Challenging the Muslimification of Muslims in research on ‘liberal democratic values’: why culture matters beyond religion

IF 2.8 1区 社会学 Q1 DEMOGRAPHY Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies Pub Date : 2023-11-03 DOI:10.1080/1369183x.2023.2268894
Paul Statham
{"title":"Challenging the <i>Muslimification</i> of Muslims in research on ‘liberal democratic values’: why culture matters beyond religion","authors":"Paul Statham","doi":"10.1080/1369183x.2023.2268894","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study critiques the use of ‘Muslim’ as an analytic category and overfocus on religiosity as an explanatory variable in studies on conflicts between Muslims and national majorities over ‘liberal democratic values’. We call this tendency the Muslimification of Muslims. We demonstrate how this research reproduces and reinforces stereotypes drawn from dominant resonant public debates. To challenge these assumptions, we turn the research inquiry around so that ‘Muslim’ and religiosity become objects not tools for analysis. Revisiting the EurIslam survey data-set, explicitly designed for studying socio-cultural distances between Muslims and majorities, we examine boundary construction over ‘liberal democratic values’. For Muslims, first, we test for differences between four ethnonational family origin groups – Ex-Yugoslavians, Moroccans, Turks, Pakistanis- and second, for the explanatory power of religiosity compared to non-religious cultural variables. Findings are clear-cut: family ethnonational origin matters and there are different group trajectories of acculturation; religiosity has a very modest impact and much less than self-identification with settlement-country which pushes in the opposite acculturative direction. Simply put, regarding the construction of differences over ‘liberal democratic values’, not all Muslims are the same, and it is not all about practicing Islam. It is time for a re-think and a de-Muslimification of academic research.","PeriodicalId":48371,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies","volume":"45 20","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183x.2023.2268894","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study critiques the use of ‘Muslim’ as an analytic category and overfocus on religiosity as an explanatory variable in studies on conflicts between Muslims and national majorities over ‘liberal democratic values’. We call this tendency the Muslimification of Muslims. We demonstrate how this research reproduces and reinforces stereotypes drawn from dominant resonant public debates. To challenge these assumptions, we turn the research inquiry around so that ‘Muslim’ and religiosity become objects not tools for analysis. Revisiting the EurIslam survey data-set, explicitly designed for studying socio-cultural distances between Muslims and majorities, we examine boundary construction over ‘liberal democratic values’. For Muslims, first, we test for differences between four ethnonational family origin groups – Ex-Yugoslavians, Moroccans, Turks, Pakistanis- and second, for the explanatory power of religiosity compared to non-religious cultural variables. Findings are clear-cut: family ethnonational origin matters and there are different group trajectories of acculturation; religiosity has a very modest impact and much less than self-identification with settlement-country which pushes in the opposite acculturative direction. Simply put, regarding the construction of differences over ‘liberal democratic values’, not all Muslims are the same, and it is not all about practicing Islam. It is time for a re-think and a de-Muslimification of academic research.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在“自由民主价值”研究中挑战穆斯林的穆斯林化:为什么文化比宗教更重要
这项研究批评了将“穆斯林”作为一个分析范畴,以及在研究穆斯林与民族多数派之间的冲突而不是“自由民主价值观”时,过度关注宗教虔诚作为一个解释变量的做法。我们称这种趋势为穆斯林的穆斯林化。我们展示了这项研究是如何再现和强化从主流共鸣公共辩论中得出的刻板印象的。为了挑战这些假设,我们将研究调查反过来,使“穆斯林”和宗教信仰成为分析的对象而不是工具。回顾EurIslam调查数据集,明确设计用于研究穆斯林和多数人之间的社会文化距离,我们考察了“自由民主价值观”的边界构建。对于穆斯林,首先,我们测试了四个民族家庭起源群体(前南斯拉夫人、摩洛哥人、土耳其人、巴基斯坦人)之间的差异;其次,与非宗教文化变量相比,我们测试了宗教虔诚度的解释力。研究结果非常明确:家庭民族起源很重要,并且有不同的群体文化适应轨迹;宗教信仰的影响非常有限,远远小于对定居国家的自我认同,后者推动了相反的文化融合方向。简单地说,关于“自由民主价值观”差异的构建,并不是所有的穆斯林都是一样的,也不都是关于实践伊斯兰教的。是时候对学术研究进行反思和去穆斯林化了。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.10%
发文量
157
期刊介绍: The Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies (JEMS) publishes the results of first-class research on all forms of migration and its consequences, together with articles on ethnic conflict, discrimination, racism, nationalism, citizenship and policies of integration. Contributions to the journal, which are all fully refereed, are especially welcome when they are the result of original empirical research that makes a clear contribution to the field of migration JEMS has a long-standing interest in informed policy debate and contributions are welcomed which seek to develop the implications of research for policy innovation, or which evaluate the results of previous initiatives. The journal is also interested in publishing the results of theoretical work.
期刊最新文献
Noninvasive Biomarkers for Alcohol-Related Liver Disease-A Proteomic Related Preliminary Report. Experimental evidence on how implicit racial bias affects risk preferences Becoming white or becoming mainstream?: defining the endpoint of assimilation Mental wellbeing and ethnic brokerage in friendship networks of adolescents in German secondary schools ‘Not having a real life’: psychosocial functions of using and selling drugs among young Afghan men who came to Sweden as unaccompanied minors
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1