I went to a conference of the European protest research networkClick in order to get to the site of the network
on social movements/protest in Europe two weeks ago [it was great and inspiring!] where I presented a paper on young Muslims following the salafiyyah. I was somehow the odd one since I presented on an “odd movement”: groups or movements based on religion or/and lacking the focus on civil rights, environment or other “progressive, secular” issues are usually not the core business of social movement researchers. Also, movements whose actions are not geared towards the state, capitalism or political participation of any sort stand out. The core concern of Muslims following the salafiyyah in the Netherlands or Germany is NOT a political representation in contemporary Dutch or German society, a change of government or reforming the capitalist economic system and so on. Most are rather busy with da’wacalling to Islam and trying to prefigure the ideal society as they envision it.

Of course, this should not restrain researchers from using the methods, tools and approaches of Social Movement Theory (SMT) for “odd” movements. It has been done before, also with reference to difference movements or currents within Islam, and it is not a contested issue per se. Some examples can be found in the works of Assef Bayat, Quintan Wiktorowicz, Kevin McDonald, Charles Kurzman and others.

What is, however, contested is the level of empathy a researchers should or should not have vis-à-vis the research subjects and participants. Most researchers on the conference were themselves in one or the other way active in social movements, initiatives or groups. And everybody was at least sympathetic to the goals, visions, ideas and ways of doing of the movement they are studying… except for the “odd”-movement researchers. From the latter group there were actually only three present on this 4-day-conference: One on christian orthodox churches in Poland, one on Hungarian right extremist movements… and me. In general, I have the impression that “odd”-movement researchers are more often directly or indirectly asked to distance themselves from their research participants and to critically judge the ideology of their movements in the sense of “progressive/good” or “non-progressive/bad”.

I cannot talk about right extremist movements here, or about the orthodox churches since I do not know enough about the situations a researcher has to deal with in these cases. However, I would like to address a few points about a researcher’s empathy from my experience and research with young Muslims.

Let me start by clarifying a few points:

• My vision of the ideal society is usually not exactly the one that my interlocutors foster.
• I am empathetic in my research and that means first of all: taking research partners serious, being guided by open questionsI am not interested in “uncovering” how “radical”, “anti-feminist”, “violent”, “irrational” my interlocutors are. If you are convinced by this you will find suiting evidence. This, however, is also true for other research projects and works as a self-fulfilling prophecy: Seek and ye shall find. and trying to somehow get closer to their lives.
• There are indeed issues that I do not like and that separate me from many of my interlocutors. After all, I am a kafira, a unbeliever. So, I do not think that I am naive about that.

In the following, I want to briefly touch upon four points: Women/gender, da’wa, unbelievers and “becoming blurred” as a researcher.

Women/gender. Over dinner at the conference, I was asked whether I am also going to critically address gender issues and women’s rights in my thesis. I was first stunned by the question: I have never thought of addressing these issues since I am interested in knowledge practices in this research. So, why should I? And I am not sure if researchers dealing with other “odd” movements are faced with the same question.

Of course, gender plays a role in my research. Gender segregation is part of the knowledges relevant for the research participants and it is also practiced in computer-mediated environments. In this sense it will surely be relevant. But I am not going to evaluate or judge the “progressiveness” in terms of gender relations. I find the term and the concept of progressiveness quite difficult. It is usually the understanding of gender equality as found in the so called West (and more specifically among white, middle/upper class women) that are deemed to be progressive. That leaves out many other forms, understandings and “doings” of gender that are deemed satisfying and desirable in other contexts and by other people. Judgments based on “progressiveness” including a specific liberal teleology do not help and forces women (and men) into difficult situations where many do not want to be in: Either Western feminist and anti-Islam or pro-Islam and rejecting Western ideas of gender equality. Well, me, many other women and many men would not fit into this matrix.

However, since 9/11 the question of gender has been instrumentalized in a way that there is only little room for “emancipation”, which after all means being free from constraint: physical and discursive constraints. It seems that everybody has to fit into the “post 9/11 matrix”. I cannot provide a full debate of Islam, feminism, female agency, liberalism and so on. For those interested, read the first chapter of Saba Mahmood’s book “Politics of Piety. The Islamic Revival and the Feminist Subject”Click to take a look at the book on google books. She mainly bases her approach on the works of Michel Foucault and Judith Butler. Let me cite the first sentence of the first chapter that sets out the basic question:

Over the last two decades, a key question has occupied many feminist theorists: how should issues of historical and cultural specificity inform both the analytics and the politics of any feminist project?

