I hit the wall on something this past weekend. But before I vent a bit, let’s flash back to one of the most candid and insightful statements in the New York Times self-study document (PDF) from a few years ago.
The key, of course, is that the labels we use to describe people and groups really matter — especially religious labels. Thus, a study group at the world’s most powerful newspaper wrote:
Too often we label whole groups from a perspective that uncritically accepts a stereotype or unfairly marginalizes them. As one reporter put it, words like moderate or centrist “inevitably incorporate a judgment about which views are sensible and which are extreme.” We often apply “religious fundamentalists,” another loaded term, to political activists who would describe themselves as Christian conservatives.
GetReligion readers already know what we think around here about journalists who like to toss the word “fundamentalist” around. That isn’t what has me on a slow boil at the moment, however.
No, I am fed up with the use of the word “moderate” by journalists, which basically means “people that we like.” I have been doing a lot of travel in recent weeks, and at almost every location — from Prague to Princeton — I have ended up in conversations with journalists and scholars about “moderate.” This word is getting more and more and more use when married with the word Muslim.
What exactly is a “moderate Muslim”? Moderate in comparison to what? Moderate vs. traditionalist? Moderate vs. liberal? Moderate vs. radical? And in what context is a “moderate Muslim” a “moderate Muslim”? As an Al-Jazeera English executive asked recently, during an interview for my Scripps Howard column, is that “moderate” in Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Great Britain, France or the U.S. of A.?
What are the standards here, either in terms of politics or Islamic doctrine? What does a “moderate” believe or not believe that a “traditional” or even a “radical” Muslim does not?
Let’s look at a typical reference, in an amazing deadline story by Laura King of the Los Angeles Times about the bombing that almost killed former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan.
There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attacks, but before her return, Islamic militants had threatened violence against Bhutto, who is seen as a pro-Western moderate. Pakistani cities have been hit hard in the last year by suicide attacks, but this was by far the deadliest.
Until the bombings, the focus of the homecoming had been the highly fraught relationship between Bhutto and President Pervez Musharraf, who remains the chief of Pakistan’s powerful military. The two have been trying, with the blessing of the United States, to negotiate a power-sharing arrangement.
So, is “moderate” a political term? Of course, in Islam, there are no lines drawn between faith, culture and government, but let’s set that aside for a minute. “Moderate” means “pro-Western.” What is the content of that statement? Muslims who are willing to support the rule of secular, common law as opposed to the rule of sharia?
This is the context for most of the “moderate” language in the coverage of this terrorist attack. But wait, there is one more thing to look at — the ultimate button-pusher for me.
You see, it seems that journalists are not the only people confused at the moment. Check this out:
Mindful, perhaps, of resentment in Pakistan over perceived American meddling in domestic politics, the White House declined to comment directly on Bhutto’s return. Press Secretary Dana Perino said the United States hoped for a “peaceful, democratic Pakistan, an Islamic state that is a moderate force in the region, and one that can be an ally to help us fight extremism and radicalism.”
Later, U.S. officials condemned the attacks.
Now, did Perino mean to say “Islamic state” as in a state under Islamic law? Or did the press secretary mean a “Muslim state”? Is there a difference? Which one is “moderate” and which is “radical”? Does anyone know? Does anyone care?
Too many questions. My head hurts.
 | Posted at 6:21 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (12) |
October 22, 2007, at 7:13 am
A. George Washington is a sedition-talking terrorist.
B. George Washington is freedom fighter.
Perspective is everything. Words matter. Those who have not yet noticed Naomi Wolf’s new book describing the fascist shift taking place in the this nation, much of it the result of words used by the administration and by the media, would do well to look at her parsing of our recent history and her comparison of it with dictatorships of the past. The End of America is linked at Amazon, here: http://tinyurl.com/35snk2 . This is an important book, folks.
~eric.
October 22, 2007, at 11:39 am
Always be wary when a journalist uses the “conservative,” “liberal,” or “moderate” label. Unless specifically used as a self description, the label indicates a bias in the piece as well as introducing an untold number of possible interpretations.
October 22, 2007, at 11:46 am
There are certainly problems with those words, of course, as you pointed out, but not using them also generates a problem. If we don’t use words such as “moderate” what words can we use to summarize someone’s position without a thesis-sized essay? I think the best we can do is to be thoughtful about when we use them and to where-ever possible use a more descriptive word. Is my position a moderate one on the use of the word “moderate”?
October 22, 2007, at 12:33 pm
How about using as modifiers “bleeding heart” for liberal, “right wing” for conservative, “wavering” for moderate.
October 22, 2007, at 12:50 pm
Whatever may be said, “moderate” is preferable to “secular Muslim”, which I have seen in Times stories, and implies that only those nasty fanatical “fundamentalists” are really religious, or perhaps that anyone who actually BELIEVES the stuff is ipso facto “extremist”, or something equally objectionable.
(Am I the only one who sees something strange in a personal ad calling for someone “Christian, non-religious”?)
Of course, there is the persistent attitude that there are no “liberals” here, only “moderates”.
October 22, 2007, at 2:10 pm
A moderate is always someone occupying a middle ground between position A and B.
