Constructing Identity in “Clocal” Politics’ M. A. Muqtedar Khan This paper seeks to understand the impact of current global political and socioeconomic conditions on the construction of identity. I advance an argument based on a two-step logic. First, I challenge the characteri- zation of current socioeconomic conditions as one of globalization by marshaling arguments and evidence that strongly suggest that along with globalization, there are simultaneous processes of localization proliferat- ing in the world today. I contend that current conditions are indicative of things far exceeding the scope of globalization and that they can be described more accurately as ccglocalization.~’2 Having established this claim, I show how the processes of glocalization affect the construction of Muslim identity. Why do I explore the relationship between glocalization and identity construction? Because it is significant. Those conversant with current the- oretical debates within the discipline of international relations’ are aware that identity has emerged as a significant explanatory construct in interna- tional relations theory in the post-Cold War era.4 In this article, I discuss the emergence of identity as an important concept in world politics. The contemporary field of international relations is defined by three philosophically distinct research programs? rationalists: constructivists,’ and interpretivists.’ The moot issue is essentially a search for the most important variable that can help explain or understand the behavior of international actors and subsequently explain the nature of world politics in order to minimize war and maximize peace. Rationalists contend that actors are basically rational actors who seek the maximization of their interests, interests being understood primarily in material terms and often calculated by utility functions maximizing given preferences? Interpretivists include postmodernists, critical theo- rists, and feminists, all of whom argue that basically the extant world political praxis or discourses “constitute” international agents and there- by determine their actions, even as they reproduce world politics by M. A. Muqtedar Khan is a Doctoral Fellow in International Relatiom, George- town University, Washington, DC. 82 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 15:3 reproducing existing practices and discourses.’O Constructivists, with whom I share many assumptions and insights about world politics, argue that agents pursue material as well as social goals. Thus, it is not the actors’ interest but rather their identity that is singularly influential in explaining their behavior as well as the reproduction of international practices.” Constructivists maintain that the agents’ identities, constitut- ed by social structures, shape their interests and actions in reproducing the existing social structures of world politics. As a result, states often act to defend national identity rather than national interests.’* I consider identity an important constituent of human agency. Inasmuch as social reality is a consequence of human actions, these same actions are a consequence of the agents’ understanding of their “selves” and their pursuit to do justice to who they think they are. The preference for an appropriate action that justifies their identity makes more sense to agents than interests conceived in terms of wealth and power.” Therefore, any attempt to understand world politics or the global human condition necessarily must come to terms with the process of identity formation and its implications. In the second part of this essay, I explore the sources of Muslim iden- tity from within and without, and seek to understand how the processes and conditions of glocalization influence the construction of Muslim identity. The 1.4 billion Muslims in the world today represent nearly 25 percent of the global population. They are grouped into about 55 states, again over 25 percent of the world’s contemporary nation-states. Thus understanding of Muslim politics is extremely important if one is seeking to understand the nature of world politics it~e1f.l~ Globalization or G local ization? The term globalization now conveys meanings that usd to be expressed by two contradictory worldviews: modernization and depen- dencia.” On the one hand, it simultaneously suggests the world’s enor- mous technological, economic, and political development as well as the growing relations between contemporary global actors. On the other, it also indicates a realm of discursive contestation between the liberal view, which celebrates the zenith of interdependence, and the radical view, which laments the global hegemony of capitalism.I6 Three palpable developments constitute globalization: the globaliza- tion of capital and the integration of markets into a singular global mar- ket,” the development of communication and transportation technology that is rapidly making space irrelevant,I* and the convergence of interests among groups and the emergence of transnational cooperations, which is realigning social forces on a global 1e~el.I~ The third element also is Khan: Constructing Identity in “Glocal” Politics 83 described as the emergence of a global societym and the manifestation of a global culture.2’ It is in this sociopolitical arena that identity is contest- ed, and it is in this social space where cultures clash and where actors struggle for authenticity and independence from cultural imperialism and seek to defend their national, ethnic, cultural, or religious identities. Those who are excited by economic integration on a global scale see globalization as the systematic elimination of the “local.” Adherents cele- brate the emergence of a “borderless world,’m talk about “global reach’*3 and “global dreams,’* and announce “the end of the nation-state.’” This economic view, which sees the market place as the primary realm of human existence, has already envisioned the dominance of the market over politics, society, and identity.% There is no doubt that the market is now global, but to assume that this is the end of all that is “local” is as silly as Adam Smith’s suggestion that human nature is only about exchange, trucking, and barter:’ Benjamin Barber’s famous article and book, Jihad versus M i WorZd, exposes the limits of the economic view and shows how the present is being shaped by the two competing forces of integration and hgmentation.” Even as economies integrate, many polities are disinte- grating. Even as capital goes global, identity is increasingly going local. Technology, global communications, and the world economy are destabi- lizing extant boundaries, but they are not eliminating boundaries altogeth- er: the boundary between East and West Germany disappeared, while new ones emerged within Yugoslavia; the Soviet Union disintegrated while Western Europe moved toward a more textured union.’9 whether boundaries are disappearing or merely as However, one cannot deny the amazing impact of com transport technologies in reducing the relevance of spa nomenon has brought different peoples, cultures, and valu they are forced to both clash as well as cooperate. space W e e n peoples and cultures, or to use the mo civilizations, has created a new “social space”31 that is new global culture.’* This new “global social space’’ whose cosmopolitan attitude toward identity has allowed them to tran- scend the “self-other” dichotomy in order to achieve a detached and dis- interested attitude toward the local. In the works of Islamic philoso- pher~:~ the epistles of a1 Ikhwh a1 $afa,14 the moods of Sufi~,’~ and, more recently, in the Kantian legacy of Enlightenment philosophy,” the human desire to decontextualize the finite self in order to merge with the infinite universal has always manifested itself. This desire was expressed through art, theology, and philosophy, and even through grandiose attempts at global conquest. One may dispute the impact of economic integration 84 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 15:3 The global spirit, I submit, is neither new nor alien to the thinking man or What is new, startling, and fascinating about the con- temporary phenomenon of globalization is the vulgarized, commonplace proliferation of a consumerized global spirit. This spirit is not found any- more in the noble sermons of prophets or in the elevating poetry of mys- tics, but in video cassettes, live TV, Web pages, and Internet chatrooms. Such a trivialization of the global spirit is disconcerting. In the past, one needed to be enlightened, one needed to transcend one’s own context to begin to think globally. But today the global is in your living room. You do not have to enlighten or transcend yourself, for it descends to you. My concern is best articulated by asking, even as we stand in awe of global- ization’s