PhD: Cosmopolitanism -v- Communitarianism

Shaykh Ayatollah Meow

Cosmopolitanism questions the moral (and potentially political) legitimacy of state boundaries, treating them as arbitrary. As such, it insists we have responsibilities to those beyond the borders of our state. Our moral concerns must have a universal basis that transcends state borders.

This cosmopolitan ethic is often posited as contrary to a more state-based or localised (“communitarian”) sense of moral responsibility to those within our state borders. Hence political boundaries of the sovereign state take on a moral flavour and set our boundaries of responsibility and hence belonging. Our legal responsibilities to our fellow citizens are of primary importance and form a litmus test of our loyalty to the state as good citizens.

Cosmopolitanism as “humanitarian obligation” (at 200) beyond the legal obligations of citizenship.

But many cosmopolitans are happy to incorporate this communitarian spirit within their broader cosmopolitan sense of moral responsibility. Charity beginning at home does not exclude charity abroad. There should be no conflict between a sense of responsibility to the state and that to those residing outside the state. The authors cite Onara O’Neill who is able to “incorporate the particularist special obligation virtue ethics which motivate communitarians” (at 197) with a vision of cosmopolitan virtue beyond the state. She does this by distinguishing between perfect and imperfect obligations.

Although critical of cosmopolitans, her approach produces arguably similar outcomes to Appiah and his notion of rooted cosmopolitanism. It is also closer to my formulation of umma but very dissimilar to the jihadist notion of umma. 

Boucher, David International Justice in Bellamy, Richard & Mason, Andrew (2003) Political concepts, Manchester University Press

PhD: The Gap between scholarship and everyday interaction

[01] Islamic radicalism and Islamophobia don't figure much in everyday interactions even if they are prominent in academic literature and popular discourse. The dominant position among Muslims in Australia seems to be one of “reciprocal engagement … one that recognises problems on [all] sides but seeks resolution through cross-cultural problem-solving” (at 1238).

So in a sense Muslims are cosmopolitan in their outlook toward their fellow Australians. They are more nation-centric than umma-centric.

[02] A retreat from multiculturalism especially when it comes to Muslims. The irony is that these same Muslims by and large are not beneficiaries of multiculturalism in the sense of being recipients of government settlement services. They have by and large settled and access the same government services as other settled Australians. Yet they are still seen as beneficiaries of multicultural policies.

A retreat from multiculturalism especially when it comes to Muslims. The irony is that these same Muslims by and large are not beneficiaries of multiculturalism in the sense of being recipients of government settlement services. They have by and large settled and access the same government services as other settled Australians. Yet they are still seen as beneficiaries of multicultural policies.

John S. Dryzek & Bora Kanra (2013), Muslims and the Mainstream in Australia: Polarisation or Engagement? Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 40:8, 1236-1253

PhD: Some notes on identity

Akeel Bilgrami has written a chapter on the notion of identity in a recently published lexicon on political concepts. He mentions the idea of Islam as an identity to quite a great extent. For me, this is interesting because my research is on the extent to which Islam (in a sense of membership of the global umma) is deemed or chosen as a primary identity by young people in Australia who identify in some way as Muslim.

Bilgrami distinguishes between subjective and objective identity, the distinction based on deliberate as opposed to not quite deliberate identification.

Subjective identity exists when a person deliberately chooses to identify with a particular characteristic, be it religion or race or language.

Objective is when a person doesn't necessarily identify with a characteristic.

Generally a subjective leads to political action. Hence we have identity politics which is so often criticised.

The sense of belonging to the umma can be subjective in that it relates to characteristics that a person actually has and with which that person chooses to identify with. It can also be objective in that it may relate to characteristics that a parson may or may not identify with. Identity of membership of the umma can be accidental or a deliberate act of identification.

Or must it be one or the other?

Bilgrami also mentions nationalism which he describes as a ...

... self-conscious majoritarian identity-formation ...

... involving the identification of some kind of internal enemy (usually a minority with something in common with an outside enemy) and causing it to be subjugated. This usually causes the minority to react.

The existence of multiple identities in a person does not mean that a certain identity cannot come to the fore and lead to political action. Though I wonder if it is really about choice and deliberation. What if the choice is forced upon you? What if you are a reluctant Muslim which your interest is more in your profession or your language? What if you, act as an act of defiance to majoritarian pressure, feel a moral obligation to set aside your preferred layer of identity in favour of Islam?

And to what extent does this make you feel part of some kind of umma?

 JM Bernstein, A Ophir & AL Stoler (2018) Political Concepts – A Critical Lexicon, Fordham University Press

PhD: Islam in the West

Here are some notes on the Routledge Handbook of Islam in the West, a tome I am currently reviewing. It was published in 2015. The first set of notes are from the Introduction by Roberto Tottoli, the editor.

[01] So often do we hear about these entities "Islam" and "the West". The idea of "Islam" refers to a religious entity while "the West" is more of a geographical entity, a place. Islam is a faith and a community, an umma. I personally wonder whether this is (or at least was) the case. The umma represented a place where Muslims ruled, even if they were not in the majority. An example of this was the Mughal Empire which maintained a Hindu majority. Even Muslim Syria in its early days had a Christian majority.

[02] Tottoli writes of the ...

... supposed Islamic roots in the West. 

Islam has been in the West for only 3 centuries less than Christianity. In many parts of Europe, Christianity only spread after the conversion of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Indigenous European Islam existed in Spain as well as Bosnia and Albania, Macedonia, Greece and Kosovo, not to mention Russia. To suggest Islam has no roots in Europe is akin to suggesting Judaism has no roots in Europe. 

[03] Tottoli speaks of ...

... outer and Western umma.

Yet he denies the existence of a geographical umma. Furthermore some 6% of Muslims live in Europe. Indeed, the minority Muslim experience will soon become the norm as the country with the largest Muslim population is likely to be India in 2050. Then again, India will also have more Christians than any other nation. Exactly where is the outer or inner of Islam and/or Christendom?

[04] There is an enormous difference between looking at Islam in the West and Islam and the West. The former inquiry is far more nuanced.

More to follow.