Westminster Faith Debates: Religious identity in ‘superdiverse’ societies

These materials and links were provided for RE:ONLINE with the kind assistance of the University of Lancaster‘s Department of Politics, Philosophy and Religion Please note these materials were written and recorded in 2013.

This is a Faith debate featuring Charles Clarke, Linda Woodhead, Dominic Grieve, Kim Knott, Therese O’Toole and Trevor Phillips. It focuses on the issues surrounding religious identity in ‘superdiverse’ societies.

Students could be given the same issues as used in this debate and asked their opinion on them prior to watching the discussion, revisiting them later to see if any of the views expressed had caused them to change their minds. Extension work could be carried out in relation to sub-cultures.

This programme is suitable for use with A level students studying philosophy, ethics, religion and society, Christianity and Islam. However, the debate is quite long and it would probably be sufficient for one lesson to listen to the opening presentations. The Question & Answer section could be a useful second lesson or make worthwhile extension work.

Questions for debate

How do we live well together in an increasingly diverse society, and how does religion contribute for good or ill?

Conclusions from the debate

Since the 1970s the UK has been the most successful country in Europe at integrating an increasingly wide range of religious identities and allowing them agency in society. This achievement should be more widely recognised.

But the success means that religious identities are now so diverse that it is no longer as helpful to think of a small number of ‘world faiths’ which make people ‘Hindu’, ‘Muslim’, ‘Christian’ etc., and which must relate to one another in a ‘multi-culture’. Many people are now religious ‘in their own way’, there are many varieties of Hindu, Muslim, and Christian, and religious identities are inflected by ethnicity, gender and so on. The concept of ‘superdiversity’ may now be more helpful than ‘multiculturalism’.

Research Findings

Britain leads in Europe in successful multi-faith work and integration of religious groups; many such groups are now significant agents in civil society; New Labour achieved a great deal in supporting multi-faith and inter-faith work; the Coalition government is continuing this work with more confidence but less cash.

Religious diversity is no longer a matter of homogenous religious communities (Christian, Muslim, Hindu etc.) living side by side and together. Earlier talk of ‘multiculture’ can be unhelpful if it perpetuates this idea.

The decline of organised forms of religion has been accompanied by a multiplication of religious groups, more individualised religious identities, and multiple forms of belonging.

People do not have singular identities, but mixed ones (religious, gendered, ethnic and so on). It depends on context which aspect comes to the fore – often people ‘mobilise’ one aspect of their identity only when it is under threat.

Practical Suggestions

The UK should be more positive about how much has been achieved in terms of integrating a huge range of different identities, including religious ones – the bad news stories tend to eclipse the good news. Emphasis should continue to shift away from the state giving a small number of religious group identities what they ‘need’, to supporting freedom of conscience of individuals (liberty and toleration), and making sure that the life-chances of people are not limited by their identities (fairness and equality).

Insofar as there is a ‘host culture’ it is, and should remain, one which is hospitable to religious difference and freedom of conscience. This is the majority position, and whilst more exclusivist minorities retain their normal rights, they do so within this broader framework.

With ever-increasing diversity there will be more challenges. In order to meet these there needs to be:

• understanding of the civic ‘rules of engagement’ which make it possible to live peacefully together and to reach agreement
• creative partnerships with the state, including financial support for religious and other initiatives which encourage integration
• awareness of how policies (e.g. on counter-terrorism) can foster the misleading idea that there are homogenous religious identities which wholly define people (e.g. ‘Muslim’)
• better mechanisms, especially at local level, for dealing with religious disputes and reaching agreement.

After watching the discussion, it is worth returning to the students’ views to find out if and how their personal opinions have been influenced or changed by what they have heard.

After discussion, if there is time, it would then be worth watching the 20 minute summary below to clarify and crystallize the thoughts and views expressed.n.

“Everyone is quoting God,” said Shuruq Naguib, speaking about the Arab Spring in the first Westminster Faith Debate of 2014.

