The Different Euphemisms For Power
No one today is simply one thing. Labels like Muslim, woman, New Zealander, are only the beginning of an identity based
on varying experiences. This is the reality of hybrid identity formations in the global world we live in today. Since
the 'war on terror' became a household phrase, we hear a lot about this particular identity: Muslim. Muslim this, Muslim
that. It's like an alien spaceship has landed on earth and introduced new species that has grasped the attention of
everyone. But who are Muslims? Is 'Muslim' in fact a static identity?
Historically, Orientalist tradition has carefully constructed a single identity of 'Muslim'. Its purpose was to
construct a specific relationship of 'us' and 'them' clearly aligned with power and domination. The 'other', in this
case 'Muslim', was created therefore for the West to manipulate and exploit. Conditioned by educational and social
institutions that derive from this understanding of the 'other', we can unmistakably recognise in right-wing perceptions
the acceptance of this prevailing discourse. What's interesting, though, is that the left-socialist perception has also
fallen into the same trap. Both sides assume it is in a position to construct the Muslim identity, all the while drawing
upon racist understandings of this 'other'.
The ideological concern over identity is understandably entangled with the interests and agendas of various groups,
which want to reflect certain interests. What has occurred, however, is that Eurocentric-based movements that control
the prevailing discourse have put themselves in a position to construct identities for the 'other'. This positional
superiority allows those caught up in the movement to place themselves in a position where they can have different
relationships with Muslims depending on their agenda, but always maintaining the upper hand. What is more, they apply
certain characteristics to Muslims - whatever best suits their own political agendas and what's more suitable for the
ideological framework in which they're working. Therefore, in the case of the perceptions of the Right, Muslims are
represented as terrorists, violent, extremists and irrational. They are anathema to Western way of life.
Conveniently, this perception fuels the ideological war machine of empire and justifies the oppression of Muslims in
Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq and elsewhere. As a result, it convinces you that they are being treated brutally because
they do not fit into the Eurocentric understanding of what is 'human'. How else do we explain Balfour's 1917 arrogant
assumption that the British could make decisions to create a Jewish state for European Jewry, without consultation with
the indigenous population of Palestine? Therefore, the Palestine-Israel conflict is nothing more than a struggle between
an affirmation and denial, and denial has prevailed. The Palestinians did not fit into the Eurocentric understanding of
'human', so their presence is obliterated in consequence. This same series of hermeneutic processes also controls the
use of the word 'terrorism' and applies it selectively to this mysterious 'other', which is fanatical, violent and
uncivilised. So when Noam Chomsky rightly points out that "when 'they' do it, it's terrorism; when 'we' do it, it's
self-defence," it is because the prevailing discourse will not accept any other narrative.
This positional superiority and distorted representation can also be applied to the left-socialist perception that has
constructed its own identity of 'Muslim' and assumes it speaks for all Muslims. So in the left case, Muslims are
represented as silent, oppressed and victimised. They do not speak for themselves, because they are represented as such;
they therefore need to be spoken for. All the left require is the token Muslim who will be mere background for their
protest down Queen Street and the like - just in case their argument needs further reinforcement and legitimacy.
Importantly, in both cases, 'Muslim' is treated as homogenous.
Additionally, the socialist left denigrate the struggles of the Muslim world to nothing but a class struggle. It sees
the disenfranchised and impoverished as means to its own end. Therefore, the interdependency of history, political
complexity, cultural dynamics and ongoing human struggle for liberation is reduced by being solely represented through a
socialist ideological framework, simplified and made superficial - stripped of any narrative but a workers' struggle
against capitalism. The different cultural context is removed, and so is the essence of identity for many of the region.
Furthermore, Western ideas like Marxism, Enlightenment principles and so on are portrayed as 'universal' and dictate the
narrative. In the end, we have both perceptions depicting the struggles of Muslims in so called 'universal' concepts and
norms which are inherently Eurocentric.
Take, for example, the last chapter of " Israel: The Highjack state. America's watchdog in the Middle East" - a Socialist Worker pamphlet by John Rose. We see two common patterns: firstly, solely Western paradigms used to
articulate the plight and struggle of the Palestinians. Throughout the chapter, it argues that socialism is more
suitable and more just for those of the region. Secondly, what's interesting is it does not even consider another
alternative offered by the people of the region. There is no consideration of what these people of a different culture,
ideology, religion want. Therefore, Western alternatives are the only acceptable alternatives. In fact, any other is not
even fathomable, due to a hegemonic acceptance of this idea of European superiority.
Granted, the left-socialist agenda is not sinister like its counterpart. However, both draw upon an Orientalist
precedent that is seeping in racist and imperialist notions that disfigure representations of 'Muslim' in order to
possess them. To own them. To direct them. To contain and therefore control them. Thereby both perceptions arrogantly
assume they can speak for Muslims.
The Muhammad Cartoon fiasco not only demonstrated the racist understandings of the Muslim world across the political
spectrum, but it also showed the dominant discourse working in multiple ways to undermine Muslims. Ostensibly, the
argument for the preservation and protection of liberal ideals like 'freedom of speech' dominated. However, when
miscellaneous Muslim groups reacted in various ways to the offence of depicting their prophet in a derogatory manner -
whether it was through peaceful demonstrations or violence - little consideration was made of the fact that freedom of
speech is not premised on definitive Eurocentric understandings, and it is seen, understood, and implemented differently
depending on cultural and religious differences. Instead, Muslims were by and large criticised for not upholding the
Eurocentric version of 'freedom of speech'. Not only did we witness a fallacious homogenous 'Muslim response' to the
cartoons, but we also recognise the manipulation of 'Muslim' to fit into this particular context. Muslims en masse were directed on how to react, what they should consider offensive, and what is appropriate and acceptable behaviour.
Furthermore, their reaction was contained and controlled by the media selectively covering the violent reactions of some Muslim crowds while ignoring the majority. Thus the
identity of 'Muslim' was represented superficially and moulded to fit the situation.
Therefore, considering the historical imbalance of power, with the significant domination of Europe and America over
many parts of what we now call the 'Third World' - and this case the Muslim world - the ideological and theoretical
frameworks that 'we' have inherited from it to interpret, explain, and comprehend societies and the issues that arise
from it need to be revised, because they originate from a tradition that legitimised the domination and oppression of
others. Across the political spectrum, we can evidently see traces of this tradition manifesting in the ideologies of
both the left- and right-wing perceptions and its 'solutions' for the social and political issues facing 'us' today.
Until we recognise and move away from these paradigmatic traditions that justify and normalise inequalities and power
relations - that can construct and deconstruct identities, humanise and dehumanise them whenever it suits them - we
cannot possibly understand them to be alternative solutions, but merely a continued preservation of the past.
*************
Sahar Ghumkhor is a student from the University of Auckland.