Europe’s multiculturalism test
by
NAZİFE ŞİŞMAN*

Once more we are facing symbolism in which women are representing an entire culture. In this situation there is a symbol that stands out more than minarets. How can we explain the effect a female figure wearing a burqa in a poster has created? Especially considering that Muslim women in Switzerland (Turks, Bosnians and Albanians) almost never wear chadors, veils and burqas and are the most well-integrated Muslim communities compared to other groups in Europe.

The covering -- whether its called a burqa, headscarf, veil or niqab -- used by women is seen as the symbol of many threats for non-Muslim Europeans such as increasing violence in cities, international terrorism and the refusal of Muslim immigrants to integrate.

Looking at it from this perspective, French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s attempt to ban the burqa and niqab, something that concerns 400 women at most, relies on the same symbol. The covering of Muslim women plays a central role in Europe’s expression of policies concerning Islam and immigrants. It is also the most visible target of racism and xenophobia.

‘Xenophobia’ directed at Muslim women

France is debating all of its problems in the age of globalization through the headscarf. How the tradition of secularism, democratic citizenship and republican egalitarianism will continue and how the pressure of multiculturalism from French-born third-generation immigrants will be resisted are debated on the basis of the headscarf. Thus the symbolic target of racism and xenophobia becomes the women’s covering. In other words, a wide range of political and social issues are addressed over the Muslim “culture” regarding women.

The transformation of culture into a space where intense political conflicts are experienced is one of the most visible qualities of the current period. Nowadays, people have started to use culture as a synonym for identity and it has evolved into a boundary that defines identity and draws out differences. The covering of Muslim women has come to be included in the war of symbols as a symbol that defines the culture and difference. Bhikhu Parekh, who has produced stimulating works on multiculturalism, provides a list of the most common practices that cause inter-cultural conflict. Six of the 12 issues on the list concern Muslims. All six of these issues except for the issue of the method used to slaughter animals are related to the status of women such as covering, polygamy, arranged marriages, the practice of withdrawing girls from coed sports activities and swimming classes and the lower social status of women.

How should we assess this finding? This finding, as well as other similar ones, present cultural conflicts as being focused on women. That is because when societies and cultures begin to communicate and compare themselves, the position of women and sex occupy a critical place in efforts to understand each other. In other words, “Women and their bodies are the symbolic-cultural site upon which human societies inscript their moral order,” says political scientist and philosopher Seyla Benhabib. Due to this symbolic importance, differences between cultures are mainly presented through women.

If we continue with the example of Parekh’s list, we can see that a particular theme was followed in the drawing up of the list and the determination of conflict areas. In the defining of conflict areas, there is a norm and then “cultural” tendencies considered to be a deviation from the norm. Norms are considered universal while differences are considered cultural. The norm is girls and boys participating in sports activities together, “cultural difference” is not participating in these activities; the norm is to not be covered, “cultural difference” is being covered and so on.

But there is one point we have learned from post-colonial criticism and that is labeling the other as different, partial and a deviation from the norm is a direct byproduct of the ruling power and exclusion. A particular point is always designated as the center when defining norms and drawing boundaries in identity/culture policies.

The positioning of the oppressed Muslim women’s rise and covering issue in the center of the Westerners’ narrative of Islam is directly related to the Europeans’ positioning in the Muslim world as colonialist forces. The creation of “oppressed Muslim women” and harem images goes beyond the general problem of women as images and can not be explained without considering the hegemonic structure of East-West or Muslim World-Europe relations.

The cultural mentality that factionalizes

The cultural mentality behind the European society’s globalization is the creation of the “other” as an external enemy. The external enemy coded as Muslim terrorists after Sept. 11 is the continuation of the external enemy called “Wild Africans” and “Barbarian Turks” during the period of colonialism. The “oppressed” Muslim women image which changes according to circumstances is very important and has a central role in the conflict and process to make the other an enemy and the factionalizing cultural mentality. Muslim women are either presented as victims that need to be saved and passive objects that are the address of the “Westerners’ adhesive benevolence” or retrogressive, oppressive, fundamentalist and, as added after Sept. 11, the symbol of a destructive world view that are represented as the “destructive other” from which the society needs to be freed.

And they are confined to the framework of the cultural conflict concept, which is inspired by the “clash of civilizations” thesis. Events like the Sept. 11 experience and the explosions in Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005 have led Europe to question policies on multiculturalism and difference. The presence of Muslims began to be assessed as a threat to the principle of liberal democracy, values and norms. It is for this reason that, for example, the Dutch government reversed policies that granted cultural autonomy to ethnic and religious minorities. Praying out in the open was banned in Italy and most recently the construction of minarets was banned in Switzerland. A number of “no to the Islamization of Europe” activities are being organized all across Europe and especially in Brussels. Both the assimilasionist and integrationist French model and the multicultural English and Dutch model need to determine the position they want to give to their Muslim communities and revaluate this entire process under the light of this position because these models are being reshaped by the “the threat of Islam” perception.

The debate over symbols such as the headscarf and the minaret reveals that on the one hand Europe’s capacity to self identify as a publicly multicultural and pluralist structure is being tested and on the other hand Muslims’ capacity and methods to reflect themselves on Europe’s canvas are being tested. But these bans show that Europe’s test requires a lot more effort than the Muslims.