the receiving country will shape the ethnic minorities according to the historical predisposition of this society to its ability of a multicultural exchange. [17]

As an alternative to ‘tolerance’ Derrida offers the concept of ‘hospitality’ which he knows from his personal experience as a person born and raised in Arabic culture for which the hospitality is one of the most important and commonplace cultural components. In contrast to the ‘tolerance’, the hospitality does not refer to an invitation conditioned by acceptance of rules, norms, traditions and habits of the inviter. The hospitality is opened to anyone without the need to be expected or previously invited.[18]  In Islam the essence of hospitality rests in treating guests as a gift send by God and should be served with generosity and cheerfulness, regardless of religion.

“He who believes in Allah and the hereafter should show respect to the guest even with utmost kindness and courtesy. They said: Messenger of Allah, what is this utmost kindness and courtesy? He replied: It is for a day and a night. Hospitality extends for three days, and what is beyond that is a Sadaqa for him; and he who believes in Allah and the Hereafter should say something good or keep quiet.”[19]

An interesting point in the above mentioned Hadith (narrations concerning the words and deeds of the Prophet Mohamed ^PBUH) is the metamorphosis of the hospitality into a Sadaqa which is an Arabic term for voluntary charity encompassing any act of giving out of compassion, love, friendship (fraternity) or generosity.[20]

On the subject of Derrida’s Hospitality concept, Habermas argues that the objectivity of tolerance is neutralized by the participatory political system of the parliamentary democracy. He claims that there is no space for authority subjectively determining the border of what should be tolerated within the democratic society safeguarding equal rights of all citizens.[21] However, the democracy based on proportional representation of the hosting majority and immigrants’ minority becomes a decoy of a ‘majoritarianism’ referring to its cultural-historical experience or heritage and from that derived laws and rules. Such a system is unable to guarantee equal rights due to its Christian connotation of the European public memory and unconsciousness. Thus, the functioning of democratic systems confirms the validity of Derrida’s premise of a semiotic predetermined meaning of ‘tolerance’ in its own accord. Therefore, applying the tolerance towards immigrants in the secular politics is not suitable for need of the political universalisms and the concept of political tolerance is thus, responsible for the failure of multiculturalism due to its semiotic connotations of exclusivity.

Neo-orientalist Communication Circle

Finally, the concept of multiculturalism is threatened by the breakdown of the communication circle which was defined by Habermas. While the modern trend is to blame Islam for its inability to comply with the needs of modern society, Habermas claims that the problem does not refer to a  religion as such but the manner and form of the faith. A fundamentalism is consequently a panic answer to the breakdown of the communication circle and to a modernity which with globalization bring an eradication of the traditional values.[22] If this modernity is not able to overarch the abyss between the ambitiously spreading modern life style and unsatisfied needs calling for the traditional manner of life, the effort to maintain these traditions unchanged take the form of extremism. In other words, the extreme striving in the name of traditions’ restoration is a defense against the aggressive endeavor of modernity for its universal legitimacy.[23] Moreover, using words bearing a pejorative connotation for defending one’s values may lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy.[24] Thereupon, instead of looking for the common language and understanding with the newly surfacing modernity these traditional cultures may tend to adhere to the formerly attributed role.

Another problem of the communication is embodied in the neo-orientalist misinterpretation of cultural differences. Orientalism, as characterized by Edward Said, was (in a simplified explanation) a form of prejudiced Western interpretations of Eastern cultures and peoples in the prism of Western understanding, often provided on purpose of Western political implementation of the colonialist ambitions in the Middle East.[25] Nowadays, the same prejudiced interpretations persist, albeit even in a more negative form caused by the above discussed trigger. Thus, many see Islam as limited to the Middle-East, oppressing women, as corresponding to a less advanced stage of Western civilization (i.e. the Middle-Ages), as a unity, epitomized by the radicals and extremists.[26] However, such perception mirrors an absence of knowledge of this religion and culture.

The so called women oppression in the Middle Eastern societies is a clear example of the neo-orientalism emanating from the feminism of the West where - within the modernity framework - the traditional gender roles were abolished. This trend is an effort to apply absolute gender equality according to the Western patterns in which the Western women strive for adjustment to men in their roles.[27] However, the merit of the achievements of the feminist movements in the West is questioned today by many Western observers themselves and many of them agreed that the oversensitivity in gender equality issues leads to a loss of women’s feminine identity.

