Norway - Culture Crisis and Islamophobia - Assignment Example

Norway-nation, society, culture The modern history of Norway can be started from the period after the Second World War when, this nation became free from “German occupation and “was one of the poorest countries in Europe” (O’Leary 2010, p.1). Overcoming the constraints put forth by “massive housing shortage, rationing of consumer goods, and a broken down infrastructure”, Norway developed itself to become today “one of the richest countries in the world, [and] one of the largest exporters of oil” (O’Leary 2010, p.1). For the last four years, Norway has continuously topped the list of most peaceful countries in the world (O’Leary 2010, p.1). Norway is a monarchy for namesake but is ruled by elected representatives of the people in the form of a Parliament (O’Leary 2010, p.16). The country has a population of less than five millions, a well-preserved environment, and a harmonious society (O’Leary 2010, p.1-3). Norway’s landmass expands over 125,013 square miles O’Leary 2010, p.3). The life expectancy of the people of Norway is “the highest in the world: 78 for a new born boy and 83 for a girl” (O’Leary 2010, p.8). The Norwegian society has over the decades or even centuries developed a typical Norwegian identity irrespective of distinct geographical population identities and is said to have an “obsession with determining what is typically Norwegian” (O’Leary 2010, p.8-9). The values that Norwegians cherish most have been identified as “equality, moderation, and closeness to nature” (O’Leary 2010, p.9). A recent malice that has afflicted Norwegian society is the rise of drug use, violence and crime (O’Leary 2010, p.16). Culture One definition of culture suggested that it is “the language, beliefs, values, norms, behaviors and even material objects that are passed from one generation to the next” (Henslin 2011, p.44). Culture has a tendency to impart a sense of belonging to a particular group in which all the members share in common all the above said features and “culture becomes the lens through which we perceive and evaluate what is going on around us” (Henslin 2011, p.44). Another aspect of culture has been that it leads us to “ethnocentrism, a tendency to use our own group’s ways as a yardstick for judging others” (Henslin 2011, p.44). Here it has to be remembered that, “a group consists of people who regularly interact with one another [and] ordinarily the members of a group share similar values, norms and expectations” (Henslin 2011, p.81). The influence of a group on an individual actually refers to the influence of the culture of that group and this gets manifested in many ways. The influence of group on individual is such that “all of us learn that the ways of our own group are good, right, proper, and even superior to other ways of life” (Henslin 2011, p.44-45). This is why it is observed, “groups to which we belong are powerful forces in our lives” and it is also pointed out that “to belong to a group is to yield to others the right to make certain decisions about your behavior. If we belong to a group, we assume an obligation to act according to the expectations of other members of that group” (Henslin 2011, p.81). A social institution like religion is a more formal form of a group and hence they “shape our behavior” more deeply (Henslin 2011, p.81). The basic needs that religion fulfills for a group having faith in it include an assurance about “life after death”, “the meaning of suffering and loss [and the] desire to connect with the creator” (Henslin 2011, p.82). But it is the distinct rituals, beliefs, texts etc. that are associated with a religion that gives space to the exclusion of other groups for a religion (Henslin 2011, p.82). The prominent characteristic of a group is that it “exist[s] only in relation to other groups” (Henderson and Waterstone 2008, p.59). The existence and formation of a group is a process of inclusion and exclusion and can be described as given below: A group may be identified by outsiders without those so identified having any specific consciousness of themselves as a group. Sometimes a group comes to exist only because one group excludes and labels a category of persons, and those labeled come to understand themselves as group members only slowly, on the basis of their shared oppression (Henderson and Waterstone 2008, p.59). Only recently had Norway become a migration destination. Muslims had started migrating to Norway from several Muslim majority countries in early 1970s (Jacobsen and Leirvik 2009, p.257). By 1990, the number of Muslim immigrants in Norway had reached the figure of 36,000 and in 2008, this figure further crossed the number, 1,60,000 (Jacobsen and Leirvik 2009, p.257). Most of the Muslim immigrants in Norway had arrived as migrant laborers and among them, majority were from Pakistan (Jacobsen and Leirvik 2009, p.257). Muslim migrants from countries like Turkey, Morocco, Bosnia, and Iran also constituted the Muslim migrant population in Norway (Jacobsen and Leirvik 2009, p.258). The group cultural identity of the Muslim immigrants and its interactions with Norwegian society has recently become the cause of some tensions. Being a Muslim in a Christian majority country is related to both these processes of inclusion and exclusion. Primarily, the Muslims in such an ambience would be naturally consider themselves as a distinct group