Muslim Citizens in the West

Spaces and Agents of Inclusion and Exclusion

Samina Yasmeen, Nina Markovic

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9780754677833
• eBook ISBN: 9781317091202
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Essays in Politics & International Relations
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Drawing upon original case studies spanning North America, Europe and Australia, Muslim Citizens in the West explores how Muslims have been both the excluded and the excluders within the wider societies in which they live. The book extends debates on the inclusion and exclusion of Muslim minorities beyond ideas of marginalisation to show that, while there have undoubtedly been increased incidences of Islamophobia since September 2001, some Muslim groups have played their own part in separating themselves from the wider society. The cases examined show how these tendencies span geographical, ethnic and gender divides and can be encouraged by a combination of international and national developments prompting some groups to identify wider society as the 'other'. Muslim and non-Muslim scholars and practitioners in political science, social work, history and law also highlight positive outcomes in terms of Muslim activism with relationship to their respective countries and suggest ways in which increasing tensions felt, perceived or assumed can be eased and greater emphasis given to the role Muslims can play in shaping their place in the wider communities where they live.

PART I
Muslim Exclusion/Inclusion:
The Context

Chapter 1
The Dynamics of Exclusion/Inclusion:
Australia as a Case Study

Samina Yasmeen

This chapter focuses on the complexity inherent in the dynamics and perceptions of exclusion of Muslim minorities living in Western liberal societies by using Australia as a case study. It argues that exclusion needs to be understood in terms of agents, spaces and levels at which Muslims and non-Muslims create the reality or perception of difference between ‘us’ and ‘them’. It also argues that the dynamics cannot be understood merely in terms of Muslim relations with the ‘other’ but also through an appreciation of the struggles and tensions within Muslim communities that create the possibility of Muslims being excluders and not just the excluded. While not assuming the capacity to alter the dynamics of these actions and perceptions, it aims to draw attention to the complexity of the agenda promoting inclusion of Muslims in Western liberal societies. The argument is developed in four parts: the first part deals with the complex notion of exclusion in multi-ethnic and multi-religious societies. The second highlights the complexity inherent in the way different agents promote and counter exclusion of Muslims from the wider community by using Australia as a case study. The third part explores the dynamics within the Muslim community that engender intra-community exclusion as well as vis à vis the wider community. Against the backdrop of the growing international linkages between the ‘local’ and ‘global’ exclusionary trends and Australian responses to them, the concluding section comments on possible strategies to engage agents who may promote inclusion.

Exclusion as a Concept

Exclusion, defined as the ‘the process of excluding or the state of being excluded’ has its origin in the Latin word excludere meaning ‘to shut out’.¹ One may argue that the act of exclusion starts with the very act of individuals or communities of defining their identity and, in the process, distinguishing and differentiating themselves from others. This results in the identification and creation of boundaries that separate people and communities from those not identified as part of ‘me’ or ‘us’. Such differentiation per se is not negative. However, it becomes problematic when the difference is coupled with a sense of superiority or power and disregard for others and/or when the interaction with the ‘other’ is negative and unpleasant. Such interactions as part of the identity demarcation violate what Baumeister and Leary identify as a fundamental and pervasive need to belong, and one’s ‘need for frequent, non–aversive interactions within an ongoing relational bond’.²

Human societies have used exclusion as a form of social interaction (or lack of it) for centuries with the tradition of ostracism penalising individuals for not conforming to societal values. Some Christian theologians employed the concept when they distinguished between inclusivism, exclusivism and pluralism. The ideas of classical exclusivism – though increasingly contested by other Christians – were ‘grounded in a methodologically literalist reading of the Bible and a literalist appropriation of the tradition, using Cyprian’s dictum, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as a ‘proof text’. The belief that there is no salvation outside the church prompted these theologians to maintain ‘that salvation comes only in and through Christ’, with an attendant refusal to ‘accept [other religious] traditions as soteriologically efficacious for the eschaton’.³