political, social, and technological processes, is there an emer- gence of a global conscience? We are potentially equipped with both the material as well as intellectual tools to usher in the era of global con- sciousness, one in which the individual self and the global collective can be conceived as one interconnected stream of human consciousness. But even as we accumulate the building blocks of a global culture, we are bursting at the seams from the pressures of proximity. While there is a strong will to globalize the human self through a kaleidoscopic intermin- gling of cultures and peoples, we succumb to tribal urges, more fancily described as “identity politics.”38 We build larger cities:9 but our neigh- borhoods are getting smaller. Countries merge and form regional blocks, but communities are fragmenting. While science and economics find more ways to reduce geographic space, politics creates new social spaces and seeks to maintain distances in the face of shrinking space. It is apparent that two distinct characters of human existence are in conflict as never before: the human being as a social person, and the human being as an individual. This clash is a global struggle to define human space. Our need for society is driving globalization and, simulta- neously, our instinctive defense of our individual self from the globaliza- tion of culture (for many the culture is a foreign culture) is making us cling, often desperately, to that which is quintessentially local. I am sug- gesting that we are focussed on the local because of globalization. Our conscious, which for centuries was nurtured by our local context, is being dislocated by forces of globalization, whereas identity politics, or the impulse to belong to something, is a search for anchorage. It is this des- perate need for locating the self that is being captured in the floating flux of globalization. The tension between cultural structures and human agency is being played out in the codiontation between global processes and localized identities. But far from making the global spirit truly global, globalization has engendered the opposite d o n . In the political and sociocultural are- Khan: Constructing Identity in “Glocal” Politics 85 nas, powerful actors seek to globalize the local as a way of coping with the economic and technical drive toward globalization. The logic seems to be simple: If I have to go global, why not globalize those values and points of reference that make me comfortable? What does globalizing the local mean? One might say that it involves understanding the impact of global processes as a medium facilitating the proliferation of ideas and globalized discourses. In other words, the glob- al culture and global conscious discussed by the adherents of globaliza- tion are essentially a recognition of globalized discourses. But these glob- al discourses, I contend, have local origins, for they are consequences of powerful local interests that globalize their concerns through their access to global mediums, such as CNN. For example, recall NBC’s coverage of the 1996 Olympics. It was the most globalized, elaborate, technological- ly sophisticated, and expensive coverage of a sporting event. The Olympics, a wonderful expression of the global spirit, and the apex of technology joined to provide what was heralded as the most spectacular show on Earth: a global event watched by billions. But before we celebrate these monuments of globalization, we must explore the curiosities of NBC’s coverage. During those 2 weeks, we never realized that we were watching a global event. It was like a local fes- tival televised globally. American athletes who failed to win medals won more minutes of global TV time than many of the actual (non-American) winners. We learned more about the homes and fiiends and pets of American athletes, who sometimes did not even qualify for the finals of their events, than we did about some Chinese athletes who actually won medals. This is particularly intriguing, since more Chinese watched the games than there are Americans in this world The point is ’simple: American consumers’ purchasing power, in combination with the parochiality and nationalistic (local) sentiments of American viewers, made a mockery of the global spirit. It was not a global event; rather, it was the globalization of a local sentiment: the celebration of American power. While it is naive to argue that the forces and processes of globaliza- tion are completely under American or any group’s control one cannot deny that power undermines the spontaneity of globalization. Moreover, focusing on the local inevitably leads to the use of local power to influ- ence global processes for local interests. Thus, while there is something tangible to the economic and technological elements of globalization, the social dimension is basically the globalized discourses of local interests. In other words, globalization in the social realm is basically global images of local imaginations. Erik Swyngedouw coined an interesting term, glmaZization, to describe the simultaneously occurring forces of globalization and local- 86 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 15:3 ization.’O The identity and political crises defining the contemporary human condition spring from tensions between a heightened global aware- ness of the present and the reawakening of passions deeply rooted in local histories. He argues that the global and the local are not two separate pro- cesses, but rather that they are mutually constitutive and, therefore, deeply intertwined. In addition, he employs an empirical analysis from the realm of economics to explain the impact of global flows on local actions and the reverse influence of local actions on global processes.“ He seems to apply Anthony Giddens’ ideas of structuration when discussing how the local and global simultaneously constitute each other.’z (The process of struc- turation implies that as neither global nor local variables can be isolated analytically, social reality can be mapped only by simultaneously consid- ering both forces.) A similar idea is advanced by Strassoldo in his reflections on global- ism and l~calisrn.’~ In an interesting argument, Strassoldo argues that globalism and localism cannot grow simultaneously (as they are linked in a dialectical relationship), and then posits that globalism and localism grow simultaneously at the expense of the nation-state. Thus, globalism and localism act in conjunction to undermine the nation-state.u While I am inclined to agree with his first assertion, I wish to distance myself from his second claim that the nation-state is declining. Localism, I believe, can manifest itself as nationalism and a return to state-centric thinking. The growth of hypernationalism, which has generated new nation-states like Bosnia and Croatia, indicates that the nation-state is not ready to exit the stage of world politics. New separatist and nationalist movements in pursuit of other nation-states threaten such existing states as Spain and Canada despite globalism and European integration.’s It is a tribute to the resilience of nation-states that we have added nearly twen- ty new nation-states in the last decade alone. This global-local interaction has received a lot of attention. Most of these analysis, as those discussed above, seem to find global causes in local actions or seek to identie local responses to global intrusions.4 In his discussion of local reponses, Alger summarizes the various forms of resistance mounted by local agents in the wake of globalization. He men- tions how local actors are “creating a culture of resistance,” commonly in the form of social movements seeking to protect something local, and how these objects of concern can vary from local investments to human rights and cultural values and identities. He places Islamic movements within this category. His analysis brings substance and meaning to the cliche “think globally act 10cally.”