Another example of misinterpretation is the Western understanding of fundamentalism. Whereas for the Western semantics, the fundamentalism presents a backward adherence to a rigid dogmatism,[28] the fundamentalism in Islam means a following of the pure and perfect form of religion as it was revealed by God.[29] The abyss between these two understandings has been significantly deepened after the 9/11 when ‘fundamentalism’ started to be misused by media to refer to terrorists. However, the word itself should be understood as a conservative wing of religion without any reference to a particular faith. Moreover, the vast majority of Muslim fundamentalists are pious individuals who strictly follow the teachings of Mohammed ^PBUH, promote regular attendance at mosques, promote the reading of the Qur’an, and share nothing with the extremists of the radical wings of Islam.[30]

Another problem is a rigid or fundamental (in its real meaning) adherence of the immigrants to the pre-modern traditions in a response to challenges of the modern world. The Western countries with their excessive liberalism especially in particular issues are often seen as spoiled and thus, the fundamentalism serves as a safe haven of the known, historically rooted experience of the ancestral culture.[31] Consequently, the lack of understanding between two diametric different comprehension of traditionality and modernity bring a mutual mistrust and insufficient or no cultural exchange. Thus, the lack of information, misunderstanding of the others attitudes and obtrusion of one’s universalism to the others results in failure in communication and radicalization of both sides.

Conclusion

 To conclude, the failure of multiculturalism as often cited in media is on the one hand an artificially constructed term serving politicians to proceed in their political aims. On the other hand, it is disputable if one can speak about multiculturalism as such if some main prerequisites for implementation of this approach are not fulfilled. One way or another the more suitable term for describing the current situation would be a ‘failure of the cultural dialog.’ Nevertheless, for its inability of a broad-spectrum validity one cannot not to bring a notice that the above mentioned failure exclusively refers to those ethnic minorities of following Islam as their religion. This phenomenon of the anti-Islam mood in the West has a clear trigger in the attacks of 9/11 which have been explained as a proof of clash of civilizations and further constructed as a war of religions and cultures. Due to a rigorous exaggeration of a single event created and misused by politicians and media, Muslims got into a focus of public and Islamophobs. Consequently, this public mistrust to any sign of the adherence to Islam brought a failure of the cultural dialogue or the so called multiculturalism.

However, if multiculturalism is further analyzed, one finds out that it has to face to many challenges in terms of its own prerequisities within the European society. The first problem occurs with secularism as a desired outcome of the European socio-political establishment. Videlicet, the secularism clashes with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which warrants the right to manifest one’s religiosity. While the expression of religious believes is not a matter of any interest in case of nuns, Sikhs or Hare Krishna members, the symbols of Islam became an object of a public impugnment. Such a public perception is caused by the neo-orientalist understanding of the Middle Eastern culture, religion and traditions which reflects the Western fear from Islam rather than any rational explanation.

Another problematic part of the multiculturalism is the concept of tolerance towards other minorities. As analyzed above, the word ‘tolerance’ has Christian connotation which bear a presumption of an acceptance of the hosting country’s cultural, political and religious conditions. Such an attitude roots the future problems in terms of cultural diversity’s embarrassing, religious freedom’s limitation and dialogue’s preclusion. The last obstacle to the elimination of xenophobia and to a full implementation of multiculturalism is embodied in the breakdown of the communication circle caused by neo-orientalism and its assumption of the Islam’s incompatibility with the modern society. As a tool of Western argumentation, a predetermined meaning-tinged fundamentalism is used in the sense of an affiliation to violence in order to spread the Islamic ummah all over the world. Such an explanation does not reflect the real meaning of this word and thus, help to spread the anti-Islamic mood within the Western society. Rather than a fight of few extremists against the political activities of some Western powers, fundamentalism mirrors an answer of the traditionality to the modernity with which it meets not on the borders of different civilizations but in all aspects of everyday’s life in the globalized world. Thus, the failure of the multiculturalism or rather the cultural exchange is a result of a lack of understanding fueled by the political interests, and of an effort to apply the Western values to other cultures as a generally valid universalism.

---

[1] Huntington S., The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order, Simon & Schuster, 1997.

[2] Loucka K., Islam in Europe: Object of Orientalism and Securitization, Irespost, May, 2010.

Gottschalk P. and GreenbergI G., Islamophobia: Making Muslims the Enemy, Rowman & Littlefield, 2008.

[3] Juergensmeyer M., Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence, Berkeley: University of California, 2000. p. 146, 149

[4] Borradori G., Philosophy in a Time of Terror; Dialogues with Jurgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2003.

The role of media is also discussed in: Gottschalk P. and GreenbergI G., Islamophobia: Making Muslims the Enemy, Rowman & Littlefield, 2008.

