My chapter

[John E Richardson]

Dear all,

here's some comments on your comments about my chapter. This may go on a
while, so apologies. Your views are, of course, very welcome.

First, Linnea rightly identifies that that chapter is about the validity
& utility of 'Islamophobia' as a term/concept and the differences
between reasonable debate and prejudicial argumentation. As I said, I
don't really think that Islamophobia is that useful a concept. I would
also say that the chapter also has a programmatic function. It will be
included in a general book about Islamophobia, & I wanted to put forward
an argument for the importance of examining discourse, not just textual
representations. As I referred to in my last email: to go beyond the
'what' of representational approaches to a 'how' of (critical) discourse
analysis.

Second, there is the rather thorny issue of whether 'the attack now is
not against Islam as a faith but against Muslims as a people'. This is a
key issue that lead, I think, to Noriko's misunderstanding. I do not
think that the bulk of argumentation about Muslims is directed towards
the truth or falsity of their religious beliefs; and if it were, to be
honest, if it were conducted in the manner that I indicated, I wouldn't
have much of a problem with this. The debate is not about the
(in)equality of religions, but the (in)equality of people; the position
of discourse in society; the relation of talk/text and racist social
practices. It is not about text-discursive features, or even ideologies
in themselves, but the way that certain discourses have a privileged
status & have more power to legitimise inequities.
Clearly the two 'attacks' (against Islam/against Muslims) are
inter-related; again, as Linnea states, given that the rise in street
racism is linked to the perceived Muslim-ness of the victim, it is hard
to separate them. However, I do not believe that such attacks, or the
discourses that support and encourage them, are directed against Islam
as a religion; they are racist in nature and directed at a group of
people. Even the most racist political parties here in Europe aren't
against Islam as a religion; they're against 'them' being 'here', and
for them being 'sent home where they belong'; thus this is about racist
social practice. The Bush-Blair cabal aren't against Islam as a
religion; they're against certain Muslims not doing what 'we' say, while
Egypt, Saudis & assorted other client regimes are free to do what they
want (and are supported in this); thus, this is about racist social
practice not opposition to a religion. Now, of course it gets
interesting because of the part for whole arguments ('these Muslims' for
'all Islam') that are employed to argue for such racist social
practices. But it remains true that it is the liberty of lives of
certain Muslims that are targeted, not the religion.

Third, on the interpretative problem & the rules for reasonable (note:
not rational) argumentation. Several points here: you are right that the
rules can themselves be interpreted. I have also written about this
(though not here), and when this occurs, argumentation sidesteps into a
discussion about the rules themselves; about what it means to be
reasonable. This is difficult to put across in this medium, but it is
usually marked in everyday conversation by B saying to A 'you're being
unreasonable', after which A has to justify the reasonableness of the
argument or retract it. Thus there is debate about the rules, but rules
have to exist a priori; you can't debate what is not already recognised.

On the BNP ad hominem, I can see that this might look like I'm trying to
have my cake & eat it. Obviously I don't think so. To take a benign
example: if you were to ask to borrow my car, and I say 'don't be daft!
You’ve borrowed my car twice and each time you’ve damaged it!' am I
committing an ad hominem? The argument is clearly directed against the
person - about you & your abilities - but it is not ad hominem as it
refers to a reality external to the arguer. A similar thing can be said
of the BNP, or indeed the other writers I mentioned. When they write
about Muslims they (usually implicitly but sometimes explicitly) claim
to be reasonable & hence trustworthy. But this can be refuted by
observing what they have written or done in the past. I am not taking
away their right to argue, merely their 'right' to be taken as a
reasonable source of opinion on this subject.

Finally, the point on inter-group comparisons. This is a very useful
tool, but unfortunately little proper empirical work has been done in
this area. Anecdotally, it is interesting to note the groups that
attract the most opprobrium, both in the US & UK: some are Muslims, but
others are not - I'm thinking of Latin American guerrillas, Kurdish
freedom fighters (some of whom are communist), etc,; in other conflicts,
those presented as the defenders of freedom, etc. against the marauding
horde are repressive Muslim rulers, such as Mubarek, Musharef, and the
like. As a socialist, I think these are material matters concerning real
politick, the sedimentation of spheres of influence and other 'reasons
of state'; not to do with ideas/ideologies per se but the influence that
they have and their conflict with elite interests. Even 'democracy' -
neither the US nor the UK give much of a damn for such a concept if it
stands in conflict with wider interests. Their past actions in latin
America, and indeed across the world, are evidence of this. The role of
CDAnalysts is to show how text-talk contributes to these inequalities,
not to play the ideational world of one text against that of another.

I hope that you found this interesting & I look forward to your comments.
all the best

John E Richardson
Dept of Journalism Studies
Sheffield University