~’ Alger’s account of this local-global interaction departs from Swyngedouw and Strassoldo for, unlike them, he sees a causal and not a dialectical relationship between the two. Khan: Constructing Identity in “Glocal” Politics 87 If we find Alger’s account compelling, we can conclude that con- temporary tendencies of localism are not concomitant with, but rather are a response to, globalism. Thus, increased local activity will not necessar- ily enhance globalism, as Strassoldo is inclined to believe:’ for local resistances may create mitigating circumstances that arrest the tide of globalization. This conclusion may reassure cynics or opponents of glob- alization. I am inclined to agree with Alger, for while I believe that we live in a era of glocalization rather than globalization, I am convinced that the refocussing on the local seen in contemporary social practices is a consequence of globalization and not concomitant with it. Glocalization, as I conceptualize it, implicates power, as it posits two kinds of local-global dynamics. First, glocalization is the exercise of power on a global scale by local actors in pursuit of clearly local inter- ests. The creation and maintenance of institutions of global governance (e.g., the United Nations ”1, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund [IMF], the World Trade Organization [WTO]), interna- tional regimes (e.g., NPT, CTBT, human rights), and international link- ages (e.g., trade, the Internet, international media, transportation net- works) by nation-states or multinational corporations, is neither motivat- ed by nor even influenced by any global spirit in the pursuit of a global s0ciety.4~ This so-called globalization is a consequence of the enormous power accumulated by actors whose vision is limited to self-interest. Thus, at one level, glocalization is merely the result of the global reach of powerful actors. Consider the case of Iraq, against which the United States has waged two wars in response to its ill-advised invasion of Kuwait. The first war, Desert Storm, forced Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait and surrender to “international society.” In this war, the United States and its allies killed about 250,000 Iraqis and destroyed only a limited amount of the Iraqi arsenal. But the primary objective of freeing Kuwait was accomplished. Then the United States, in concert with its allies, launched the second invasion, that of sanctions, which has claimed over one million Iraqi lives and destroyed its industrial and basic infrastructure without getting rid of the primary problem-Saddam Hu~sein.~’ This second war, which is being waged through sanctions and a systematic quarantine of Iraq, has been more devastating and effective then the first and has been feasible primarily because of the presence of global processes. Such global insti- tutions of governance as the UN, global trade dependencies of states (i.e., oil revenues from exports, and food and medicines from imports in the case of Iraq), and the availability of regimes and instituions that can con- trol global linkages have facilitated the United States’ virtual invasion and occupation of Iraq. In a less globalized world, the United States 88 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 15:3 would have had to achieve its ultimate objectives through a more direct route and at a greater cost and considerably greater risk to American lives. But the existence of global institutions and processes have enabled it to systematically destroy Iraq.5’ Glocalization, which has enabled the United States to exert so much pressure for so long and from such a great distance, has made this current situation possible. Second, gbcalization implies an enhanced consciousness of that which is local as a consequence of the intrusion of the global. Thus, refo- cussing on the local as a response to the global is the second dimension of glocalization. The search for local identities, the fragmentation of states and communities, and the increasing proliferation of identity poli- tics are all manifestations of glocalization. The success of globalization is unleashing reactionary processes of localization, because those localities that have had to shoulder the burden of change are recognizing that glob- alization represents the global assault launched by powerful locals. It is the weak states and societies that have had to face restructuring, disloca- tion, and even disembodiment, while the powerful have merely become more powerful. Thus glocalization represents a struggle to protect the identity, distinctiveness, history, and meanings of all that is local, partic- ularly as the eminence of certain powerful actors becomes global. Local Imagination and Global Images of Islam What is the impact of glocalization on the meaning of Islam and the identity of Muslims? I believe that “glocal politics” have done great vio- lence to the image of Islam and the identity of Muslims. Never has Islam faced such an assault of discourses specifically designed to distort, dis- figure, misrepresent, and misconstitute it in order to systematically elim- inate its value even from the hearts of its adherents. Global images of Islam have been conjured to present it as an atavistic and anachronistic idea having no place in the modem world. Devout Muslims are described as irrational and intransigent people having a medieval mentality and lacking human sensibility.52 Such global images are essentially a construction of Islamic and Muslim identity that reflect the politics of its non-Muslim constructors. The power of these images is altering the very context within which Muslims have traditionally perceived themselves. They are forced to reassess themselves and their values h m an outside-in perspective. Their construction of their “selves” is increasingly a defensive response to the assault on Islam rather than a healthy and proactive representation of val- ues and beliefs. Muslim discourses and practices are now being consti- tuted by global images, as opposed to global images representing Muslim practices. Increasingly, one sees Muslim intellectuals producing defen- Khan: Constructing Identity in “Glocal” Politics 89 sive literature in an attempt to explain Islam to the West in the discursive parameters of the West. The resulting literature often reflects themes that are more consonant with the Western domination of Muslims than the interests of Muslims. Muslim attempts to rearticulate Islamic values in the Enlightenment’s lexicology, with such titles as Islam and human Islam and democracy,% Islam and plurali~m:~ Islam and women’s rights: all indicate a sad surrender of the present to the dominant West. Rather than understanding the present from the explicit interests of Islam and the ummuh and then articulating reform and development strategies to enhance Muslim interests, Muslim intellectuals are caught up in the powefil discourses of the West and modernity, discourses that serve only the interests of the West and secular humanism. Even when Muslims defend Islam against Western discourses, in reality they are legitimizing the West and modernity by treating it as a standard against which all things must be measured. Thus, Muslim intellectuals seeking to understand and represent Islam often allow Western and anti-Islamic car- icatures of Islam to play a constitutive role in their discourses. In a nutshell, global images of Islam have created a crisis of repre- sentation within the Muslim psyche. I shall contrast the traditional con- struction of Muslim identity from an inside-out perspective with the out- side-in construction of Muslim identity to demonstrate the debilitating consequences of glocalization on the consthction of Muslim identity. The Inside-Out Construction of Identity I use the phrase “the inside-out construction of identity” to indicate the process by which subjects represent themselves. This process of rep- resentation involves the construction of the self as well as the signifying practices and symbolic systems that locate this constructed self.57 At the collective level, representation is a process by which communities, groups, and civilizations present themselves to other entities. In this sec- tion, I examine the construction of Muslim identity and discuss its repre- sentation. As I have discussed the various sources of Muslim identity in considerable detail elsewhere:’ I reproduce only those elements germane to the issue at hand. In the past, Muslim society relied on two competing sources of iden- tity: Islamic ideals and ‘uSubiyuh (ethni~ity).~~ With the evolution of jurisprudence (usd ul fiqh), new sources of difference based upon mudhcihib (schools of jurisprudence) emerged and gradually led to a uniquely Islamic form of pluralism.60 Political differences leading to con- flicting interpretations of Islamic principles created new identities, such as the Khilrijites and the ‘Aids. The advent of the nation-state in the mod- ern era added a newer dimension-ationalism-to difference in the 90 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 15:3 Muslim world!’ Thus over a period of 1400 years, the Muslim world developed newer sources of identity/difference that have systematically chipped away at the monolithic conception of the Muslim ummuh. Broadly speaking, there are five sources of meaning that influence the process of identity formation in Muslim societies: subjective, intersubjec- tive, ideal, structural, and historical. These sources shape the Muslim com- munity as well as the Muslim individuaL6* Subjective sources essentially are dependent on the self-narrative of the individual and contingent pri- marily on how he/she interprets hidher past experiences. This subjective identity emerges through an autobiographical discourse that is politically self-conscious.a Intersubjective sources are essentially an amalgam of shared understandings and collective memories of groups that, when dom- inant, become sources of identification.” These shared values and experi- ences provide the symbolic and moral content that generates the sense of collective self-worth needed to bind the members and provide them with a collective identity. Shared goals and shared interpretations of the world also provide intersubjective sources of identity!5 The emergence of transnational and even trans-ethnic Islamic movements, such as the Islamization of Knowledge or the Tabilighi Jama‘at, are examples of shared values providing a source of collective identity. Ideal sources are those beliefs and practices that each Muslim recog- nizes as defining “the Islamic identity,” which is based upon an individ- ual’s Islamic beliefs and is characterized by hidher Islamic practices.& This notion of Islamic identity is highly ideal in its construction, acon- textual as well as ahistorical, and presupposes the supreme domination of Islamic values to immunize the believer to the material and political con- tingencies of his/her time or location. Needless to say, this remains an ideal that all Muslims, at the individual as well as the collective level, aspire to a~hieve.~’ Structural sources of identity are primarily political and based on the distribution of power and resources in society. Its most prominent mani- festation is nationalism. While national identities often are based on eth- nic, racial, and historically shared values, in the Muslim world these iden- tities are constructed by the nation-state system.” Kuwaitis, Iraqis, and Saudis have more shared values than differences, yet they consider them- selves as different nationalities.@ These differences can only be explained through the institutionalization of an externally (British) endowed distri- bution of power and resources. Structural sources also can be understood in a contemporary context: the emergence of distinct identities among Indian and Pakistani Muslims, despite many cultural, linguistic, and eth- nic commonalities is indicative of the role of contemporary sociopolitical contexts in shaping identity. Khan: Constructing Identity in “Glocal” Politics 91 The historical sources of Muslim identity also have caused differ- ences to emerge in the historical construction of the meanings and signif- icance of Islamic values, symbols, and eventsm The most outstanding example of this historically emerging difference is the gradual divergence of Sunni and Shi‘i theology and jurisprudence. Groups, sects, and schools of jurisprudence have gained legitimacy and identity through historically constructed meanings that invoke and then romanticize symbols or authoritative figures fiom the past.” Many such historically constituted Muslim identities have proliferated during Islam’s 1,400-year history. While these five sources of Muslim identity are analytically distinct, in reality they overlap in every individual and every community. Nobody is only a mafi or a Shi’i; contemporary Muslims possess multiple identi- ties and are complex amalgamations of the various sources of identities, with some sources exaggerated and others understated. Within the Muslim world, identity is represented by using Islamic symbols and discourses that have evolved over the centuries. Muslims manifest who they are in their daily practices: how they dress, whether they maintain their beards, which scholars they invoke in their discus- sions, and which events they celebrate are all signifiers of various mean- ings that constitute the present’s multiple Muslim identities. In the West, Muslims assert their identity by growing beards and wearing head scarves (hijiib) to school and on the job. They emphasize who they are when they demand MrCrr food on airlines, refusing to touch or serve alcohol at social occasions, taking a longer lunch break on Friday to offer the congrega- tional prayer. Such adherence to Islamic dietary and prayer schedules is more than just a way to demonstrate to others that they are Mulsims; it is a part of being Muslim, a way to reproduce the Muslim self on a daily basis. Muslims use such Islamic accouterments as posters, carpets, and prayer rugs to create Islamic places at home, work, and in public places.n The decor is nostalgic of Islamic civilization and helps create an Islamic environment and reinforces Muslim identities. The use of Islamic archi- tectural designs in mosques globally is an important assertion by Muslims of their collective presence. Increasingly, this is becoming a way of heralding a Muslim presence in traditionally non-Muslim areasn Muslims use various combinations of these five sources of identity to represent themselves. Some seek to emphasize their nationality, others stress their religious adherence, and yet some others attach importance to their association with particular movements. The rituals and complex pro- cesses of representation allow Muslims to keep Islam alive. This, in turn, provides the normative substance that gives their lives meaning, struc- ture, and direction. The process of identity construction and its represen- tation is a vital element of Muslim existence. If it were disrupted or dis- 92 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 15:3 torted, it would have unimaginably deleterious consequences on the very future of Islam as a rich and thriving civilization. The Outsideln Construction of Identity Muslim identity is also constructed from outside by others for pur- poses of explaining-not necessarily understanding- Muslim culture and Muslim behavior. Edward Said, in his Covering Islam and Orientalism, has done exceptional work in exposing Western construc- tions of Islam and Muslims as the inferior “other” in opposition to which the superior “Western self“ in constructed.” He argues that the identity and conceptions of the Western self are discursively dependent on the image of an inferior and antithetical Islam. John Esposito, in his IsZumic *at: W t h or Reality, shows how Islam’s normative challenge is con- structed as a security threat to the West. Thus the West’s imagination and image of Islam is understood either as a civilization’s need to define itself through the pi-ocess of negative creativity-the construction of an inferior other-or as a civilization’s need to maintain its internal cohe- sion by identifying or even imagining external th~eats.’~ As a result, Islam is either the inferior other or the threatening other. However, in the light of our discussion about the condition of glocalization, we can offer an alternate understanding of the images of Islam generated and prolif- erated globally by essentially non-Muslim sources. Let us consider the most prominent images of Islam presented by the global media: Islam as incompatible with democracy, Islam as an oppressor of women, and Muslims as While the rhetoric on fundamentalist Islam is receding, the question of whether Islam and democracy are compatible is taking center stage. In July 1998, when this paper was written, a search under the key words “Islam and democracy” on Lexus-Nexus resulted in 374 recent relevant articles in Western news- papers and news magazines alone. Over 64 academic articles and numer- ow books have been published on this theme. The global media’s demo- nization of Islam has resulted in a great deal of literature that has exposed the prejudices and biases in the coverage of Islam.” Some have d i s c u s d b e dynamics of power that underpin the logic and premises in the Western imagination of Islam. But what they have not done is to show how the so-called globalization has facilitated a global assault on Islam and how the primary motivations for these imaginations are essen- tially local interests. I will show how global images of Islam serve par- ticular local interests by examining the global discourse on Islam and democracy. This case study will show the linkages between globaliza- tion and localization and show how glocalization influences identity formation. Khan: Constructing Identity in “Glocal” Politics 93 Imagined Contradictions: Islam and Democracy One of Islam’s most egregious flaws, in the current opinion of the West’* and of some Muslims who are so westoxicated that they can see no good in the “self” (Islam) and have allowed their minds to be culturally and ideologically colonized by the “other” (the West),” is its asserted “incompatibility with democracy.” For nearly two decades, Western com- mentators have berated Islamic civilization for its lack of a democratic ethos and for being the singularly most important factor in thwarting the modernization and democratization of Muslim societies. And westoxicat- ed and colonized Muslims have echoed this anti-Islamic rhetoric calling for the secularization, reformation, or marginalization of Islam within Muslim societies.” The latest salvo is couched in the language of “civil society,” for now Western commentators have discovered that Muslims lack institutions of civil society, an important ingredient of civilized soci- ety based on respect of rights and fieedom of political participation. Yahya Sadowski has aptly named this “debate” on Islam and democracy as “The New Orientalism.”81 There have been two kinds of responses to the debate on Islam and democracy. Westem scholars such as Esposito, Piscatori, and Voll, and experts such as Robin Wright, have argued that Islam and democracy are compatible?z Pointing to Islamic institutions of shard (consensual gover- nance), they have argued that Islam is not a barrier to democracy; rather, it is secular authoritarianism and its Western allies. Some Islamists seek to promote Islamic democracy, a few of them after realizing that democrati- zation and popular participation will benefit them politically, and others because they genuinely believe that Islam provides a mechanism for pop ular participation in g~vernance?