ABSTRACT
In a world in which highly heterogeneous populations have become thenorm through patterns of extensive transnational mobility, the issue of coexistence has never been more salient. The Westphalian model of the
nation state has proved to be highly vulnerable to the many manifestations of globalized capital and the flows of economic and cultural capital, such
that national borders have become as porous to economic and political forces
as they are to human flows of economic and political migrants. Given the
increased vulnerability of the state to such external realities, it is perhaps not
surprising that, in a reactive struggle for self-definition and an attempt to
assert control of its resources, there has been across Europe a widespread
reassertion of nationalisms. These nationalisms typically draw on notions of definitive historical origins and core cultural values to claim the essential (and essentialist) nature of the shared national identity. At the same time, over recent decades the penetration of neoliberal politics into the everyday experience of citizens has been associated with a pervasive growth of individualism that, in itself, has given rise to an increased sense of personal exposure to the rapid transitions associated with a ‘risk society’. This same politico-economic context has generated an urgent quest for social solidarities to counter the sense of isolation and exposure to risk. Hence we have seen the growth of assertive regional politics in many European countries, and strong territorial neighbourhood and community identities in particular areas of cities and townships. These sensibilities have been heightened by the pervasive anxieties associated with terror and violence, following 9/11 in the United States and the bombings in London of 7/7. The acute economic and social consequences of the current politics of ‘austerity’ can only serve to exacerbate these trends. It is in this multifaceted context that this article seeks to locate the dynamic
intersection of central government policies that were devised to address the challenge of inner-city ethnic diversity, and the response to the emergence of a terrorist threat. As we shall seek to show, these two policies, developed by central government, inevitably drew not only on the extant political repertoire of the government, but also on its taken-for-granted cultural repertoire. That both policies ab initio were specifically targeted at the Muslim communities of Britain, and particularly at specific inner-city communities, inevitably resulted in the production of a legitimating political rhetoric in which Islam was central. Thus at the heart of this paper is a concern with the manner in which government policies aimed at facilitating the ‘integration’ of Muslim communities into British life, and at defusing those experiences and perceptions that might lead young Muslim men into ‘radicalization’ and terrorism. The concern is that, in effect, government policies facilitated a discourse and practices that promoted anti-Muslim sentiments among the majority population, and significantly alienated large sections of Britain’s Muslim populations. The nature of ‘Islamophobia’, a term that has enjoyed wide visibility in
British and European political discourse since 9/11, is at the heart of this paper. It is our intent to problematize the easy use of this term, as reflecting both some self-evident cognitive schema that has fixed properties that have in turn been ossified over time in European history. We strongly assert the essential role of a historical sensibility in coming to an understanding of contemporary manifestations of anti-Muslim sentiments. But, through this interrogation of two contradictory government policies, our aspiration is to show the multiple and dynamic ways in which Islamophobia is given definition and utility in the current political context of the United Kingdom.
