Racial Discrimination

Institutional Patterns and Politics

Masoud Kamali

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2010
• Print ISBN: 9780415989879
• eBook ISBN: 9781135856601
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: European History
• Index: Social Sciences

There is an institutionalized dilemma in Europe that counteracts social cohesion and stability. It is a result of the collision and incompatibility between declarations of universal values (such as human rights and democracy) and institutionalized actions which exclude and discriminate against Europeans of immigrant background and against ethnic minorities.

This book analyzes the institutional patterns and politics of 'racial' discrimination in modern-day Europe. Based on a research project that has been carried out under the leadership of the author in eight European countries, Racial Discrimination seeks the answers to some of the key questions posed by the latest developments in European political and public spheres concerning immigration and the increase in xenophobic sentiments and parties.

The book will appeal to all social and political scientists interested in the latest political developments in Europe and in the problems of democratic citizenship and the efforts to move toward an integrated European community.

1
Modernization, Social Theory, and the Duality of ‘Us-and-Them’

INTRODUCTION

The term ‘modern’ is one of the most discussed concepts in the social sciences. Modern, modernity, and modernization are interrelated concepts by which social scientists have tried to refer to an epochal change in human history. Despite some disagreements about the origins and the starting point of the ‘modern time,’ it seems that there is a common understanding of the European origin of modernity. In almost all cases, the modern is coupled with the emergence and development of the capitalist system that changed the history of human beings (Marx, 1954, 1956). The rapid spread of the modern capitalist system all over the world, has drawn together all regions and countries within a world capitalist system (Wallerstein, 1974).

Modernity is, however, not considered as a merely economic transformation, but also as a revolutionary process that has changed societies and cultures in a global arena (Beck, 2000; Giddens, 1990; Eisenstadt, 1966; Featherstone, 1995). The transformation process from premodern societies to modern ones that came to be called modernization, also entailed disruptions in established social institutions, the disintegration of society, wars over nation borders, internal and external migration, and social movements and revolutions. The chaotic situation in many European countries forced the elites to take action in newly organising their national societies. Although modernization created new problems, it also had the capacity to generate solutions to modern problems (Eisenstadt, 1987a, 1999). The modern disintegration of societies generated new ideas about how to create new forms of integration.

Social scientists tried to provide theoretically rigorous models for understanding the new revolutionary system, the modernity. Among these were the classics, such as Spencer, Hegel, Marx, Weber, and Durkheim, who developed ‘meta narratives’ for understanding the modern society in order to launch new ideas about the reorganization of new societies. Social scientists situated the modern society in a contradictory relation to premodern ones. The modern stood in contrast to the traditional. All over the world, social theory came to be dominated by a systematic dualism between contrary poles. Theoretical divisions such as traditional/modern, mechanical/organic, gemeinschaft/gesellschaft, and Occident/Orient held sway over classical sociology for a very long time (Kamali, 2006c). Many metanarratives, or to use Agnes Heller’s comprehensive concept, ‘master narratives,’ were attempts to theoretically bring order to a world mostly characterized by a constant move towards disorder.¹

Social theory and its founding fathers did not enjoy an ‘objective’ existence in a value-free ‘scientific world,’ but were part of a changing process where the European powers were engaged in colonial wars and occupations. These wars and occupations were legitimized by a systematic inferiorization of colonized people. This was coupled with the presentation of ‘Us’ as superiors to ‘them.’ It was not only political and economic elites that saw themselves as superior to ‘them,’ but also social scientists who considered Europe to be unique in the world and ‘the pearl of the globe,’ in the words of Paul Valery:

This Europe, will it become what it is in reality, i.e., a little cap of the Asiatic continent, or will this Europe remain rather what it seems, i.e., the priceless part of the whole earth, the pearl of the globe, the brain of a vast body? (Kingston-Mann, 1999, p. 3)

Such perspectives on history and the place of ‘Europe’ and ‘European civilization’ in it are strongly shaped by 19th century views. “This was the formative period of disciplines such as archaeology, art history, philology, sociology and anthropology, as well as the gestation period of European narcissism and imperialism” (Pieterse, 1994, p. 129). Social theory came to be dominated by efforts to explain the uniqueness of the ‘west.’

THE UNIQUENESS OF THE ‘WEST’ (US)

Uniqueness theory was formulated by Max Weber who tried to generate a theory for the economic development of Europe. He believed that the modern capitalist system could develop only in western Europe. Christian and Protestant Europe had the cultural and religious ground for the development of capitalism as a victorious and modern system that gave European powers their superiority and victories in the world (see Weber, 1978, 1992).

