Some time ago, I wrote a post about how 'racism' was a term that was inaccurately applied to hatred of Muslims (and more historically Jews). I asserted that this was due to race and religion being two totally different concepts (namely, one being biological and the other being cultural). This is fair enough. But recently, in classic spontaneity that only my brain is capable of, I realised that they were much closer then I first thought.
Although racism and religiophobia have differences in the target of hatred, what they do share in common are the thought processes behind them; namely, the fear of the Other.
The Other is the classic 'use and them' philosophy: that there is us, united as one, against them, which will overrun us of we don't band together. The Other can be group of people with a defining similarity; Muslims, Lebanese, Afro-Australians, Jews, gays...you name a group, chances are, they are considered the Other by another group.
In this sense, religiophobia and racism are similar to the point of being the same. It isn't a tremendous leap in logic to go from disliking a group of people for their ethnic heritage (for example, Arab-Australian Muslims) to disliking them for their perceived racial characteristics. The lines become even more blurred with Neo-Nazis and white supremacists in general, who often refer to Jews as a 'race', despite Judaism so obviously being a faith.
This raises an interesting question; if racism and religiophobia are the same (or at least, very similar), then where does that leave homophobia? Hatred of the gays is certainly the fear of the Other-go to any ultraconservative 'Christian' organisation's website and you'll see the same smears being trotted out-that gays molest children, that they actively 'recruit' children, that they're in league with pedophiles, that they're sinners, that they hate Christians...the list just goes on.The us and them philosophy is in full swing here, just the same as racism and religiophobia. So why do we count religiophobia as racism and give homophobia a separate classification?
My reasoning is that, quite often, certain religious practitioners have clear 'give aways' that identify their faith. Currently, Muslim women are the best example. If you see a woman wearing a hijab, it's just as clear to what her religion is, as is knowing the ancestry of a white man (namely, European). Also, the reason in the 4th paragraph establishes that racism and religiophobia more easily align to each other then with homophobia, although racists and religiophobes do tend to be homophobes as well.
Finally, why doesn't sexism rate a mention? Although it certainly is bigotry, in my opinion is a bigotry (quite possible the only one) that doesn't rely on the Other-or at least not in the same way as the aforementioned bigotries. Racism, religiophobia and homophobia all share the same idea that this is 'our' country, and those who don't fit into 'our' ideal citizen. In most cases, 'our' model citizen share most-if not all-of the following characteristics:
1. White
2. Christian
3. Heterosexual
We've seen these prerequisites mentioned by Drew Fraser, with the CDP and the Camden affairs, with Liberal Party members routinely attacking the Muslim-Australian community in classic dog-whistling style, and certainly with both Rudd and Howard endorsing Alan Jones' views that those "Middle-Eastern grubs" should "scurry back...to their lairs." The difference between a racist, a religiophobe, a homophobe and a sexist is that the former three would state their particular Other (most likely Afro-Australians, Muslims and gays) would bring nothing but dysfunction to 'their' country, the sexist wouldn't. No sexist would deny that women are vital to the country's existence; they would just say that women belong in the kitchen/laundry.
So, conclusively, where have we arrived at? Pretty much the same spot we started at. However, I have been able to articulate some thoughts and distinction of various incarnations of hatred:
1. Racism and religiophobia, although different in terms of a target, share the desire to label someone's external difference (whether it be a hijab, kipa or skin colour) and use it to justify demonising the Other.
2. Point 1. differs religiophobia and racism from homophobia, due to there is no defining external characteristic for gays.
3. All of the above differ from sexism, as the former hatreds mark the particular group of people as an Other, whilst sexism is just more generally oppressive.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Of course the problem with your argument throwing the net very wide on all of these so called phobias is that it is used as the universal shut up by the left when evr any of its favourite minority groups is criticised, For instance if some one writes denouncing Jihadists they are accused of being an Islamaphobe" even when they make a clear distinction between the bombers and the Muslims who disavow them, Likewise make the legitimate argument that marriage is a heterosexual institution primarily for the raising and nurture of children, and you get accused of "gay bashing" even when you suggest that what consenting adults do in private is their own business.
Your whole piece is suggesting that thought control and political correctness can be justified when the reality is that it can't and that it is going to be ultimately a social evil that seeks to impose a straitjacket upon all discourse and all thought.
Could you provide some links for your "if some one writes denouncing Jihadists they are accused of being an Islamaphobe" remark? The most outspoken critics of Jihadists are often moderate Muslims.
Also, how does marriage come into this? I was referring to the intense homophobia that goes far beyond opposition to gay marriage.
And how does "thought control" come into this? This isn't a post about hate speech and anti-hate speech laws, this is about different forms of prejudice against a community of people.
Next time Iain, try to comment on that I actually write.
Post a Comment