In more recent times, the concept of exclusion has entered the social sciences literature and policy lexicon via the writings of René Lenoir, who as Secrétaire d’Etat à l’Action Sociale of the French Government, identified a tenth of the French population as ‘the excluded’. His list consisted of ‘mentally and physically handicapped, suicidal people, aged invalids, abused children, substance abusers, delinquents, single parents, multi-problem households, marginal, asocial persons, and other social ‘misfits’.⁴ Since then, exclusion as a concept to discuss and plan for the disadvantaged has entered the public policy lexicon with an attendant increase in analytical literature on the nature and diversity of exclusion, as well as the appropriate use of the term. Some debates have focused on the appropriateness of using ‘poverty’ or ‘underclass’ as the concepts to denote (or even explore) the phenomenon of disadvantage. While Wilson, building on Gunnar Myrdal’s ideas, resorted to the concept of ‘underclass’ to develop the thesis of American poverty, Lee et al. have preferred to use the term ‘social exclusion’ as encapsulating not just the issues faced by economically disadvantaged classes but also the processes that contribute to individuals and communities experiencing exclusion.⁵ Martin concurred with the ‘multidimensional nature of disadvantage’ and developed the concept of the ‘risk of exclusion’ linked both to the risk of being kept out of the labour market, but also the risk to ‘social networks’.⁶ This focus on multidimensionality was taken further by Silver who expanded the focus on processes relevant to social exclusion to include the need for ‘a livelihood; secure, permanent employment; earnings; property, credit, or land; housing; minimal or prevailing consumption levels; education, skills, and cultural capital; the welfare state; citizenship and legal equality; democratic participation; public goods; the nation or the dominant race; family and sociability; humanity, respect, fulfilment and understanding’.⁷ Allen et al. share this focus on processes of social exclusion: they argue that ‘social exclusion is a societal, that is society-wide, process, induced by wider changes and working itself through in specific ways shaped by national contexts and negatively affecting the ability of particular groups to participate in those social relationships which mean that ‘living in a place contributes to human flourishing’.⁸ This relational view of social exclusion leads them to argue that ‘structural processes affect the whole of a society in ways which create barriers which prevent particular groups from forming those kinds of social relationships with other groups which are essential to realising a full human potential’.⁹

The discussion of processes involved in social exclusion, therefore, acknowledges that such exclusion may occur in political, economic, social and cultural spheres. The notion of spaces/spheres of exclusion is intrinsically linked to the question of agency: though Allen et al. deny that exclusion occurs because some groups ‘exclude’ others, there is growing recognition that spaces (whether positive or negative in nature) owe their creation to agents that span the governmental and non-governmental sections of the society.¹⁰ The European Commission’s reference to ‘institutions and key stakeholders’ being responsible for ameliorating the conditions of excluded groups in the European Union is an example of this growing recognition of the role of an agency in creating or countering exclusion.¹¹ Miroslav Volf identifies individuals and sections of communities as agents of exclusion driven by fear or belief in their ideas so that people may justify their own violence.¹² In addition, it may be argued that Governmental agencies, societal groups and the media create the environment in which exclusionary processes emerge and/or are sustained. The rise of these processes is not necessarily intentional on the part of those who assume the agency: failure to appreciate the experiences of the ‘other’ creates blind spots that cause different agents to unintentionally create situations where others are excluded. However, evidence also exists that suggests that such exclusionary practices may reflect particular values held by the excluding agents or their inability to appreciate the values of those excluded.¹³

The globalising world further complicates the question of agency: those who intentionally or unintentionally exclude others are not only locally based. The increased interaction across state and societal boundaries, and the emergence of transnational narratives and policies constituting ‘religious soft power’, enable global agents to intervene in the manner in which exclusion occurs within national boundaries.¹⁴ This, in return, creates patterns of exclusion – and by extension inclusion – that share some international dimensions. The existence of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and the emerging phenomenon of Christianophobia, for example, are sustained through international linkages and narratives that transcend state boundaries.¹⁵