~ Mujuddids (revivers) like Maulana Maududi, Hassan Turabi, and Raschid Ghannushi emphasize the sources of democracy within Islam’s sacred sources.M Others reject it outright as un-Islamic on the grounds that laws are divinely given and cannot be cre- ated by human beings, as happens in a democracy, for this would consti- tute an unacceptable violation of God’s rights.’5 While I applaud Western scholars for defending Islam and educating a civilization largely ignorant and prejudiced against Islam, I reject both responses from the Islamist camp. I reject them because they are reactionary and insist that even debat- ing the compatibility of Islam and democracy allows those who bear ill- will towards Islam to define the parameters of Islamic discourses. Muslims do not have to reinterpret Islam, and thereby gamer recogni- tion and acceptance, to show that it is similar to non-Islamic societies. What Muslims need to concern themselves with is the nature of Islamic govemance in the contemporary era.” We need to ask ourselves tough questions: Are we developing Islamic societies that allow Muslims the 94 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 15:3 freedom to understand and practice Islam without compulsion and intimi- dation? Have we developed societies and mechanisms of governance that have created just societies worthy of emulation and where both Muslims and non-Muslims would prefer to live? Are we fulfilling our mission as God’s vicegerent on Earth who have been entrusted with establishing just and virtuous societies? And when it comes to democracy, the only legiti- mate inquiry is whether democracy can facilitate Islamic governance. It is not democracy that is primordial; it is Islam. The only question that Muslims*’ can be interested in is whether innovative ways of organizing societies, such as electoral politics (which is often misunderstood as democracy), are compatible with Islam or not, not the other way round. Increasingly, scholars are realizing that both secularism and governance without Islam have no future in the Muslim world,” and that Islam will set the parameters of Muslim discourses, institutions, and organizations. Turning our attention to the purpose of these discourses, we must ask why Western scholars, journalists, government officials, and enlightened citizens are so disturbed that Muslims are not enjoying the hedoms and mystical benefits of life in a democratic and liberal society. An answer that points to the goodness of Western hearts is less than acceptable, for these very same hearts have shown a heartless disregard for the plight of Iraqi children; dispossessed, occupied, and oppressed Palestinians; suffesing Kashmiris; and homeless Kurds, among other Muslims, who have suffered far more than missing the pleasures unique to democratic societies. There is no initiative fiom the West to alleviate poverty in the Muslim world. Thousands of Muslims die from starvation or malnutrition, but liberal Western hearts find few tears to shed for them. But yes, those same hearts ache when a Taslima Nasreen does not enjoy the freedom to abuse Islam or Muslims, Some in the West are eager to “convert’’ the Muslim world to their way of lif-inus the prosperity of course-by demanding that Muslims transform themselves and learn to appreciate Western values of freedom and democracy. The Christian zeal to proselytize remains strong in the “secular” West, which continues its crusades to shape the rest of the world in its own image. Explanations based on assumptions of realpolitik 9ppear more com- pelling than those based on the West’s assumed dedication to the emanci- pation and well-being of the rest. I believe that the discourse on Islam’s incompatibility with democracy serves certain local interests rather than any global drive toward universal democratization and cementing of intemational civil society. Images of Islam as incompatible with democ- racy delegitimizes Islamic movements seeking authenticity and local governance of their own societies and economies. These global images also legitimize, in the eyes of the so-called international community and Khan: Constructing Identity in “Glocal” Politics 95 the silent majority of Muslims who remain insulated from the travails and struggles of Muslim activists, the systematic and often brutal and inhu- man suppression of local resistance spawned by the Islamic impulse. The discourse on Islam and democracy delegitimizes Islamic self-determina- tion and provides the rationale and justification for preventing the democ- ratization of Muslim societies. It is clever, cruel, and hypocritical all at the same time. What interests and whose interests are served by delegitimizing Islam? Four particular entities benefit from the erosion of Islamic influ- ence in Muslim societies. First, global capital has a major stake in cul- turally homogenizing the world. The interests of capital are served by multinational corporations with a global reach but local allegiances. These corporations are great mechanisms for excercising power global- ly and also act as conduits for transfering wealth to the home countries. It is a matter of national interest that compels President Clinton to inter- cede on behalf of American firms and help them capture or force open foreign markets. These corporations act in concert with the “priests of modernity” who wish to convert the rest of the world to their religion of secular humanism.89 Secular humanism allows economic rationality to constitute human lives and hastens the spread of a consumerist culture at the expense of tradition. This globalization of shallow consumerism and cultural homogenizationg0 fills the coffers of powerful corporations who grow extremely wealthy by peddling meaningless products like sugar water mixed with air! The resulting profits often go into the pockets of investors, primarily from the country of origin, and they pay a 30 to 40 percent tax on these profits to their respective nation-states, making them even more powerful. Thus economic homogenization, or globalization, is the source of power and influence in several Western nations whose corporations ben- efit the most from the present economic structure. Robert Cox, a critical scholar who describes globalization as an ideology, emphasizes the rble of capital in restructuring international and national economies. I com- pletely concur with his analysis on the subject. Capital requires Islam to end its resistance to the march of Western culture so it can thrive. It is not a coincidence that the global media, which is primarily responsible for propagating images of Islam on a global scale, is a capitalist enterprise seeking to maximize profit-not truth.” Second, Israel is a major beneficiary of the globalization of anti- Islamic images?* Israel fears that the Islamization of the Muslim world will give more substance and impetus to Muslim efforts to fiee Jerusalem and restore Palestinian rights. By sustaining the claim that it is the sole democracy in the Middle East and struggling against fanatics, Israel seeks % The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 15:3 to maintain the incredibly high levels of monetary, moral, and military aid it receives from the West." Its self-proclaimed image in the West as the only democracy in the Middle East, and the opposing image of Islamists as uncivil and undemocratic terrorists, also serves as a justification for the inhuman repression it periodically unleashes against Palestinians to dis- possess them of their lands, dignity, and rights.