Weber claims that Christianity through Reformation could create favourable conditions for the development of capitalism in the ‘west’ in contrast to (amongst others) Islam. He means that: “The character of the Calvinist church differs from that of all other churches, Catholic, Lutheran, and Islamic” (1978, p. 1198). Firstly, Weber makes a fundamental mistake when he states that there are ‘churches’ in Islam. Islamic mosques cannot be called churches; there are decisive differences. The mosques have no hierarchical organizations such as those of churches. Secondly, Islam is not a homogenous religion that can be compared with different Christian churches and sects. Islam, as with many other religions, has different branches such Shi’ism and Sunnism, not to mention various branches of the two mentioned major branches and Sufism. Thirdly, Islam, as an urban and bazari religion, has always been very positively orientated towards capitalist production and market rules.

Weber claims that it is only in Christianity (Calvinism) that making profits were a sign that “God’s blessing rests on the enterprise:

And since the success of work is the surest symptom that it pleases God, capitalist profit is one of the most important criteria for establishing that God’s blessing rests on the enterprise. It is clear that this style of life is very closely related to the self justification that is customary for bourgeois acquisition: Profit and property appears not as ends in themselves but as indications of personal ability. Here has been attained the union of religious postulate and bourgeois style of life that promotes capitalism. (Weber, 1978, p. 1200)

This indicates that Weber, in his theoretical constructions of a ‘western explanation’ of capitalist development in Europe, ignores the fact that the same definition of religious belief and capitalist activities could also be valid for bazari merchants and craftsmen in Islamic cities (Kamali, 1998; Arjomand, 1984; Algar, 1969). The wealth of bazaris was a sign of the merchant’s sincere businesses, which is prized by God.

Weber’s discussion of Islam is not scientific nor is it based on fact, but rather is a result of his aim to theorize ‘differences’ between ‘western Christianity’ and Islam as an eastern religion. He calls Islam “a religion of warriors” (see Turner, 1974).

Weber, in coordination with the established Orientalist discourse of the 19th and early 20th centuries, created the concept of ‘Sultanism’ as an Islamic state formation that was a hindrance for democratic development in the ‘east.’ Weber wrote about the Ottoman Empire without real knowledge and research of the Ottoman governance. He claimed that no independent institution or organ could develop in the Empire because of the absolute power of the sultan. This proved to be a wrong assumption, even during the lifetime of Weber. The researcher who had adequate knowledge about the Ottoman Empire and its governance at the early 20th century was Albert Lybyer who wrote his classical work, The Governance of the Ottoman Empire in 1913. He illustrated that although the sultan had a relatively substantial influence over the Ottoman Empire, the exaggeration of this power is misleading. Several sultans have been removed from the throne by other governmental and even civil institutions. This means that the Weberian and Orientalist concept of absolutism cannot be used fairly for governance in Muslim countries, such as the Ottoman and Persian empires. I have also shown elsewhere that the sultan, as the sovereign exerted power, in many cases did make the important decisions in matters significant for the continuation of the Empire’s existence; but the sultan’s freedom in making such decisions was limited by other influential groups of the ruling strata and groups in civil society (Kamali, 2006c).

Weber’s discussions on Islam and Christianity can be counted among those social scientists’ efforts that, consciously or unconsciously, ‘otherize’ non-European countries and people. This is clear in many of his generalizations about the ‘Orient’ and the ‘Oriental church,’ in comparison to his writings on the ‘Occidental church’ and ‘Occidental culture’ that are considered unique in the world. He means that the ‘rationalization of hierocratic domination’ is very ‘western’ and has to do with a ‘western tradition’ originating from ‘ancient Roman traditions’ that helped develop capitalism:

The more favourable constellation for capitalist development that Occidental Catholicism offered (in comparison with oriental religions) was primarily due to the rationalization of hierocratic domination undertaken in continuation of ancient Roman traditions. This refers especially to the manner in which science and jurisprudence were developed. (Weber, 1978, p. 1192)

This is a fallacy that occurs in Weber’s work and in many other classical sociological texts. As is now known, science and jurisprudence were much more developed in Islamic empires than in Europe during the medieval period (Saliba, 2007; Huff, 2003; Turner, 1997; Sardar, 1984).

Even in matters of political thought and political science, Islamic scholars were engaged in much more developed discussions and research concerning governance than in Europe (Corne, 2004; Hoexter, Eisenstadt, & Levtzion, 2002; Kamali, 2001, 1998). Social sciences in Islamic empire in the medieval period had more favourable circumstances to flourish than in Christian Europe. The sociological works of Ibn Khaldun is just one example.

