| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Law and Social Control | >
> | Using Law and Social Control to Improve Islam's Image in America | | | -- By KhurramDara - 15 Feb 2012 | | | ***need new title that fits (narrow in on central idea first]]
When the Park51 project, formerly known as the Cordoba House, and commonly referred to as the "Ground Zero Mosque" was being protested just a couple of years ago, there was a sign that I saw a protestor holding. Initially, it had caught my eye because of how many words had been scrunched onto this little piece of cardboard. The sign said "All I Need to Know About Islam I Learned on 9/11." All he "needed" to know about Islam, he had learned on 9/11. | |
<
< | For that man holding the sign, and for the many others who admire the likes of Robert Spencer, Pam Geller, and Frank Gaffney, 9/11 was a natural consequence of Muslims carrying out Islam. For them, Islam is inherently promotes violence. So we have organizations, like JihadWatch? and Stop the Islamization of America who perpetuate nonsense about American Muslims: they want to impose Shariah on all, convert America into an Islamic state, and destroy Western society. | >
> | For that man holding the sign, and for the many others who admire the likes of Robert Spencer, Pam Geller, and Frank Gaffney, 9/11 was a natural consequence of Muslims carrying out Islam. For them, Islam is inherently promotes violence. There are organizations, like Jihad Watch and Stop the Islamization of America who perpetuate nonsense about American Muslims: they want to impose Shariah on all, convert America into an Islamic state, and destroy Western society. | | | While the rhetoric can appear extreme to some, the combination of organization and money, in conjunction with the fact that there are terrorists carrying out heinous acts supposedly in the name of Islam, can have an actual impact on our politics. It could explain why Congressman Peter King held hearings on the radicalization of Muslims in America. Or why 22 state legislatures considered passing anti-Sharia legislation. Or why the NYPD has been surveilling college students across the country. Or why Lowe's Home Improvement pulled ads from the TV show "All American Muslim" (after complaints that the show was not an accurate representation of Muslims, given that no radicals were on the show). | |
<
< | add line about how we want to change this? | >
> | American Muslims have employed two primary ways of combating this anti-Muslim sentiment. One is cooperative, the other adversarial. First, we want to educate other Americans about Islam. The argument goes, if people truly understood Islam, they would see that terrorism is incompatible with Islam. The second approach is organized protest and litigation.
My father is a doctor. When he recaps his day at work, nearly all of his stories begin with some variant of "so I asked the patient, what hurts? When you want to fix something, it helps to know what hurts.
So we have a problem. Education is one form of coalition building, the use of inter-faith panels, for example, can bring your allies together so that an organized support structure is in place. But what about the gentlemen holding the sign in the streets? Education will not touch him. It's effectiveness hinges, in part, on each participant's willingness to learn. The protestor with the sign is not going to the local community center for the next inter-faith meeting. In fact, he told us where he learned--it was what he saw on 9/11. And what about the average American? If they have no real interest in Islam or religion generally, it will probably be a tough sell to get them to join in the educational process.
What about the second approach? A protest or a counter protest can be a sign of strength. But again, there is a targeting issue. Typically, you aren't protesting with the expectation of persuading the opposition; your target is the independent and uncommitted. So here you lose the man with sign again. Similarly, it's unclear how we would convince an average American to be interested in the subject.
And litigation? We are entitled to practice our faith freely in the United States. A lawsuit to prevent a local government from preventing the building of a place of worship could work at achieving the short term objective: building a mosque. But a court order, for example, is unlikely to persuade naysayers that the result is right.
What hurts? For those who have negative perceptions of Muslims, what hurts is Islam. Islam to them is what they saw on 9/11, what they see on TV, what they hear from "experts." Islam is abstract in some cases, and general in others. It is never specific. It is never a person. It's always an "ideology." For social control to succeed, it must be able to appeal to the non-rational, unconscious motives of humans. Our existing approaches do not do that.
That is not to say they are not important or useful (for example, litigation is often necessary, especially in the scope of hate crimes or discrimination). The approach needs to be one that combines, not replaces existing approaches with other forms of social control. In fact, our need for the legal system may actually be indicative of the sparse use of other forms of social control by American Muslims. Donald Black proposes that there is an inverse relationship between law (government social control) and other forms of social control. With this model, if we increase our use of other forms of social control, it follows that we should have less of a need for litigation, as an example.
This is plausible. Consider human relationships, whether they are personal or professional. They build a level of comfort and connection between people. Having a Muslim coworker or a Muslim neighbor, can make Islam more than some "ideology," or some abstract thing. It can make it a person. It can make it specific. A Jewish or Christian American's perception of Islam, can be shaped by his relationship with an individual Muslim. This is because the relationship can serve as an educational tool. Spending time and getting to know an individual results in experiential learning. A person who is friends with a Muslim won't come to understand Islam by reading a book or taking a class about it. And if someone is attacking or discriminating their friend because of his faith, their defense won't be rooted in a technical understanding of Islam and won't include a rhetorical assault on the discriminating parties misguided or poorly constructed argument for why Islam is evil. The defense won't be rational, it will be emotional--he's my friend, or he's my coworker, or he's my neighbor. | | | | |
<
< | My father is a doctor. When he recaps his day at work, nearly all of his stories begin with some variant of "so I asked the patient, what hurts?"
When you want to fix something, it helps to know what hurts. | | | | |
<
< | explain two ways we try to remedy, education and legal remedies, you have to look at what it is that bothers people about Islam, and put pressure on those points? | | | | |
<
< | add: this needs to be A + B, not just A, not just B? | | | *then go with D.Black comparison, inverse law, social control* | | | particularly promising line of persuasion for any
proposition. | |
<
< | The premier Muslim advocacy organization, the Council on American Islamic Relations, has filed lawsuit upon lawsuit for every incidence of harassment or violence. They point to the law, not a statute or common law principle, but a fundamental right in the First Amendment, which protects freedom of religion. | >
> | | | | **change this section to explain how this is a short term strategy, it is to be "that" AND "this." Law can be a good form of attaining short term goals (if one has the resources and ability to use the judicial process). | | | with some legal knowledge but no specific knowledge about these
matters. | |
<
< | As an American Muslim, I can see how law is not the most preferable form of social control. A far better approach for the Muslim community would be to mirror some of the factors that led to successful integration and reduced discrimination towards blacks in America. Building personal connections and social bonds with other Americans would probably be a stronger antidote to negative stereotypes. How likely is it for a man who has a positive working relationship with a Muslim, or even a friendship with one, to protest a Muslim’s ability to practice their faith freely? A societal change in mindset is need for actual change to take place. | >
> | | | | **this needs to be an "American exceptionalism" argument. An American Muslim is not the same as a Syrian Muslim, Saudi Muslim, or Eyptian one. There is something about the way American society works that makes what I am saying better suited for American Muslims, than any other type of Muslim. Think about what those unique qualities are. Then write them down here. | | | American society that draws an exception from the usual condition of
Muslims in the Dar al-Harb? | |
<
< | Much like Arnold highlights the irrationality of politics, there's a certain irrationality in some of the fear that exists about Muslims in America. For example, fact that most would fear bearded men, wearing traditional Islamic garb with a Qur'an in hand at the airport, when in reality every single one of the hijackers on 9/11 was clean-shaven or with minimal facial hair, wearing jeans or khakis and button down shirts. Educating people about the flaws and inaccuracies of negative stereotypes would be the rational response, but of course, you can't reason with someone who can't reason himself. | | | | |
<
< | **ask Eben what his comments mean. | | | Which is all of us.
Because our rational processes are the secondary rather than primary |
|