% Even such Western schol- ars as Fred Halliday describe how many supporters of Israel see Islam and Israel as engaged in a zero-sum game and therefore assume that the rise of Islam will herald the demise of Israel. Their reaction to Islamic resurgence can be seen in the hastile treatment of Islam in their Third, the interests of ruling authoritarian Muslim elites are served by portraying popular movements as Islamic and undemocratic, and therefore unacceptable. Country after country in the Middle East has seen democra- cy destroyed in the cause against Islam with the active support of Western democracies.% Algeria's emerging democracy has been replaced by chaos, civil war, and untold suffering to keep the ruling secular regime in power and to keep Islam out.J" Turkey has done great damage to its so-called democracy by banning Islamic parties, the study of the Qur'an, and other Islamic activities. In many Muslim states, secular despots are stifling democracy with American and French monetary and military assistance by launching wars against Islamic movements. The United States has extremely close relationships with many Muslim states, but one does not see it using its influence to promote democracy in those states. The United States has a mutually beneficial relationship with many Muslim despots, and it fears that further democratization of the Muslim world may not serve American military and economic interests. Discursively, Islam and democracy may be compatible or not, but empirically Islamists and democracy are increasingly becoming staunch allies as the West and authoritarianism unite against them. Some readers may find it difficult to believe that the West would oppose democracy. I would like to remind them of the CIA-inspired riots that toppled a fledgling democracy established in Iran in 1953 when it perceived a threat to its economic interest^.^' The CIA-orchestrated coup destroyed a democracy and replaced it with an authoritarian monarchy not so long ago. Continued European support to the generals in Turkey and Algeria further supports my claim that the West prefers an authori- tarian and Islam-free Middle East to a democratic one. The West, through manipulation of corrupt secular elites, advances its own interests, where- as a potentially popular regime would seek to advance the interests of its own people and would be diEcult to manipulate.* While the global image of Islam continues to question its Compatibili- ty with democracy, important empirical data is largely ignored by these Khan: Constructing Identity in “Glocal” Politics 97 analyses. Consider the number of Muslims who live in democracies: 250 million in Pakistan and Bangladesh, 20 million in Malaysia, 60 million in Turkey, 65 million in Iran (Islamic Iran is far more democratic now than it was under the Shah), 125 million in India, 35 million in Europe, and near- ly 8 million in North America. There are also millions of Muslims living in South Africa, Australia, and South America. The total number of Muslims living in democratic societies exceeds 600 million, yet we continue to ques- tion the Muslims’ ability to adapt to democratic practices. Amazingly, Muslim states have even elected women as heads of state: Tansu Ciller in Turkey, Khalida Zia in Bangladesh, and Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan-an achievement that America has yet to duplicate. The democratic achieve- ments of these Muslim societies are never included in discussions by those who assert the incompatibility of Islam and democracy. Until recently over one billion Christians, primarily in eastern Europe and South America, lived in totalitarian states. But nobody ever asked whether Christianity was compatible with democracy. We can only con- clude that the fallacious logic connecting Islam with the lack of democ- racy in some parts of the Muslim world and then extending it to all Muslims is the exercise of power globally against Islam by local interests. These local interests take their local imaginations of Islam and globalize them through their access to global processes, institutions, and media. The idea of Islam as incompatible with democracy is nothing but a local idea blown up, inaccurately and unfairly, to global proportions. The sec- ular authoritarian elite has used Western images of Islam to justify repres- sion of democratic impulses and to delay democratization indefinitely. Many of these regimes, like the current one in Algeria, receive huge amounts of aid from the West. Often, the foreign aid is used to prop up repressive state mechanisms. Fourth, the West’s civilizational interests are served by spreading unflattering images of Islam. Recent scholarship in the West, particularly the Huntingtonian discourse of the West vs. the rest, has highlighted the significance of the idea of “a West” to the conservative elite in the United States, Britain, France, and Germany.IW The remarkable success of such articles as Fukuyama’s “The End of History?”’Ol and Huntington’s “A Clash of Civilizations?” is indicative of sensibilities that still value exclu- sionary constructs like the West. In an era when identity politics dominate the social arena and identity is contested at every level, civilizational pol- itics is just another manifestation of the same. That the idea of “a West” based on Judeo-Christian ethics, as well as liberal and capitalistic values, is still dear to a large section of Western elite is evident. It is in defense of “the West” that Islam is vilified in the global media, which is in reality a Western media with a global reach.IM 98 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 15:3 Many analysts have argued that the West needs an external threat to maintain its internal cohesion.’” Increasingly, the. West now experiences a threat from within as Islam gains a significant presence in the West. Millions of Muslims in the United States, Britain, France, and other European nations are challenging the Judeo-Christian foundations of the West’s normative structure while simultaneously putting Western claims of pluralism, tolerance, and religious freedom to a severe test. The growth of Islam, as opposed to just the number of Muslims in the West, is unleashing a conservative response that is forcing such ideas as Huntington’s to the forefront of public debate. The internal challenge of Islam presents a threat to Western identity. For over a century the West has defined itself as antithetical to a negatively conceptualized Islam. But now this “despised other” has become a noticeable part of the “self.” What can be more disquieting to a civilization that for centuries has prid- ed itself on its un-Islamic character? Some members of the Western elite see the global resurgence of Islam and its rapid expansion in the West as a serious threat. For them, it generates a crisis of representation. If Islam is part of the West, then what is the West? While Islam in the West deconstructs the West from within, Islamic resurgence undermines the West from without. Islamic resur- gence, particularly its intellectual and normative implications that reject Western liberalism, unbriddled capitalism, and Western democracy as unjust, unfair, decadent, racist, materialist, and immoral, present two challenges to the West. First, it forces the West to examine itself critical- ly. The ensuing self-evaluation is less than flattering. The inequity, injus- tice, and discrimination found in the West and by the West undermine its self-image of a supercilious civilization that takes its moral credentials for granted. Second, the Islamic alternative makes it look like “just anoth- er civilization,” rather than the inevitable endgoal of human progress that it assumes it represents. Very simply, the Islamic challenge means “the West is not the best.” Therefore, it is only natural that a piqued and insecure West would unleash a discursive war on Idam to delegitimize and marginalize Islam’s challenge to its universality. The process of self-appreciation and self-glorification undergoes var- ious phases in the West. Its discursive assaults on “others” is synchro- nized with these phases. When the West admired itself for its political and economic development, Western intellectuals described Islam 8s a barri- er to development. When the West admired itself for tolerance, it found in Islam nothing but intolerance. Now that the West admires itself for democracy, it discovers that Islam is incompatible with democracy. The discussion about whether or not Islam is compatible with democracy has nothing to do with Islam; it is about the West, about reproducing the iden- Khan: Constructing Identity in “Glocal“ Politics 99 ti@ of the West by contrasting it with an assumed other. Ironically, by adopting Islam as its “other,” the West has made Islam necessary for its O I M ~ existence. If the West is not Islam and if there is no