The recent research on the Islamic history of Muslim empires and countries shows that even Weber’s assumption of relation between hierocracy and state in Muslim countries and Europe is another example of constructing discursive differences between Europe and Islamic countries. He claims that:

Occidental hierocracy lived in a state of tension with the political power and constituted its major restraint; this contrasted with the purely caesaropapist or purely theocratic structures of Antiquity and the Orient. (Weber, 1978, p. 1193)

It is known that after the death of the Prophet in 1632 AD, the matter of government led to internal conflicts and division among Muslims. Some groups of Muslims such as Shi’is were moved to the civic sphere of society and created opposition to the state. The tension between Shi’is and Sunnis was just one tension between the political leaders of the Islamic Arabic empire and other Muslim groups. Since the 11th century, and the creation of many local Caliphs (such as that of Spain, Damascus, and Baghdad), tensions emerged between the political and the religious leader, the ulama. This became even more evident in the Islamic Ottoman Empire and Shi’i Persian Empire since the reign of Safavids (1501–1722). The Islamic civil society has from very early Islamic reign “lived in a state of tension with the political power and constituted its major restraint,” to use the words of Weber (Kamali, 1998, 2001, 2006c; Arjomand, 1984). Weber’s claim and generalization is a clear example of the otherization of Muslims and indeed many other groups, such as the Chinese and Indians.

Weber’s historiography and sociology suffers from a Eurocentric bias, which is common for many social scientists writing in the 19th and early 20th centuries. If any contribution of the ‘Others’ to the ‘European civilization’ was acknowledged, it was in relation to European themes, as in ‘Judeao-Christian civilization,’ or circumscribed and white-washed, as in the ‘Aryan model’ of history, in which everything paled into significance next to the creativity and drive of the ‘Nordic races’ (Pieterse, 1994).

Another social scientist who very clearly declared the superiority of Europeans to all other people (who he referred to as “races”), is Herbert Spencer. He writes consequently about “wild and uncultivated races” and “civilized races” (Spencer, 1878). He makes the ‘differences’ between ‘races’ appear natural and biological:

Biological truths and their corollaries, presented under these special forms as bases for sociological conclusions, are introductory to a more general biological truth including them—a general biological truth which underlies all legislation. I refer to the truth that every species of organism, including the human, is always adapting itself, both directly and indirectly, to its conditions of existence. The actions which have produced every variety of man—the actions which have established in the Negro and the Hindu, constitutions that thrive in climates fatal to Europeans, and in the Fuegian a constitution enabling him to bear without clothing an inclemency almost too great for other races well clothed—the actions which have developed in the Tartar-races nomadic habits that are almost insurmountable, while they have given to North American Indians desires and aptitudes which, fitting them for a hunting life, make a civilized life intolerable—the action doing this, are also ever at work moulding citizens into correspondence with their circumstances. (Spencer, 1878, pp. 346–347)

Europeans are considered by Spencer as a biological category, because of the differences in climate and other “circumstances,” different from “all other races.”

Spencer was highly influenced by a social Darwinist perspective to the ‘evolution’ of human societies. He, in his work, A System of Synthetic Philosophy (1862), constitutes a range of distinctions between ‘the civilized’ societies (that interchanges often with Europeans) and uncivilized people and societies. The civilized people, in every aspect, are situated at a higher end of the range than are the uncivilized people, according to Spencer. His social Darwinism had no limits, and he went as far as to propagate the use of deadly force in ‘civilising’ the ‘uncivilized’ people. Inspired by Charles Darwin’s evolution theory, he believed that the ‘uncivilized’ will either disappear or follow the European example and become civilized. This is evident from his early publications such as Social Statica (1851) and A Theory of Population (1852) and Progress: Its Law and Cause (1857). He believed that modernization, and modernising forces (who he believed were Europeans), will eliminate those sectors of humanity that stands in its way. In other words, all humans and natural hindrances to modernization and civilization will be removed by Europeans (see also Lindqvist, 1992).

Bound with the deterministic understanding of Darwinist evolution theory, Spencer concluded that there are even psychologically determined differences between different ‘races’ (Richards, 1997). Spencer is considered to be one of the major scientists who provided the theoretical and scientific basis for ‘scientific racism’ (Richards, 1997). Spencer, like Weber, believed in the uniqueness of Europeans, and upheld a notion of Europe as the sole site of rationality, reason, development, modernity, and civilization. All other people of the world were considered to exist somewhere long ‘behind’ Europe. They were to subordinate themselves to the European civilization and follow its example in order to adapt themselves to civilization and leave their uncivilized lives.

Many classical social theorists (including Marx, Weber, Spencer, Locke, and Durkheim), believed strongly in the uniqueness of the ‘west’ that...

Table of contents

• Routledge Research in Race and Ethnicity
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Preface
• Introduction
• 1 Modernization, Social Theory, and the Duality of ‘Us-and-Them’
• 2 Institutional Otherization, Migration, and Racism in Europe
• 3 The Uprising of Xenophobic Populist Parties and the Reinforcement of Institutional Discrimination
• 4 Institutional Discrimination in the Labour Market and the Educational System
• 5 Beyond the European Dilemma and the Categorisation of ‘Us’ and ‘Them’
• Notes
• References
• Index