Symbolic Politics, the Arizona Law, and the Mosque Controversy

So called "Ground Zero mosque" reinforced long tension between the two Americas that Joseph Gusfield described in his Symbolic Crusade : There is a changing face of the United States, the America that has welcomed all sorts of diversity and appreciated pluralism versus the old, the first United States that emphasized its Protestant Anglo-Saxon heritage. As Gusfield brilliantly explained, the American Temperance Movement, which seemed to be a social movement that targeted the practice of alcohol consumption, was in fact a large social backlash to the great immigration waves in the 19th and the early 20th century. The alcohol controversy was the tip of the iceberg. The two Americas were in fight: The Protestant Anglo-Saxon America showed its reaction to predominantly Catholic "immigrants" through the alcohol debate (since it was the "immigrants" who consumed alcohol as a part of their everyday life). For the "real" Anglo-Saxon Americans, the culture of the immigrants should be transformed. In other words, they should be assimilated to be a part of United States. Yet, what the Anglo-Saxon Americans did not explicitly assert was the fact that they did not like the Catholic "immigrants" who posed a challenge to their economic and social status. Thus, the whole issue, according to Gusfield, was predominantly about status and power. It was only translated thorough symbolic fights over the alcohol.

Although the immigrants of the 19th century has long been a part of the United States (and some of them even joined the old America), the war between the two Americas has never ended. Today, the old/first America has named new "immigrants" who should be adapted/assimilated, i.e. Mexicans, Latino/a Americans, Arab-Americans, Muslims, etc. Of course, the issues that are raised should be symbolic in nature (as we had alcohol consumption in the 19th century).

In symbolic politics, the target is a cultural product such as language, headscarf, mosque, minaret etc. Consider the English-Only movement (http://www.us-english.org/). It is reminiscent of the American Temperance Movement: at a first glimpse, you think that it is about one specific issue (alcohol or language); yet, only when you go to the roots, you can understand the crux of the matter. It's a social backlash against the Latino/a "immigrants" whose language is Spanish. Now, come to the Mosque controversy in New York. If you just look at the posters/slogans of those who oppose the mosque (which are predominantly about "Sharia," "Iran," "Taliban," etc.), you would think that Americans will vote on constitutional change or something. The poll results that indicated 1/5th of Americans believe that Obama is a closet Muslim demonstrates how the mosque controversy has become much about symbolic politics and less about apparent debate. We hear less about the crux of the matter: increasing number of Americans who are less tolerant towards the "other" minorities because of the economic downturn, and that the old/first America has become more worried about their economic and social status. Following Gusfield, I read these issues as larger status politics. Using Spanish, building Mosque? The tip of the iceberg!

The Politics of Mosque and Minaret

There is a considerable literature on headscarf politics as an expression of symbolic boundary work. It seems it is time to conceptualize other dimensions of Muslim exclusion/integration. Now, the Ground Zero mosque debate has intensified symbolic politics in the US, a country where the headscarf practice is a non-issue. As the debate becomes a symbolic power game, meaning of mosques themselves are also in change radically. In near future, mosques might increasingly attain a political meaning, i.e. symbol of victory or defeat, since the issue has become much politicized.


Last year, the Swiss ban on minarets was quite a shock to Muslims in the West. In the November 2009 referendum, a constitutional amendment banning theconstruction of new minarets was approved by 57.5% of the voters. Only four of the 26 Swiss cantons were in opposition to ban. The largest party in the Swiss Parliament, the Swiss People's Party, strongly supported the campaign against minarets, which was seen as a symbol of radical Islam. Wonder how many minarets were in Switzerland last year? About a population of 400.000 Muslims (which makes the Switzerland's second largest faith after Christianity) had only four minarets. The poster campaigns targeted the Swiss people's feelings of freedom and liberty as demonizing Muslim women.