Islam, then there is no “West.” Thus, in a curious sense, the Western imagination of Islam has become a constitutive element of Western identity, for the West can- not imagine itself without imagining Islam. And if the logocentric dis- tance between Islam and the West is deconstructed by systematically challenging the assumed differences between Islam and the West,’” the West begins to de-center and disappear as a distinct entity. Today, the West is exclusive because it alone is truly democratic and the rest of the world seeks fervently to emulate it. Western scholars have demonstrated that not only was Islam more tolerant than the West, but that it is not an impediment to development. However, if Islam were shown to be demo- cratic, then what would be special, particular, and characteristic about the West? If one were to agree that Islam poses a threat to Western identity, it is easy to understand Western images of Islam as the consequence of the wrath of Western “image makers.” In the discussion so far, I have shown how specific interests benefit from a global assault on Islam. The discourse on Islam and democracy is not about Islam or global prospects of dernocra~y’~~; it is about the authenticity and particularity of the West. It is simply an exercise in the representation of Western identity. This discourse also serves the local and particular interests of international capital, Israel, and secular Muslim ruling elites. It is in the pursuit of these interests that attempts have been made to reconstruct Islamic identity from outside-in by employing glob- alized images of Islam. This outside-in construction of Islam and Muslim identity is a process of “glocal politics”-where local interests act glob- ally and global narratives actually relate local tales. Conclusion I have argued that local interests are globally reconstructing the meaning of Islam and, in so doing, are reshaping Muslim identity. I also have debunked any claims to universality, claims that the processes of globalization so strongly insinuates. Globalization is not a spontaneous convergence of cultures, polities, and economies, but rather the reshaping of various local structures in order to accommodate global capital and its cultural needs. Moreover, such restructuring is engendering a refocusing on the local in the form of heightened concerns for identity by creating a crisis of representation. Like other constructivists, I believe that identity is a very important element of social reality. It determines human action by shaping an agent’s interests and the normative frameworks within which agency 100 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 15:3 becomes operative. Since identity and interest are linked so closely, it is important that the control of identity-shaping processes be anchored locally so that local interests are served. If Muslims allow the glocal dis- course on Islam to shape their values and their identity, they will cease to act in their own interest. If the West, Israel, secular Muslim elites, and global capital are allowed to reshape Muslim values and Muslim identi- ty, the subsequent actions of Muslims will be in the interests of these actors and will do untold harm to Muslims themselves. Thus it is impor- taut that the cultural assault of globalization be resisted. Identity must be guarded jealously, lest one is enticed inadvertently into subjugation in the name of globalization. Endnotes 1. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual conference of the American Council for the Study of Islamic Societies, at Villanova University, PA, 7-8 May 1998. I am grateful to Dr. Fathi Malkawi for useful suggestions that have improved the quality of this paper. I would also like to thank Reshma Khan for her invaluable sup- port that keeps me going. The term glocalization has been borrowed from the work of Erik Swyngedouw, “Neither Global nor Local: ‘Glocalization’ and the Politics of Scale,” in Spaces of Globalization: Reasserting the Paver of the Local, edited by Kevin R. Cox (New York: The Guildford Press, 1999, pp. 137-166. See for instance Richard Ned Lebow and Thomas Risse-Kappen, “Introduction: International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War,” in International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold Wbr, edited by Richard Ned Lebow and Thomas Risse- Kappen, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995), 1. See John Lewis Gaddis, “International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War,” International Security, no. 17:3 (Winter 1992/1993): 5-58. See also Thomas Risse-Kappen, “Ideas Do Not Float Freely: Transnational Coalitions, Domestic Structures, and the End of the Cold War,” International Otganization, no. 48 (Spring 1994): 185-214. Peter J. Katzenstein (ed.), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (New York Columbia University Press, 1996). See Yosef Lapid and Friedrich Kratochwil (ads.), The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory (Boulder, C O Lynne R i m e r Publications, 1996). See also Yale H. Ferguson and Richard W. Mansbach, Polities: Authority, Identities and Ideology (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1994). See M. A. Muqtedar Khan, “Paradigm or Paradox: A (Re) Introduction to Constructivism” (paper presented at the Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, Minneapolis, March 1998). For an even more detailed review of internation- al nlations theory and the distinctive characteristics of rationalists, constructivists, and interpretivists, see M. A. Muqtedar Khan, “ Identity, Rationality and Agency: Outline of a Rational Constructivist’s Theory of International Relations” (doctoral dissertation, Georgaown University, 1999). Robert H. Bates and Barry R. Weingast, “A New Comparative Politics: Integrating Rational Choice and Interpretivist Approaches,” Working Paper Series, (Boston: The Center for International Affairs, Harvard University, 1995). See also Robert Keohane, “International Institutions: Two Approaches,” in International Organization: A 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Khan: Constructing Identity in “Glocal” Politics 101 Reader, edited by Friedrich Kratochwil and Edward D. Mansfield (New York Harper Collins College Publishers, 1994), 56-57. Alexander Wendt, “Constructing International Politics,” International Security, no. 20:l (Summer 1995): 71-81. See also Emanuel Adler, “Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics,” European Journal of International Relations, no. 3:3 (September 1997): 319-63. Michael J. Shapiro and Hayward R. Walker (eds.) Challenging Boundaries: Global Flows, Territorial Identities (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1996). Erik Ringmar, Identity, Interest and Action: A Cultural Explanation of Sweden’s Intervention in the Thirty Years War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19%). 7. 8. 9. Robert Keohane, “International Institutions: Two Approaches.” 10. Michael J. Shapiro and Hayward R. Walker (eds.), Challenging Boundaries. Also see Jim George, Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International Relations (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publications, 1994.) R. B. J. Walker, Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). James Der Derian and M. J. Shapiro, InternationaUIntertextual Relations: Postmodern Readings of World Politics (Massachusetts: Lexington Books, 1989). 11. Alexander Wendt, “Collective Identity Formation and the International State,” American Political Science Review, no. 88:3 (June 1994): 38496. See Audie Klotz, “Norms Reconstituting Interests: Global Racial Equality and U.S. Sanctions Against South Africa,” International Organization, no. 49:3 (Summer 1995): 451-78. Mlada Bukovansky, “American Identity and Neutral Rights from Independence to the War of 1812,” International Organization, no. 51:2 (Spring 1997): 209-44. Also see Peter J. Katzenstein (ed.), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics. 12. Ronald Jepperson, Alexander Wendt, and Peter Katzenstein, “Norms, Identity and Culture in National Security,” in Katzenstein (ed.), ibid, 52-63. 13. M. A. Muqtedar Khan, “Identity, Rationality and Agency.” 14. M. A. Muqtedar Khan, “Islam as an Ethical Tradition of International Relations,” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, no. 8:2 (Summer 1997): 177. 15. Ronald H. Chilcote, Theories of Comparative Politics: The Search for a Paradigm Reconsidered (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1994). 16. Robert Ross and Kent Trachte, Global Society: The New Leviathan (Albany: State University of New York, 1990). 17. Peter Dicken, Global Shift: The Internationalization of Economic Activity (New York Guildford Press, 1992). 18. Edward J. Malecki, Technology and Economic Development (New York: Longman Scientific and Technical, 1991). 