 |
 |
|
Full Abstracts:
Abstract: The paradoxes of recent rise of anti-Americanism in Turkey has not been systematically analyzed and explained. Turkey has been a close ally of the United States since the beginning of the cold war, and it also became one Muslim nation where America’s soft power became most visible. From the huge number of Turkish undergraduate and graduate students in the US, which is almost ten times than the total number of Turkish students in Europe, to the rise of tourism and cultural exchanges, America was clearly an imagined center of the world throughout the 1990s. More importantly, during the eight years of Clinton administration, America was increasingly shown as a model of secular democracy and internationalism. Yet, there occurred a rapid shift in attitudes towards America since September 11. Discontents about the Bush foreign policy and the US intervention in Iraq can partly explain this phenomenon. This paper argues that there are two unexamined roots of recent anti-Americanism: First is the ironic influence of American intellectuals on anti-Americanism of Turkey. The very fact that Turkey became intellectually very close to America meant that critiques of American foreign policy in America was very well followed by the Turks. This is most evident in the fact that there are no negative sentiments towards individual Americans even among the most anti-American segments of the society. Secondly, Turkey’s integration to the European Union, a process supported by the US as well, gave Turkish public a chance to make a sharper distinction between the normative good West, namely the EU, versus the imperialist and aggressive West, namely the US. This paper will offer a detailed intellectual profile of Turkish anti-Americanism based on intellectual history sources as well as the most extensive opinion poll surveys on Turkish images of America collected by the authors for the last five years. It will show that the current peak of anti-American attitude of Turkish people can not be explained as a part and parcel of general anti-Westernism prevalent among most of the Muslim countries. The best indicator of this is the fact that conservative groups of society are more sympathetic to Turkey’s membership into the EU than the secularist groups, while again conservative Muslims in Turkey see American civil rights tradition as a solution to the oppression of religious liberties by the secular government. There are in fact frequent references to religious Turks as “black Turks” oppressed by the upper class secular “white Turks” to embrace the legacy of civil rights movement in the US. While Turkish anti-Americanism mainly stems not from religious and cultural reasons but from the belief that the unilateral US foreign policy in the Middle East will be disadvantages for Turkey, this temporal and conjunctural negative attitude toward the US is increasingly turning out to be a permanent image thanks to various anti-American campaigns via books, movies and TV programs . [return to list of papers]
Title: Muslims in Academia, Academia in Islam: The Rise of the Muslim Islamicist as Religious Authority Figure Abstract: The original constructions of self and other which undergirded classical Islamic Studies, aka “Orientalism,” have shifted. Originally, Islamicists taught the history and doctrines of outside cultures to their own societies, interpreting for them that which was alien and distant. However, in the 21st century, many Muslim Islamicists mediate competing articulations of “Islam” and “the West,” both for themselves and for diverse audiences, hoping to articulate accurate and authoritative visions for them both, and delineate the ways in which they should or should not intersect. Simultaneously, many American and European Muslims now look to Muslim Islamicists as religious authority figures, thereby blurring the line between the Orientalist who interprets alien ways of life for his own society, and the Muslim scholar who interprets Islam for the Muslim community. Unfortunately, this phenomenon is rarely discussed in formal academic discourse. For a variety of reasons, most scholars prefer to leave many aspects of this phenonmenon unarticulated, which creates a lack of transparency and intellectual thoroughness. The traditional archetype of the disinterested academic remains the norm, and Muslims interested in explicitly normative projects must delicately negotiate their way through the various status quos of academia. While many have deep interests in this process, few are willing to publicly discuss the reality of the situation and the proper direction which it should take. This paper will examine the rise of the “Muslim Islamicist cum Islamic Religious Authority,” and seek to bring some clarity to the issue as well as stimulate a long overdue discussion. Also, given that CIR is in-and-of-itself part of this discursive process, in which many Muslim academics are brought together in hopes of providing clarity to many issues raised by Muslim engagement with academe, this paper is aptly suited to be discussed and debated in this forum. The many layers of reflexivity which are inherent in this discussion are included within the presentation of this paper itself, and it is thus not only an intellectual product which seeks to describe and interpret the aforementioned phenomenon itself, but is also part of the phenomenon as well. As the author is an American Muslim PhD student in Islamic Studies, it could not be any other way. . [return to list of papers]