The issue for debate was the causes of violent upheaval occurring across the Middle East and North Africa since 2010. The media often present “sectarian” religious division, particularly between Sunni and Shi’a, as the culprit. However, are the conflicts actually being driven by religious animosities? Most importantly, what can be done to achieve peace?

Taking part in the debate were Bassma Kodmani, director of the Arab Reform Initiative and former head of foreign relations of the Syrian National Council, Toby Matthiesen, Research Fellow in Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies at Cambridge University, Shuruq Naguib, Lecturer in Islamic Studies at Lancaster University, and Jack Straw, former Labour Foreign Secretary and MP for Blackburn. The debate was chaired by Charles Clarke and Linda Woodhead.

Matthiesen began by downplaying the importance of religious belief in the Middle Eastern conflicts. While the media portrays an apocalyptic clash between religious rivals, observers should not be fooled by such “essentialising”. Three events were key to the current unrest: the Iranian Revolution of 1979 which “changed the way the Shi’a saw themselves”, the Iraq War which began in 2003 and redrew the balance of power in the region, and the events of the Arab Spring itself.  Insofar as religion was involved, Matthiesen mainly saw it as a political tool used by states and elites.

The manipulation of religious divisions by political regimes was a theme running through the debate. In Dr Kodmani’s view, corrupt rulers have been using religious establishments as a soft security device for decades.

For Naguib, however, a crisis of religious authority, particularly within Sunni Islam, is also a critical factor. She rooted this in postcolonial state-building. Newly independent states with nationalist agendas co-opted religious authorities to bolster support. The result is a crisis of legitimacy for traditional religious authorities. In Naguib’s view, organisations like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt are reacting as much against religious elites as against social injustice and political corruption.

This crisis of authority also involves conflict between different generations. Some young people, disillusioned by lack of employment and political voice, turn away from moderate religious figures to those who incite violence. Social media can play an important role here in spreading extreme views.

Woodhead drew parallels with a wider crisis of religious authority affecting all religions. Traditional leaders are questioned or ignored by new generations of believers who have increased access to religious knowledge, particularly through the internet.

The question “who speaks for Islam?” is linked to another: “who profits?” According to Matthiesen and Kodmani, religious conflicts have been stoked by corrupt regimes to undermine united opposition against them. In Syria, Kodmani suggested, the persistent threat of the ‘other’ provides justification for the use of violence against society. On a wider scale, sectarian violence offers major regional players the opportunity to assert their influence, with conservative forces from the Gulf monarchies and Iran casting themselves as the defenders of Sunnis and Shi’a respectively. Jack Straw also believed it was necessary to look behind these religious labels to the political rivalries they support.

What should be done? The panel offered two suggestions. For Matthiesen and Kodmani, a stable and lasting solution can only be found through the establishment of democratic societies on the basis of citizenship. For Kodmani, “Secularism provided it is well understood, is the most important principle we need to hold.” She offered the example of Tunisia, which following its Revolution has avoided extensive violence. Whilst one audience member suggested this was to do with economic pragmatism –“there is no such thing as Sharia-compliant tourism” – Kodmani stressed that Tunisia’s achievement was built on existing institutions of civil society lacking in many other countries – including trade unions and women’s groups. She believed that lasting solutions could only be based on equal citizenship, not ethnic or religious belonging.

Naguib and Straw agreed – but for them, the answer must be religious and well as political. Neither doubted that Islam and democracy are compatible. Naguib thought the issue of “Who speaks for Islam” must be resolved, and enduring solutions must have religious legitimacy. Straw suggested that stable religion-state relations have to be worked out in ways appropriate to each country. He reminded us that only a few decades ago religious “sectarians” from Ireland attempted to blow up the Prime Minister’s residence just across the road from where we were sitting. The history of religious conflict in Europe reminds us that stable solutions can take a very long time to evolve.

As always, after watching the discussion, it is worth returning to the students’ views and finding out if and how their personal opinions have been influenced or changed by what they have heard. In particular to would be useful to consider media and political responses to Islam and Islamaphobia.

For 6th formers it might well be possible to watch the discussion straight through, however, for some students it might be advisable to watch one segment at a time.