scholarly journals Modernizing Islam

2004 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 106-108
Author(s):  
Shaza Khan

As the political climate between many western and Muslim nations continuesto intensify, the rhetoric of a “clash of civilizations” has reemerged inour news media, governments, and academic institutions. Muslims andnon-Muslims, with varying political agendas, insist that Islam is inherentlyincompatible with modernity, democracy, and the West. Yet the contributorsto Modernizing Islam: Religion in the Public Sphere in the Middle Eastand Europe demonstrate otherwise as they examine the (re)Islamization ofEurope and the Middle East and reveal the ways in which “Islamic politicalactivism” (p. 3), or Islamism, promotes modernization.In the first of three sections, “Issues and Trends in Global Re-Islamization,” François Burgat describes how the progressive components of Islamization get hidden under a myriad of misconceptions. The termIslamist, he asserts, often serves to essentialize Muslim political activists bydepicting them as a homogenous group comprised of Islamic militants. Theuse of this term also “tends to strengthen the idea that Islamists are the onlyones using … religion for political purposes” (p. 28), though clearly otherindividuals, institutions, and religious organizations use religion for politicalends as well. Due to the essentialized and reductionist uses of the term, thereal characteristics of Islamism as a “relative, plural, and reactive” phenomenonare rarely recognized (p. 18). These obscuring lenses blur the image(s)of Islam even more in a country like France, where issues related to religionare often relegated to the “irrational.” In such contexts, Islamist movementsare constantly invalidated, though the activists’ reasons for opposition maywell be rooted in legitimate political, economic, and social factors.The obscurants that Burgat details in chapter 1 often cause individualsto view Islamists as anti-modernist and retrogressively reactionary. Yet inchapter 2, “The Modernizing Force of Islam,” Bjorn Olav Utvik argues “thatif Islamism is a reaction it is a progressive one, a step forward into somethingnew, not trying to reverse social developments, but rather to adapt religionso that it enables people to cope with the new realities” (p. 60). Utviklinks modernization to both urbanization and industrialization and characterizesit as a phenomenon that results in increased individualization, socialmobilization, and recognition of state centrality in achieving political ends(p. 43). He then proceeds to draw parallels between the goals of Islamistmovements and characteristics of modernization.In the next chapter, “Islam and Civil Society,” John Esposito furtherdemonstrates Islam’s compatibility with modernization and, more specifically,with democracy. He surveys Tunisia, Algeria, Turkey, Egypt, Iran,and the Gulf states in an effort to illustrate the importance, functionality,and popularity of their Islamic organizations. Importantly, he asserts thatwhile most of these Islamist movements begin by working within the foldof the governments’ established political processes, “the thwarting of a participatorypolitical process by governments that cancel elections or represspopulist Islamic movements fosters radicalization and extremism” (p. 92).Esposito suggests that increasing open competition for political power inthese countries and sustaining a reexamination of traditional Islamic rulingsregarding pluralism, tolerance, and women’s role in society will result ingreater compatibility between Islam and democracy ...

2012 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 162-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Poole

This article aims to show how in the current political climate in the UK debates about multiculturalism, religion, and identity, in relation to Muslims, have played out in the public sphere through an examination of British news media coverage of the Geert Wilders case. Wilders, a far right Dutch MP, was refused entry to the UK in February 2009 for inciting racial hatred. Coverage of this event demonstrates the struggles around identity taking place amongst various social, political groups in the UK. I will show how Islam, in particular, is currently central to these discursive debates and how different groups’ interpretations of the event attempt to assert ideas of ‘Britain’ and ‘Britishness.’


2020 ◽  
pp. 292-344
Author(s):  
Vuk Vukotić

This article compares the language ideologies of language experts (both academic and non-academic) in online news media in Lithuania, Norway and Serbia. The results will reveal that language is understood in diametrically opposed ways amongst Lithuanian and Serbian academic experts on the one, and Norwegian academic experts on the other hand. Lithuanian and Serbian academic experts are influenced by modernist ideas of language as a single, homogenous entity, whose borders ideally match the borders of an ethnic group. Norwegian academic experts function in the public sphere as those who try to deconstruct the modernist notion of language by employing an understanding of language as a cognitive tool that performs communicative and other functions. On the other hand, non-academic experts in all the three countries exhibit a striking similarity in their language ideologies, as the great majority expresses modernist ideals of language.