[5] de Saussure F., Course in general linguistics, Court Publishing, 1983., p. 65-70

[6] Huntington S., The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order, Simon & Schuster, 1997.

[7] See more about ummah in Ahsan Abdullah, Ummah or nation?: Identity crisis in contemporary Muslim society, Islamic Foundation, University of Virginia, 1992.

[8] Huntington Samuel P., Who are we?: the challenges to America's national identity, Simon & Schuster, Pennsylvania State University, 2004.

[9] Loucka K., Islam in Europe: Object of Orientalism and Securitization, Irespost, May, 2010.

Goldstein N. And Brown-Foster W., Religion and the State, Infobase Publishing, 2010. , p.133

Barber B., Jihad Vs. McWorld: Terrorism's Challenge to Democracy, Random House Publishing Group, 2010.

[10] Article 10: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, (2000/C 364/01)

[11] El Guindi F., Veil: modesty, privacy and resistance, Berg Publishers, 1999.

Hirschmann N.J., The subject of liberty: toward a feminist theory of freedom, Princeton University Press, 2003., p. 184

 Zayzafoon bin Youssef  L., The production of the Muslim woman: negotiating text, history, and ideology in After the Empire: The Francophone World and Postcolonial France, Lexington Books, 2005.

[12] See more about discrimination of immigrants in Madood T., Muslim Integration and Secularism in Abicht L., Islam and Europe, Leuven University Press, 2008., p.85-99

[13] Ibid..., see more about inequality among religions in hosting countries

[14] Keysar A., Secularism, women & the state: the Mediterranean world in the 21st century, ISSSC, 2009., p.29

[15] Goldstein N. And Brown-Foster W.,  Religion and the State, Infobase Publishing, 2010. , p.135

[16] Borradori G., Philosophy in a Time of Terror; Dialogues with Jurgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2003., p.129-133

[17] About the level of what is acceptable for hosting countries and what not see Bischoff H., Immigration issues; Major issues in American history, Publishing Group, 2002., p.140-156

Oberdiek H., Tolerance: between forbearance and acceptance, Rowman & Littlefield, 2001.

Fukuyama  F., Identity, Immigration, and Liberal Democracy, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 17, Nu: 2, April 2006.

[18] Borradori G., Philosophy in a Time of Terror; Dialogues with Jurgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2003., p. 139

[19] Sahih Muslim: Book No. 18, Hadith No. 4286

[20] Zikr-ur-Rahman, Historical role of Islam, Anmol Publications PVT. LTD., 2004, p.125

Yushau Sodiq, An Insider's Guide to Islam, Trafford Publishing, 2010.,  p.120

[21] Thomassen L., The Inclusion of the Other?; Habermas and the Paradox of Tolerance, Political Theory, Vol.34, No.4, August, 2006.

[22] Borradori G., Philosophy in a Time of Terror; Dialogues with Jurgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2003.

[23] For more about fundamentalism see Antoun R.T., Understanding fundamentalism: Christian, Islamic, and Jewish movements, Rowman Altamira, 2001, p. 73

[24] The self-fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behaviour which makes the original false conception come 'true'. This specious validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuates a reign of error. For the prophet will cite the actual course of events as proof that he was right from the very beginning.

See more in Merton, Robert K, Social Theory and Social Structure,  New York: Free Press, 1968.,  pp. 477

[25] Said E.W., Orientalism, Vintage Books, 1979.

[26] Goldstein N. And Brown-Foster W., Religion and the State, Infobase Publishing, 2010. , p.133

Esposito J.L. and Kalin Ibrahim,  Islamophobia: The Challenge of Pluralism in the 21st Century, Oxford University Press, 2011.

[27] Lull J., Culture-on-demand: communication in a crisis world,  Wiley-Blackwell, 2007., p.116

For more about changes in society in the globalized world see Barber B., Jihad Vs. McWorld: Terrorism's Challenge to Democracy, Random House Publishing Group, 2010.

[28] Marsden G. M., Fundamentalism and American Culture, Oxford University Press, 2006., p. 4-5

Nagata J., Beyond Theology: Toward an Anthropology of "Fundamentalism",  American Anthropologist 103 (2), May 2001.

Harris H., Fundamentalism and Evangelicals, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

[29] Marty M.E., Fundamentalisms and society: reclaiming the sciences, the family, and education
Volume 2 of The Fundamentalism Project, University of Chicago Press, 1993.

[30] Armstrong K., The battle for God: fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Harper Collins, 2001.

[31] Antoun R.T., Understanding fundamentalism: Christian, Islamic, and Jewish movements, Rowman Altamira, 2001, p. 73