which would be further reinforced by the labeling of the majority community with whom they co-exist. This kind of “social construction of reality” under the aegis of groups and group values solidifies into conflicting interests that give no space for negotiations and this is what has been happening, though in small degrees and at a slower pace, in Norway as far as culture crisis and Islamophobia are concerned. Citing the example of Harry Potter, Henslin (2011) has pointed to the way people “learn to live” in a culture other than theirs (p.42). The way Harry Potter is unable to totally get integrated either into the culture of ordinary people or into that of magicians is presented a metaphor that is relevant for the globalized world in which we live in (henslin 2011, p.42-43). It is the same cultural crisis that the Muslims in Norway are facing. And it is in this context, the practice of “cultural relativism,” the practice of not judging other cultures based on one’s cultural standards, becomes relevant for overcoming the cultural crisis of Norway (Henslin 2011, p.45). The issue Socio-politically, Norway can be described as “a social-democratic welfare state” having a “state church” of “Evangelical Lutheran Christianity” (Jacobsen and Leirvik 2009, p.259). The immigration policy of Norway is based on the fact that the nation promises to respect the culture of the immigrants but demands that the immigrants “abide by the laws of the state” (Wikan 2002, p.70). But there are some controversial areas where the immigrant culture comes into conflict with Norwegian laws and values (Wikan 2002, p.70). For example there was the case of a Muslim girl, Aisha, who was supported by the Norwegian authorities in escaping the oppression and forced marriage imparted by her parents in the name of culture (Wikan 2002, p.69). Wikan (2002) has reported another case, the story of Nasim Karim, who was “forcibly married in Pakistan and was almost beaten to death because she tried to refuse the marriage” (p.71). If this is one side of this conflict, while on the other side, there is a mounting Islamophobia (Aslan 2009, p.308). It has been revealed in 2006 that a majority of Norwegians do not want the authorities to support “Muslim religious practices in Norwegian society” and many are against constructing “mosques in Norway […] [and] […] wearing of headscarves in public” (Aslan, 2009, p.308). The hostility and fear of immigrants, especially Muslims, primarily arose from the apprehension that “a small country like Norway” would not be able to “accommodate” the considerable influx of immigrants (O’Leary 2010, p.15). The right wing political party of Norway, the Progress Party has been banking on the general dissent against immigration to further their popular support (O’Leary 2010, p.15). The major cultural problem linked to this phenomenon for Norway was that this nation had no prior “multicultural experience” (Ramberg, 2004, p.79). Values related to family, gender, community, education, and morality can vary greatly from culture to culture and it is also these differences lead to cultural conflicts (Henslin 2011, p.52). In a two-way process, the Norwegian Muslims fail to “socialize” in the sense of cultural integration and Norwegian native fail to practice “cultural relativism” (Henslin 2011, p.42-67). Norwegian journalist Nina Dessau (cited in Ramberg 2004) has pointed to the “institutionalisation of racism in […] Norway and of an increase in administrative harassment of Muslims” (p.43). In 2008, a report by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance had asked Norway to take appropriate steps to prevent the spread of Islamophobia in Norway (Jacobsen and Leirvik 2009, p.266). The 22 July 2011 terrorist attacks in Oslo and Utoya have been a manifestation of the spread of Islamophobia (Spaaij 2012, p.87). The outcome of any terrorist attack in a society would naturally be the further strengthening of security and surveillance but it has to be understood that without addressing the underlying socio-cultural politics involved, the problem could not be resolved completely (Spaaij 2012, p.88). In the case of Oslo and Utoya attacks, it has been observed that these acts of violence could be only considered as “lone wolf terrorism” (Spaaij 2012, p.88). A total of 77 innocent people were killed in these attacks (Spaaij 2012, p.1). The declared aim of the single assailant was “to save Norway and Europe from Muslim immigrants and specifically to punish his country’s political establishment for embracing multiculturalism” (Spaaij 2012, p.2). It is a fact that “lone wolf terrorists lack a broad base of support” in their community and hence “isolating extreme elements from their more moderate supporters” has to be the tactics involved to counter such acts of violence (Spaaij 2012, p.90). The Prime Minister of Norway, Jens Stoltenberg had responded to the terrorist attacks saying, “the Norwegian response to violence is more democracy, more openness and greater political participation” (cited in Spaaij 2012, p.91). The general feeling that emerged in Norwegian society was that “refusing to be terrorized is an important response to lone wolf terrorism,” which is indicative of a healthy social fabric (Spaaij 2012, p.92). Culture crisis and Islamophobia The Norwegian society which was “sheltered from the rest of the world” has recently become more open to outside influences of