MS-SEA Reading Group Discussion – Interrogating Categories of Analysis
11 June 2020, 4 to 6 pm
By Saleena Saleem, University of Liverpool
Avoid Uncritically Applying Categories of Analysis from Western Contexts to Non-Western Contexts
The following are some introductory reflections made during the reading group discussion on the importance of interrogating the categories of analysis that we use to study Muslim societies. I had highlighted recent debates within two different fields in academia that raise some pertinent questions in relation to how we decide upon our categories of analysis.
The first debate arose in the field of International Relations over the securitization theory. The central feature in the securitization theory is the ‘speech act’ – that is, when a powerful actor labels something as a security issue so as to present it as an existential threat, then the issue comes one.
The security issue is then moved out of the sphere of “normal politics” into the realm of “exceptional emergency politics”, where the issue can be managed by powerful political actors without having to be constrained by the normal rules and regulations of policy-making (often times, normal is deemed to be democratic). In short, it is the powerful actor who gives meaning to what is deemed to be a security issue – the issue itself does not have any pre-existing meaning apart from what is constructed by those in positions of power.
This theory has been amply critiqued through the years for its emphasis on the speech act and for Eurocentrism, which some scholars argue does not analyze the power dynamics in some contexts where speech by certain groups of people may not be possible (e.g. patriarchy that shapes gender dynamics or the construction of immigrants in Europe as security threats).
The most recent and damning critique though asserted that securitization theory was foundationally rooted in racist thought – that is, the theory positions “normal politics” as civilized and reasoned dialogue while securitization is the descent into a primal (or a racialized) form of uncivilized anarchy. The authors argue that the normal / exceptional binary minimizes the racial violence of normal (liberal) politics (see Howell and Richter-Montpetit, 2019). The authors contend that the categories of analysis that are excluded in the securitization theory – i.e. race and white supremacy from legacies of colonialism – are important enough that the theory should be rejected.
The authors do raise some valid points that demonstrate the necessity of critically examining categories of analysis that we use to study the non-Western contexts. Some of the broader questions we could address if racism and white supremacy are colonial legacies that are indeed systems of power that we have to contend with still, how then do they shape our understandings of the frameworks and categories of analysis we use in studying the non-Western context? How do we avoid reproducing Westernized forms of knowledge?
The second debate I highlighted occurred on Twitter. An Islamic Studies professor in the US, Caner Dagli, argued that it was problematic that increasingly Islam was being analyzed by academics through the framework of postmodern cultural critique, which is rooted in Foucauldian philosophical thought. He argued that Muslim philosophers, such as Syed Hossein Nasr, who had long been engaged in unpacking the relationship between power and knowledge production were being ignored in favor of a small group of apex French philosophers.
This poses another pertinent question to reflect upon – there is a growing emphasis in academia, fostered by a decolonial turn in non-Western contexts, to return to indigenous forms of knowledge so as to counter the reproduction of Westernized forms of knowledge. Yet in some fields – such as Islamic Studies – some would argue that there is a need to de-center male dominance in Islam that was shaped by pre-modern Islamic traditions, which has privileged some forms of knowledge over others. For example, in Islam, the philosophical thought of Muslim elite men through history has shaped Muslim society to think in gendered terms, which ends up being the building blocks of patriarchy in contemporary Muslim societies. This then may represent a tension for scholars of Muslim societies – on one hand, there is a desire to turn to indigenous forms of knowledge that could help inform our categories of analysis and on the other, there is the problem of handling some concepts in the Muslim philosophical tradition that are at odds with our modern sensibilities. And yet we also recognize that concepts are not trans-historical, neutral and universal – how we choose to handle such tensions could help us avoid uncritically adapting Western frameworks in our quest to understand and explain the non-Western context.