Author(s):  
Alexey Salikov

The question of how the digital transformation of the public sphere affects political processes has been of interest to researchers since the spread of the Internet in the early 1990s. However, today there is no clear or unambiguous answer to this question; expert estimates differ radically, from extremely positive to extremely negative. This article attempts to take a comprehensive approach to this issue, conceptualizing the transformations taking place in the public sphere under the influence of Internet communication technologies, taking their political context into account, and identifying the relationship between these changes and possible transformations of political regimes. In order to achieve these goals, several tasks are tackled during this research. The first section examines the issue as to whether the concept of the public sphere can be used in a non-democratic context. It also delineates two main types of the public sphere, the “democratic public sphere” and the “authoritarian public sphere,” in order to take into account the features of public discourse in the context of various political regimes. The second section discusses the special aspects of the digital transformation of the public sphere in a democratic context. The third section considers the special aspects of the digital transformation of the public sphere in a non-democratic context. The concluding section summarizes the results of the study, states the existing gaps and difficulties, outlines the ways for their possible extension, and raises questions requiring attention from other researchers.


2005 ◽  
Vol 116 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Harrington

If news is a fundamental part of the public sphere and ideals of democracy, then continuing assertions about the public's lack of engagement with its topics is a worrying trend. However, much of this worry may be conflated by a lack of understanding about both the lived experiences of audiences (particularly youth audiences) and the news media environment more generally. This paper examines The Panel, a Ten Network ‘new’ news program which appears to have a significant deal of power in the mediatised postmodern public sphere. Through its discursive format, and by making news more comprehensible and interesting, the program is able to increase the potential for everyday ‘rational-critical’ debate at the heart of the public sphere (Habermas, 1989: 117). This theory is examined here through the use of interviews with members of The Panel's production team and focus groups conducted with youth audiences.


Author(s):  
Thomas Faist

The social question is back. Yet today’s social question is not primarily between labour and capital, as it was in the nineteenth century and throughout much of the twentieth. The contemporary social question is located at the interstices between the global South and the global North. It finds its expression in movements of people, seeking a better life or fleeing unsustainable social, political, economic, and ecological conditions. It is transnationalized because migrants and their significant others entertain ties across the borders of national states in transnational social spaces; because of the cross-border diffusion of norms; and because there are implications of migration for social inequalities within national states. The first section discusses the structure of social inequalities in migration and the politics around it. It starts, first, by elaborating upon the commonalities and differences of the social question in the 19th and 21st centuries and then, second, asks whether the increasing relevance of location compared to class for income and life chances has replaced voice as a main response by exit. This is followed, third, by an elaboration of the nexus between social inequalities and migration, i.e. migration being both an antecedent and a consequence of social inequalities. Fourth, the focus moves to the main changes in migration control, its externalization from border control to remote control. This is followed, fifth, by a consideration of the other side of the coin, internalization processes in countries of destination and origin, driven by processes such as marketization and securitization of migration. The second section then moves on to sketch one of the main challenges, the need to include ecological aspects into the discussion of the social question. The analysis concludes with reflections on the shifting form of the transnationalized social question. Finally, the outlook discusses the role of social scientists in discussing the transnationalized social question in the public sphere.


2002 ◽  
Vol 103 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan McKee

This paper argues that much writing about media and citizenship tends to rely on a set of realist or structuralist assumptions about what constitutes a state, a citizen and politics. Because of these assumptions, other forms of social organisation that could reasonably be described as nations, and other forms of social engagement that could be called citizenship are excluded from consideration. One effect of this blindness is that certain identities, and the cultural formations associated with them, continue to be overvalued as more real and important than others. Areas of culture that are traditionally while, masculine, middle-class and heterosexual remain central in debates, while the political processes of citizens of, for example, a Queer nation, continue to be either ignored or devalued as being somehow trivial, unimportant or less real. The paper demonstrates that this need not be the case — that the language of nation and citizenship can reasonably be expanded to include these other forms of social organisation, and that when such a conceptual move is made, we can find ways of describing contemporary culture that attempt to understand the public-sphere functions of the media without falling back into traditional prejudices against feminised, Queer, working class or non-white forms of culture.