However, the media often uses it in this way: a “moderate X” is a person who might believe in X (here Islam) but doesn’t draw any conclusion displeasing to the journalist.
In the case of the government spokesman however it actually makes sense: he envisions Pakistan as as a moderate or moderating force between the Islamic world and the US, as the two are often considered at odds. Which law the country subscribes to is of no consequence in this.
October 22, 2007, at 2:11 pm
Isn’t there spam at the top of this thread?
October 22, 2007, at 2:13 pm
Not that I see. Eric Chaffee comments here regularly, and here he’s linking to a discussion in Yahoo Groups. He’s not selling anything or harvesting page views.
October 22, 2007, at 6:39 pm
I thought so because it reads like a book ad with little connection to the topic.
If I am mistaken, I am sorry and ask to have my question deleted.
October 22, 2007, at 7:30 pm
I agree with str1977 — Eric’s comment seems pretty random.
October 23, 2007, at 12:33 am
tmatt wrote:
Oh…people care alright. Its just that most of the voices we hear using these terms come from a particular set of interests and values. Its rare to hear Muslims from outside the political elite or a neocolonial class in other countries and their views on this issue of framing. I know I’ve linked to this before, but I believe this is one of the reasons that Asma Khalid’s essay in the Christian Science Monitor sparked so much interest. Its hitting a nerve with other Muslims, who are picking up the same questions about framing that you’re bringing to the fore. Personally, I’m inclined to think that you get called moderate if you’re willing to defer to certain policy objectives made by some Western leaders and end up looking like the European Union. But if you want a multipolar world, or insist on charting one’s own course, then one is less likely to earn that ‘commendation.’ In fact, as David Chidester has shown, we see throughout the history of colonialism that those who do not fight it are recognized as having civilization and legitimate ‘religion,’ whereas those who do struggle and resist are just ‘barbarians.’ The parallel between this and the current debate over “moderates” and “radicals” is quite telling.
October 26, 2007, at 6:38 pm
“Of course, in Islam, there are no lines drawn between faith, culture and government, but let’s set that aside for a minute.”
Hang on….I beg to differ. I am a female American/British Muslim. My culture is American/British, down to the jeans, T-shirt and Converse Chuck Taylors I wear every day. I listen to rock music, eat pizza and hamburgers from MickeyD’s, watch Bill Maher on the tellie. American.
And there’s more. The Islam I signed on for 12 years ago did not have a political agenda. Islam that has a POLITICAL agenda is either rooted in a culture that has a strong tribal history (like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afganistan), or a history of constant chaos where politics and power go hand in hand (perhaps Pakistan is an apt example), and where telling someone that something is the “will of God” will guarantee you some sort of “success”. The modern face of the majority of “political Islam” amounts to little more than gang leaders who hoodwink their gangmembers into something that is anathema to their own religion in the so-called name of God. They are misguided, dangerous, and stupid.
Political Islam is not representative of the FAITH of Islam. It amounts to the desperate and uneducated being controlled by someone with a hunger for power. They are told that they are doing something important, something that God wills, and are taught bits and pieces of religious side-stories to “clarify” the meaning of bits of the Qur’an taken completely out of context. This is done in many religions….the Bible has been used to justify slavery, and is still used to justify the denial of civil rights to many. I knew a KKK member in WV who quoted the Bible to me to prove that it was still alright to kill non-whites and non-Christians. I don’t see anyone holding her (or Edgar Ray Killen, who is a segregist Christian, convicted murderer and KKK member) up as a mainstream and true example of what it means to be Christian, even though they do what THEY do in the name of Jesus. And they shouldn’t be held up as an example of that faith, either. Nor should bin Laden and his ilk be held up as examples of Islam, although the media and Western politicians would love for you to continue to think they are.
The FAITH of Islam is what I signed on to. It is a faith that like Christianity, will take take the colour and flavour of the country it takes root in, for better or for worse. The Christianity of India, such as the regions of Karala, look and sound quite different to Christianity in England, France, the United States. And the difference isn’t only language and music, but custom in both the Church and in the daily lives of the faithful. Muslims also change culturally when they immigrate, IF THEY ARE ALLOWED TO INTEGRATE WITH THE LOCAL POPULATION OF THEIR ADOPTED COUNTRY. (This is where there is a difference between Muslim immigrants to the US and to, say, France or Germany where ANY immigrant population finds it difficult to integrate into mainstream society.) The majority of American-born Muslims are like me, and the majority of the teenage children of foreign-born/immigrant American Muslims are more like your teenager than they are like the teenagers where their parents came from. I know this from personal experience. I see it every day. I have seen it every day for 12 years. In Iowa, where I converted, in Florida, where I now live, and in England where I lived for several years. And many places in between.
SO does Islam draw a line between faith, culture and politics? In theory, it does. Yes, in reality it does where it can. And we all should learn that. And we should make it possible. Step 1: Throw away your pre-conceptions. Step 2: Educate yourself with knowledge and experience with REAL sources, not the popular media and their anti/ex-Muslim darlings who have their own agendas. Step 3: Educate others.
Blessings to you all.