The interplay between spaces, agents and levels of exclusion create dynamics that impact on those being excluded. The perception or reality of being excluded engenders a sense of categorisation threat: people feel that they are being excluded because of their membership in, for example, an ethnic group, and may find it threatening if they wish ‘to be evaluated in terms of their individual characteristics’.¹⁶ The response to this threat, as shown by Aydin et al., may involve an effort by members of the excluded community/sections to ‘reconnect with others and detect potential sources of affiliation’.¹⁷ For example, ‘women may display more positive inclinations towards traditional, gendered work allocations’.¹⁸ Schaafsmaa and Williams argue that some react to exclusion by privileging fundamentalist ideas.¹⁹ The reactions to and the impacts of exclusion are not necessarily uniform across communities and are mediated through culture and context.²⁰ However, there is a growing body of literature that indicates that more significant reactions to a categorisation threat include a feeling of being treated unjustly, and the possibility of it resulting in ‘greater hostility toward those who exclude’. Additionally, research has shown that the sense of exclusion ‘by ethnic outgroup members may evoke hostile feelings not only toward those who exclude, but also toward the outgroup as a whole’.²¹ At the same time, it may perpetuate exclusion from social status groups, deny opportunities of participation in the economic and social spheres and result in disadvantage that extends beyond a generation or space to include multiple spaces/spheres of exclusion. Significantly, it can contribute to inter-generational exclusion of citizens or groups of citizens with implications for the rights of individuals and communities.²² As most vividly demonstrated through developments in the Middle East, the sense of exclusion can also impact on local and global stability.

Against the backdrop of the increasing body of literature that focuses on exclusion, and integrates faith-based exclusion especially for Muslims, the next section will discuss the dynamics of Muslim exclusion in Western liberal societies with reference to the Australian case study. The discussion is premised on the understanding that exclusion is not a unidirectional process involving the unitary nature of the excluders versus the excluded.²³ Among the majority communities in Western liberal societies – as in other societies – differences of opinion exist on the appropriateness of exclusionary processes with some actively countering the phenomenon. This results in dynamics that indirectly take into account the concerns of the minority community but also reflect the existing narratives on citizenship.

Australian Muslims and Exclusion

Though contacts between indigenous communities and Muslims living in northern parts of the continent predate European settlement, the arrival of Muslim cameleers from what now constitutes Pakistan in the second half of the nineteenth century was the start of Muslim presence in Australia. They made their mark by opening the interior of the vast continent, and also by constructing mosques in different locations. Their numbers gradually increased in the first half of the twentieth century: in 1921 their total numbers were estimated to be fewer than 3,000.²⁴ These numbers did not surge until after the end of the White Australia policy (1973), and in the wake of the Lebanese Civil war. By 1991, a total of 146,600 Muslims were residing in Australia.²⁵ Since then, a steady rise in the number of Muslims immigrating to Australia and a significant proportion of Muslims born in Australia has occurred. The total number of Muslims has increased from 200,902 in 1996 to 281,578 in 2001, to 340,389 in 2006, and 476,300 in 2011.²⁶ Australian-born Muslims accounted for 37.8 per cent of the total Muslims living in Australia in 2006. Those of Turkish and Lebanese backgrounds constitute the two largest ethnic groups. Other countries contributing the bulk of the Muslim population in Australia include Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Pakistan, Indonesia, Iraq, Bangladesh, Iran and Fiji.²⁷

Muslim relative exclusion from various spheres in the country is well documented. Hassan established that ‘educationally [Muslims in Australia] are high achievers but on all indicators of socioeconomic well being they fall into a very disadvantaged category’.²⁸ Twenty-one per cent of adult Muslim men have a university degree compared with 15 per cent of non-Muslim Australians, yet their age-specific unemployment rates are two to four times higher than those of non-Muslim Australians; their rate of home ownership is half the national average; 40 per cent of Muslim children are living in poverty and only 25 per cent of Muslim households have above-average household income.²⁹ ‘Thus, a significant proportion of Muslim Australians occupy a relatively marginal position both socially and economically in Australian society’.³⁰ Mansouri, Humphrey, Rane, Akbarzadeh, Kabir and Foroutan provide insights into the relative or conditional exclusion of Muslims at the ideational levels, in the media, among youth, and in terms of the duration of their stay in the country.³¹ Al-Momani et al. provide data on the limited political participation of Muslims at various levels of governance.³²

Together the literature clearly establishes the presen...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of Figures and Tables
• About the Authors
• Preface and Acknowledgements
• Introduction: Muslim Citizens in the West: Promoting Social Inclusion
• Part I Muslim Exclusion/Inclusion: The Context
• Part II Excluded or Excluders: Women and Youth
• Part III The Neglected Spaces: Art and Literature
• Part IV Muslim Essentialism: Asian Examples
• Part V From Exclusion to Inclusion
• Bibliography
• Index