The Ripper
06-11-2010, 03:20 PM
Read it!
Friend or Foe? Contemporary debates on Islam among Swedish right-wing radicals (http://www.anst.uu.se/matwe309/Bernsand.pdf)
Excerpt:
This presentation, though, focuses on ideological developments on the margins of Swedish discourse on Islam and Muslim immigration. Much as the shift of focus from immigrants in general to Muslims in particular has resulted in the weakening of the multiculturalist hegemony in Swedish mainstream discourse, among Swedish nationalists on the radical right debates on Islam and Muslims have revealed sharp internal divisions in crucial ideological matters pertaining to national identity and the moral state of modern Swedish culture. While for some nationalists, Islam clearly represents the ultimate Other and the key threat to Swedish culture and society, other nationalists, inspired by wider European identitarian and traditionalist thought, seek common ground with conservative Islamic strands of thought in their critique of key aspects of modern Swedish and Western society.
Simultaneously, the positions on Islam taken by nationalists of various convictions can interconnect with ideas launched by actors in mainstream discussions in the media and in the political field. The anti-multiculturalism of populists such as the Sweden Democrats combines a cultural nationalist and assimilationist agenda with values anchored in the political mainstream such as secularism, individualism and rationalism, a combination which sometimes adds up into fiercely anti-Islamic rhetoric (see e.g. Åkesson 2009). Populist nationalists believe that Muslim immigrants can assimilate into Swedish society provided they shed unwanted parts of their cultural heritage and make no political or cultural claims based on that heritage and keep symbolic expressions of Islamic faith out of public space. The equivalent liberal position seeks to uphold a strict division between “normal Muslims” whose everyday religiosity is to be respected, and “extremists” or “fundamentalists” who are seen as a threat to a society based on secularism and individual freedom and, of no less importance, to the assimilation of Muslim immigrants into that society (although in most texts the word “integration” would still be used). In other words, liberals accept a safe version of Islam that can have a presence in public space provided it does not try to compete with the hegemonic values of society. It can be argued that an important difference between populist nationalists and liberals in this regard is that while the former might prefer assimilation into a distinctly Swedish culture, for the latter assimilation implies succumbing to a general contemporary secular Western cultural framework, but it is does not seem clear what such a clear-cut conceptual division would mean in an actual social context.
Its an interesting analysis for many reasons, not least because it is a university presentation that actually seeks to understand right wing radicalism instead of trying to find as many incriminating connections to "nazism" as possible. It does a fairly good job, too, even if it is still a work in progress. It is very encouraging to see that the system criticism formulated by the good people of Motpol and other Swedish nationalist intellectuals is being given "serious" attention. :)
Friend or Foe? Contemporary debates on Islam among Swedish right-wing radicals (http://www.anst.uu.se/matwe309/Bernsand.pdf)
Excerpt:
This presentation, though, focuses on ideological developments on the margins of Swedish discourse on Islam and Muslim immigration. Much as the shift of focus from immigrants in general to Muslims in particular has resulted in the weakening of the multiculturalist hegemony in Swedish mainstream discourse, among Swedish nationalists on the radical right debates on Islam and Muslims have revealed sharp internal divisions in crucial ideological matters pertaining to national identity and the moral state of modern Swedish culture. While for some nationalists, Islam clearly represents the ultimate Other and the key threat to Swedish culture and society, other nationalists, inspired by wider European identitarian and traditionalist thought, seek common ground with conservative Islamic strands of thought in their critique of key aspects of modern Swedish and Western society.
Simultaneously, the positions on Islam taken by nationalists of various convictions can interconnect with ideas launched by actors in mainstream discussions in the media and in the political field. The anti-multiculturalism of populists such as the Sweden Democrats combines a cultural nationalist and assimilationist agenda with values anchored in the political mainstream such as secularism, individualism and rationalism, a combination which sometimes adds up into fiercely anti-Islamic rhetoric (see e.g. Åkesson 2009). Populist nationalists believe that Muslim immigrants can assimilate into Swedish society provided they shed unwanted parts of their cultural heritage and make no political or cultural claims based on that heritage and keep symbolic expressions of Islamic faith out of public space. The equivalent liberal position seeks to uphold a strict division between “normal Muslims” whose everyday religiosity is to be respected, and “extremists” or “fundamentalists” who are seen as a threat to a society based on secularism and individual freedom and, of no less importance, to the assimilation of Muslim immigrants into that society (although in most texts the word “integration” would still be used). In other words, liberals accept a safe version of Islam that can have a presence in public space provided it does not try to compete with the hegemonic values of society. It can be argued that an important difference between populist nationalists and liberals in this regard is that while the former might prefer assimilation into a distinctly Swedish culture, for the latter assimilation implies succumbing to a general contemporary secular Western cultural framework, but it is does not seem clear what such a clear-cut conceptual division would mean in an actual social context.
Its an interesting analysis for many reasons, not least because it is a university presentation that actually seeks to understand right wing radicalism instead of trying to find as many incriminating connections to "nazism" as possible. It does a fairly good job, too, even if it is still a work in progress. It is very encouraging to see that the system criticism formulated by the good people of Motpol and other Swedish nationalist intellectuals is being given "serious" attention. :)