Da’wa. Da’wa, or the calling/inviting to Islam, is something that many of my interlocutors consider a duty. Having the true message involves the obligation to tell others about it. Otherwise one would selfishly hold back salvation and the possibility to enter paradise. In this sense, I’ll take da’wa serious although personally, in the moment, I do not have an inclination to convert to Islam. I know many non-Muslims who find it tiresome to listen to a Muslim doing da’wa and to engage with it. Some tend to ridicule da’wa.

I understand this in a certain way. It is quite often the same arguments all over again and many arguments are based on delegitimizing other religions, in European context mainly Christianity, by, for instance, focusing on the irrationality of the trinity (a human being the Son of God?!) etc. On the other hand, I have had many discussions that started with da’wa and turned into discussion about my own identity and self conceptualizations. This is quite disturbing for researchers: Being asked about their own identity and beliefs by the “research subject”! It should be us, the researchers, asking questions about identities, beliefs etc.

I do not have a problem to stop da’wa attempts if the sole motivation of the da’i (the caller to Islam) is to collect positive points for their balance sheet on which they will be judge on judgment day… However, I feel different about the conversations I have had with people who have a sincere interest to “save me” by doing da’wa and who sincerely want to know what my idea of a good life and a desirable society is. These are quite often very disturbing conversations since I have to explain myself, what I am, what I want to achieve etc. And I think my interlocutors have the right to do so, to disturb me. If I am asking them the same very intimate questions about their beliefs, identity, wishes, doings etc. thousands of times in the name of science and research why should I not let them do the same thing with me in the name of Islam and their own convictions?

Having had a little bit of da’wa experience it is not difficult to differentiate between “I-need-points-for-judgment-day” da’wa and da’wa that has the sincere wish to “save me”. So, I think researchers should stop ridiculing da’wa, make the difference between different intentions behind it and try to engage with it. This teaches also a good lesson: experiencing intimate, personal questions and trying, very often without success, to answer them meaningfully, reminds us of the stress researchers can put on their interlocutors. And, we experience ourselves, that, in many cases, we can not provide a coherent answer without contradictions. Perhaps that makes us a bit “softer” when judging the chaos, contradictions and senselessness in the answers of interlocutors. But keep in mind: Not every attempt of a conversation of a Muslim is da’wa!

Unbelievers. This is actually the most emotional issue I have with my research: it is clear that I am an unbeliever or kafira from the point of view of many people taking part in my research. And I do not take issue with that. I cannot claim to be a Muslim, therefore be it: I am a kafira. On the other hand, the issue I have, is the way that the unbelievers, the kuffar, are often portrayed in forums, blogs or chat rooms: selfish, decadent, self-indulgent and morally corrupted. Sometimes kafir or kuffar is used in a pejorative way and sentences like “what did you expect from the kuffar” are common place. Of course, I do not consider myself to be morally corrupted, self-indulgent or decadent. And I do not think that these attributes have necessarily anything to do with religion. However, to try to dissociate my status as kafira from these characteristics is difficult and an issue I have not resolved for myself. In private or direct conversations, I can address these issues if I really feel bothered. But this rarely happens in face-to-face situations. In computer-mediated environments were a bigger community is active, it is near the impossible to refute these associations. In the case I would, my research would turn into a very long argument and debate about morality, values, belief etc. That is not what I want and some issues can simply not be resolved: what I consider morally acceptable, other might find outrageous. So I find it difficult to address this question in a satisfying way and I keep struggling with it from time to time.

Becoming blurred…this is what I feel is quite often happening to me. Again, there are many issues, and serious issues for that matter, I personally have with the way many of my interlocutors understand Islam and how they envision an ideal society. At the same time, we joke together, we share some social or political critique and chat about personal issues or random topics. Sometimes we play a game. So, were do I stand in this? Difficult to say. And I have started to refuse taking sides. I can voice my idea about things and discuss them. But to judge that “they” are not progressive, liberal, freedom loving and so onWhich by implication means that “we” in contrast to “them” are all that does not do any justice to what is happening within, between and around Muslims inspired by the salafiyyah.

Bits and Pieces, Ethics, Fieldwork | RSS 2.0 | Trackback |