other cultures through immigration as well as mass media (Olwig and Hastrup 1997, p.114). This was what led to a sense of cultural insecurity among a large group of Norwegians and given rise to the immigrant issue, especially, Islamophobia. But the “anti-immigrant” lobby in Norway has not been able to cash in much political clout yet (Olwig and Hastrup 1997, p.113). Muslim immigrants constitute 1% of the Norwegian population but they are not yet been able to assert themselves in a Norwegian identity “as the idea of Norwegianness, as it is produced and reproduced in public discourse, appears incompatible with Islam” (Olwig and Hastrup 1997, p.113). This is why it is difficult for a Pakistani-born Muslim citizen of Norway is hesitant to claim his or her identity in public (Olwig and Hastrup 1997, p.113). But it is a paradox that while Norwegian society is embracing the US culture as it reaches them through the mass media but they still have an aversion to Islamic culture which is more immediate and real to their society (Olwig and Hastrup 1997, p.115). Myths and misconceptions are common place when it comes to representation of Muslims by ordinary Norwegians (Olwig and Hastrup 1997, p.113). For example, Olwig and Hastrup (1997) have pointed out that “many believe that Muslim women have an average of ten children each” (Olwig and Hastrup 1997, p.113). The Norwegians in general have never been able to acknowledge the diversity among the Muslims of Norway in terms of their nationalities (Naguib 2002, p.161). But it is a fact that Norwegian Muslims are a very heterogenous group (Naguib 2002, p.161). Naguib (2002) has opined that: The encounter with Scandinavian urban environments, a sophisticated socil-democratic ideology and a welfare society of mainly secular character has compelled immigrants to reassess many of their own values and ideals in order to be able to accommodate them to their new situation (p.162). Hence it can be seen that both the Norwegian and Muslim cultures are actually meeting each other half way and a process of mediation is on the way. As the majority of Muslim immigrants are employed in lower income jobs as compared to Norwegians, their choice of residence will naturally be where accommodation is less expensive (Naguib 2002, p.163). This has led to certain amount of segregation between the Norwegian and Muslim communities in terms of physical habitats (Naguib 2002, p.163). For example, it is towards the eastern part of Oslo that more Muslim dwellings and mosques are found (Naguib 2002, p.163). This kind of segregation can eventually lead to lesser interactions between both the groups, Muslims and Norwegian, and will in turn deepen the misunderstandings. The practice of teaching immigrant children in their mother tongues in public schools has been found to have a further negative impact on the process of integration by taking its toll on language proficiency of the children (Naguib 2002, p.163). Areas of conflict that has emerged regarding mixed schooling of Norwegian and Muslim students included “mixed physical training and swimming (for girls), sex education lessons, participation in school trips, the compulsory teaching of Christianity and life philosophy” related to that religion (Naguib, 2002, p.164). The attempt to start a “privately funded Islamic school in Oslo” was rejected by the Norwegian authorities (Baguib 2002, p.164). But one positive aspect has been that Norwegians converted to Islam are trying to function as the mediators between the two cultures (Naguib 2002, p.164). Conclusion The “negative coverage of Islam in the press and other media” has been a matter of concern as it has the potential to deepen the divide between the two cultures. Though intercommunity marriages among Muslims and between Muslims and Norwegians are rare in Norway, it is reported that teenage Muslim girls now prefer to marry boys outside their communities (Naguib 2002, p.171). Given the strongly secular and equality-based cultural tradition of Norway and the cultural flexibility that has come into the third generation Muslims of Norway, it is expected that a consensus of multiculturalism is really emerging. References Aslan, E 2009, Islamic education in Europe, Bohlau Verlag Wien, Vienna. Henderson, G.L. and Waterstone, M. 2008, Geographic thought: a praxis perspective, Taylor & Francis, London. Henslin, J M. 2011, Sociology : a down-to-earth approach / James M. Henslin, Adam Possamai, Alphia Possamai-Inesedy, Pearson, Australia. Jacobsen, C.M. and Leirvik, O., 2009, ‘Norway’, In Nielsen, J.S., Akgonul, S., Alibasic, A., Marechal, B. and Moe, C. (eds), Yearbook of Muslims in Europe Vol.1, Koninklijke Brill, NV, Leiden. Naguib, S. 2002. ‘The northern way: Muslim communities in Norway’, In Muslim minorities in the west: visible and invisible, Haddad, Y.Y. and Smith J.I., Rowman Altamira, Lanham. O’Leary, M.H. 2010, Culture and customs of Norway, ABC-CLIO, California. Olwig, K.F. and Hastrup, K. 1997, Siting culture: the shifting anthropological object, Routledge, London. Ramberg, I. 2004, Islamophobia and its consequences on young people, Directorate of Youth and Sport of The Council of Europe, Hungary. Spaaij, R 2012, Understanding lone wolf terrorism: global patterns, motivations and prevention, Springer, Berlin. Wikan, U. 2002, Generous betrayal: politics of culture in the New Europe, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Read More