The Consensus on Difference

The ever-insightful observer of political Islam, Olivier Roy, has an interesting article in Newsweek on the cartoon controversy. He demonstrates that the force behind the worldwide cartoon protests were in fact a few Arab and Muslim states. Roy points out that various states elevated the cartoons to center stage to serve a number of pragmatic interests: to assert themselves as pro-religion, as they simultaneously suppress Islamist political opponents at home, and to attempt to use Muslim populations in Europe as leverage to strengthen their weak position vis a vis Western states.

But along with these excellent insights, Roy makes the point that the "protests represent a call for equality and integration, not separation or special treatment." In some ways, Roy is absolutely correct that Europe's Muslims wish to integrate. What's wrong with Roy's statement, however, is that the Europe Muslims want to integrate into is one that has jettisoned the notion of actual equality and has embraced an equality of difference: multiculturalism. Thus to integrate, European Muslims are lining up along with all other Europeans to assert their differential identity, and to claim the special protections that this identity supposedly requires. Rather than any clash of civilizations, the cartoon incidents instead stem from different European groups negotiating with one another about multiculturalism. As Wrongside of Capitalism puts it, "Muslim outrage appears to be largely articulated in good multiculturalist terms, as an objection to being offended." But this is a dangerous game for Muslims, because, as we've said before, by asserting the protections that come with difference, their multiculturalist efforts at integration only reinforce their status as minorities.

Multiculturalism generates a subtle racism of its own. As Poetix explains, referencing Slavoj Zizek, one way it does so is by projecting an extreme racial or religious sensitivity onto another group. ""[W]e" are not intolerant, are overweeningly tolerant even, but must police our own and others’ language and behaviour in essentially intolerant ways for the sake of this supposed hyper-sensitive community of others (who are politically infantilised in the process)."

Such ideas influence both sides in the war on terror. Both Bush and Cirac were finally able to agree by both urging that we hold back on exercising our freedoms in order to be mindful of Muslim religious sensitivity. As Bush said, "We believe in a free press. We also recognize that with freedom comes responsibilities." And Chirac criticized, "all manifest provocations that are liable to dangerously arouse passions." Yes, better not rile up those crazy ragheads. The same logic informs the argument that Bush's war on terror is only making things worse by provoking a Muslim backlash, as we discussed in last week's Friday Review. From left and from right, the assumption is that Muslims can't be trusted to act as we do. Resistance to the war on terror must start by assuming our commonalities not our differences.