Author(s):  
Julie Firmstone

Editorial journalism and newspapers’ editorial opinions represent an area of research that can make an important contribution to our understanding of the relationship between the press and politics. Editorials are a distinctive format and are the only place in a newspaper where the opinions of a paper as an organization are explicitly represented. Newspapers and the journalists who write editorials play a powerful role in constructing political debate in the public sphere. They use their editorial voice to attempt to influence politics either indirectly, through reaching public opinion, or directly, by targeting politicians. Editorial journalism is at its most persuasive during elections, when newspapers traditionally declare support for candidates and political parties. Despite the potential of editorial opinions to influence democratic debate, and controversy over the way newspapers and their proprietors use editorials to intervene in politics, editorial journalism is under-researched. Our understanding of the significance of this distinctive form of journalism can be better understood by exploring four key themes. First, asking “What is editorial journalism?” establishes the context of editorial journalism as a unique practice with opinion-leading intentions. Several characteristics of editorial journalism distinguish it from other formats and genres. Editorials (also known as leading articles) require a distinctive style and form of expression, occupy a special place in the physical geography of a newspaper, represent the collective institutional voice of a newspaper rather than that of an individual, have no bylines in the majority of countries, and are written with differing aims and motivations to news reports. The historical development of journalism explains the status of editorials as a distinctive form of journalism. Professional ideals and practices evolved to demand objectivity in news reporting and the separation of fact from opinion. Historically, editorial and advocacy journalism share an ethos for journalism that endeavors to effect social or political change, yet editorial journalism is distinctive from other advocacy journalism practices in significant ways. Editorials are also an integral part of the campaign journalism practiced by some newspapers. Second, research and approaches in the field of political communication have attributed a particularly powerful role to editorial journalism. Rooted in the effects tradition, researchers have attributed an important role to editorials in informing and shaping debate in the public sphere in four ways: (1) as an influence on readers, voters, and/or public opinion; (2) as an influence on the internal news agendas and coverage of newspapers; (3) as an influence on the agendas and coverage in other news media; and (4) as an influence on political or policy agendas. Theorizing newspapers as active and independent political actors in the political process further underpins the need to research editorial journalism. Third, editorial journalism has been overlooked by sociological studies of journalism practices. Research provides a limited understanding of the routines and practices of editorial journalists and the organization of editorial opinion at newspapers. Although rare, studies focusing on editorial journalism show that editorial opinion does not simply reflect the influence of proprietors, as has often been assumed. Rather, editorial opinions are shaped by a complex range of factors. Finally, existing research trajectories and current developments point to new challenges and opportunities for editorial journalism. These challenges relate to how professional norms respond to age-old questions about objectivity, bias, and partisanship in the digital age.


2011 ◽  
Vol 141 (1) ◽  
pp. 98-106
Author(s):  
Yeran Kim ◽  
Irkwon Jeong ◽  
Hyoungkoo Khang ◽  
Bomi Kim

This article explores how Korean bloggers, in contestation, participate in the social structure of communication and potentially transform it through their vernacular practices of decoding and recoding in the blogosphere. As a neo-liberal regime has been established, citizens practise discursive politics in a seemingly democratic and technologically advanced society that is actually a coercive-controlled communication system. Through the analysis of news blogs on the Cheonan disaster, it is suggested that a majority of bloggers are seen to utilise news media stories to gain leverage for their points of view or to provide counter-arguments against the dominant frames generated by the established news media. The critical reframing of the digital network in Korean society allows a reflexive reading of the Korean digital wave, which should be contextualised within generation politics, economic polarisation and ideological contestation. In order to avoid a nationalistic celebration of the IT power of the country, citizens' digital media practices are analysed as contributions to the democratisation of the public sphere and the enhancement of social openness and participation in the digitised arena of discursive politics.


2019 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 259-293
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Martin

AbstractMost research on the Gulf states focuses on oil and its impact on state power. The literature on rentier theory almost unanimously agrees that oil rents buy off citizens and lead to socio-political stagnation. Massive protests and government attempts to address citizen demands in Kuwait between 2011 and 2013 call into question that narrative. Since those protests, the Kuwaiti government has taken steps to increase its representation of public officials and accessibility in the public sphere, including by expanding the government's presence on Instagram. How have Kuwaiti citizens voiced their opinions to government accounts? And how has the government responded to online criticism?This essay looks at the pattern of interactions between the state and Kuwaiti citizens on Twitter and Instagram using a content analysis of government accounts. The findings raise questions about the validity of the payoff thesis and understandings of consent and acquiescence. My analysis illustrates that there is a public dialogue that moves beyond the rigid structure of state and society by which the literature has traditionally understood Gulf rentier societies.


2014 ◽  
Vol 657 (1) ◽  
pp. 265-273
Author(s):  
Kenneth Prewitt

The editors asked for my view on whether, in the current political climate, the recommendations in this volume of The ANNALS are likely to be heeded. The question that precedes this one is whether the volume’s contributors understand why policy-makers make use of science at all. “No” is the obvious answer, though I see this not as a failure particular to their effort but rather as a broader failure of social science. Getting the science right is a necessary but not sufficient step in getting it used. Social scientists have not investigated the use of science in policy in a serious way. They must if science is to have influence in the public sphere. I also comment on the political climate, unhelpfully described by many worried observers as antiscience. It is more informative to say that there is a Congress-led effort to push science policy and federal expenditures toward short-term and narrow national goals. This is harmful to science and consequently to the nation, and scientists should explain why. But they must also respect that science policy and setting priorities for spending public funds are congressional responsibilities.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document