Title: Weber, Heiler, and the Muslim Discourse in North America Abstract: This paper will use the works of German sociologist Max Weber and the theologian Friedrich Heiler in order to elucidate some of the most prominent approaches and responses of Muslims vis-à-vis their North American context. Max Weber identified “asceticism” and “mysticism” as two mutually exclusive ways in which religions have sought to deal with the cognitive dissonance created by the conflict between metaphysical beliefs and the reality of “the world.” Weber contended that “asceticism” and “mysticism” are two ways in which religions actualize and legitimize their attitude of “fleeing from the world.” On the other hand, Friedrich Heiler identified “prophetic religion” and “mysticism” as two major trends in the history of religions that are diametrically opposed to each other in their pure forms. The proposed paper will argue that there is a close resemblance between these two pairs of ideal-typical categories as formulated by Weber and Heiler. Based on the theoretical insights of these German scholars, the proposed paper will argue that both the “ascetic/prophetic” and the “mystical” patterns can be found in the attitudes adopted by Muslims in relations to their North American context, and that this context has functioned as the most intensified form of all that is simultaneously repulsive and attractive in “the world.” Furthermore, the paper will argue that the future of Islam in North America depends on the extent to which Muslims are able to overcome the dichotomy between “asceticism” and “mysticism” in their understanding and practice of Islam vis-à-vis the socio-cultural situation of North America.. [return to list of papers]
Title: Exclusivity and its Politics: Examining the Progressive Muslim Union of North America Abstract: To gain legitimacy amongst the American Muslim population proved to be no easy task for the Progressive Muslim Union of North America: intended to be a coalition of Muslims championing social, economic, and gender justice, the PMUNA sought to create an inclusive space of debate for all American Muslims willing to engage. In doing so, PMUNA addressed the status of the mosque as the most tangible Muslim public space and thus attempted to bring in those American Muslims distanced from formalized religious life. Yet the struggle to create an all-encompassing, inclusive space for the development of progressive ideas proved somewhat paradoxical. The philosophical underpinning was, in theory, one which embraced an American notion of democratic participation; however, with accessible participation came the advent of decidedly un-Progressive groups, such as the Muslims for Bush group. Inclusion of these conservative, anti-Progressive groups incited opposition from many Muslim activists already working toward the stated goals of social justice. Others viewed the goals and objectives as too Progressive, particularly in their efforts to promote frank sexual discussion and women-led prayer. Still others, referring to the divisiveness fomented by the distinction of a “reformed” Islam, were disturbed by the extent to which the effects of the Progressive Muslim movement aligned with the factious agenda of neoconservative approaches to Islam. The PMUNA found itself at the nexus of the Muslim approach to America, facing the very sort of accusations levied at the larger country itself. That these conflicting accusations were levied upon the fledgling movement required a clear elucidation of exactly what the movement stood for. In order to distance itself from others’ claims, the PMUNA loosened its requirements regarding Muslim participation (by defining Muslims to be “anyone who identified himself [as such]”, even if it be solely a cultural affiliation) and instead concentrated on its message as one of social justice-oriented ideals not necessarily rooted in Islamic thought. By doing so, the organization became one of Progressives of a Muslim bent, rather than one consisting of Muslims negotiating Progressivism and Islam. Furthermore, the loosening of the definition of Muslim discredited the movement so intensely that the space created for free debate descended into one in which traditional challenges to the progressive, liberal, Western goals were dismissed out of hand by Progressive Muslims, in an attempt to preserve the movement’s most salient aspect. I argue that the demise of this free space for Islamic negotiation of political and social perspective to reach its demise is a result of a particular internalization of the “Us versus Them” mentality perpetuated by Americans towards the Muslim Other in the current geopolitical environment: the PMUNA, by ideologically allying itself more with the political Left than with Muslim-American identity, reflects the polarization occurring within the country itself. . [return to list of papers]
|