19. Jackie Smith, Charles Chatfield, Ron Pagnucco, and Cheryl Chatfield (eds.) Transnational Social Movements and Global Politics: Solidarity Beyond the State (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1998). Larry J. Ray, Rethinking Critical Theory: Emancipation in the Age of Global Social Movements (London: Sage Publications, 1993). 20. Martin Shaw, Global Society and International Relations : Sociological Concepts and Political Perspectives (Cambridge, UK ; Cambridge, MA : Polity Press, 1994). 21. Roland Robertson, Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culhm (London: Sage Publications, 1992). Anthony Smith, “Towards a Global Culture,” in Global Culhm: Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity, edited by Mike Featherstone (London: Sage Publications, 1990), 171-92. 102 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 15:3 22. Kenichi Ohmae, The Borderless World (London: Fontana Books, 1990). 23. Richard Barnett and Ronald Muller, Global Reach: The Power of the Multi- national Corporations (New York: Simon and Shuster, 1974). 24. Richard Barnett and John Cavanaugh, Global Dreams: Imperial Corporations and the New World Order (New York. Touchstone Books, 1995). 25. Kenichi Ohmae, The End of the Nation State: The Rise of Regional Economies (New Yo&: The Free Press, 1995). Also see Jean-Marie Guehenno, End of the Nation- State (Minneapolis, M N : University of Minnesota Press, 1995). 26. Anthony D. King (ed.) Cultwz, Globalization andthe WorldSystem: Contempo- rary Conditions for the Representation of Identity (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1997). 27. Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (New York Random House Publications, 1937), 13. 28. Benjamin R. Barber, Jihad b!s. Mc World : How the Planet Is Both Falling Apart and Coming Together-And What This Means for Democracy (New York Times Books, 1995). 29. John Redrnond (ed.), The 1995 Enlargement of European Union (Brookfield, USA Ashgate, 1997). Brian Jenkins and Spyros A. Sofos (eds.), Nation & Identity in Contemporary Europe (London: Routledge, 1996). Also see Paul Flenley, “From Soviet to Russian Identity,” in Nation & Identity in Contemporary Europe, edited by Jenkins and 30. James Anderson, Chris Brook, and Allan Cochran, (eds.), A Global World?: Re- ordering Political Space (New York Oxford University Press, 1996). Also see Gearoid 0 Tuathail, Critical Geopolitics: The Politics of Writing Global Space (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1996). 3 1. See for example how Muslim immigrants are creating cultural spaces for them- selves in the West. Barbara Metcalf (ed.), Making Muslim Space in North American and Europe (Los Angeles, C A University of California Press, 1996). 32. See Henry Teune, “Multiple Group Loyalties and the Security of Political Communities,” in Globalization and Territorial Identities, edited by Zdravko Mlinar, (Aldershot, UK: Avebury, 1992), pp.105-114. 33. Majid Fakhry, A Short Introduction to Islamic Philosophy, Theology and Mysticism (London One World Publications, 1997). 34. For a discussion of the Brotherhood of Purity, see C. A. Qadir, Philosophy and Science in the Islamic World (London: Routledge, 1988), 54-59. Also see Fakhry, A Short Introduction to Islamic Philosophy, 54-59. S p p s A. SOfOS, 223-50. 35. Idries Shah, The Sufu (New York Anchor Books, 1964). 36. Robert Anchor, The Enlightenment Tradition (New York: Harper and Row, 1967). Frank E. Manuel (ed.), The Enlightenment (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1965). 37. See Raimondo Strassoldo, “Globalism and Localism: Theoretical Reflections and Some Evidence” in Globalization and Territorial Identities, edited by Zdravko 38. See Craig Calhoun (ed.), Social Theory and the Politics of Identity (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1994). Zdravko Mlinar (ed.), Globalization and Territorial Identifies. Jonathan Friedman, Cultural Identity and Global Process (London: Sage, 1994). 39. Saskia Sassen, The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991). 40. Erik Swyngedouw, “Neither Global nor Local: ‘Glocalization’ and the Politics of Scale,” in Spaces of Globalization: Reasserting the Power of the Local, edited by Kevin R Cox (New York: The Guildford Press, 1997), 137-66. Mliinar, 35-36. Khan: Constructing Identity in “Glocal” Politics 103 41. Ibid.,137-38. 42. See Anthony Giddens, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of 43. Raimondo Strassoldo, “Globalism and Localism,” 44. 44. Ibid., 44. 45. Ibid., 42. 46. See Chadwick F. Alger, “Local Response to Global Intrusion,” in Globalization and Territorial Identities, edited by Zdravko Mlinar, 77-104. Andrew Mair, “Strategic Localization: The Myth of the Postnational Enterprise,” in Spaces of Globalization, edit- ed by Kevin R. Cox, 64-88. Also see in the same volume, Andrew Herod, “Labor as an Agent of Globalization and as a Global Agent,” 167-200. Structuration (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1984). 47. See Alger, “Local Responses to Global Intrusions,” 100-101. 48. Strassoldo, “Globalism and Localism,” 44. 49. See Mihaly Simai, The Future of Global Governance: Managing Risk and Change in the International System (Washington D.C.: US. Institute of Peace, 1994). See also John G. Ruggie (ed.), Multilateralism Matters: The Theory and Praxis of an Institutional Form (New York Columbia University press, 1993). 50. Masoud Kazamzadeh, “Thinking the Unthinkable: Solving the Problem of Saddam Hussein for Good,” Middle East Policy, no. VI: 1 (June 1998): 73-86. 51. For a similar argument, see Stephen Zunes, “Confrontation with Iraq: A Bankrupt U.S. Policy,” ibid., 87-108. 52. See Norman Daniels, Islam and the West: The Making of an Image (Edinburgh: University Press, 1960). See also Edward Said, Covering Islam (New York: Pantheon 53. John Strawson, “A Western Question to the Middle East: Is there a Human Rights Discourse in Islam?,” Arab Studies Quarterly, no. 19:1, (Winter 1997): 31. Ann Elizabeth Mayer, Islam and Human Rights: Tradition and Politics (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991). Bassam Tibi, “International Relations - Islam and Human Rights,” Universitas, no. 35:l (1993): 17. Mahmood Monshipuri, “Islam and Human Rights,” American Muslim Quarterly, no. 1:l (Fall 1997): 19-32. 54. See, for instance, the Muslim responses to Westerner’s agenda setting. Raphael Israeili, “Islam and Democracy,’ Midrtream, no. 435 (June 1997): 4. Bernard Lewis, “Islam and Liberal Democracy,” Journal of Democracy, no. 7:2 (April 1996): 52. Bassam Tibi, “Democracy and Democratization in Islam: The Quest for Islamic Enlightenment,” Universitas, no. 364 (Winter 1994): 244. Azizah al-Hibri, “Islamic Constitutionalism and the Concept of Democracy,” Case Western Journal of International Law, no. 24: 1 ( 1992). 55. Adnan Aslam, “Islam and Religious Pluralism,” The Islamic Quarter&, no. 40:3 (Fall 1996): 172. Farid Essack, Quran, Liberation, and Pluralism (Oxford: One World Publications, 1996). 56. Haifaa A. Jawaad, The Rights of Women in Islam (New York St. Martin’s Press, 1998). Fatima Mernissi, The Veil and the Male Elite: A Feminist Interpretation of Women’s Rights in Islam (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1992). 57. See “Identity and Representation,” in Identity and Diflerence: Cultun?, Media and Identities, edited by Kathryn Woodward, (London: Sage, 1993, 14. For an interesting dis- cussion of the problematic of identity as constitutive of as well as constituted by modernity, see Lawrence Grossberg, “Identity and Cultural Studies: Is That All There Is?,” in Questions of Cultural Identi& edited by Stuart Hall and Paul du Gay, (London: Sage, 1996), 87-107. 58. M. A. Muqtedar Khan, “Muslims and Identity Politics in America,” in Muslims on the Americanization Path?, edited by Yvonne Haddad and John Esposito (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 107-25. Books, 1981), 3-32. 104 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 15:3 59. See Abraham Marcus, The Midde East on the Eve of Modernity (New York Columbia University Press, 1989), 18-21. See also Dale Eickelman and James Piscatori, Muslim Politics (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1996), 102- 103. 60. See Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, The Evolution of Fiqh (Riyadh: International Islamic Publishing House, 19%), 63-90. 61. See James Piscatori, Islam in a World ofNation-States (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986). 62. Ibid., 108-10. 63. See Marya Schechtman, The Constitution of Selves (Ithaca: Comell University 64. Nick Crossley, Intersubjectivity: The Fabric of Social Becoming (London: Sage, 1996). 65. M. A. Muqtedar Khan, “Muslims and Identity Politics in America.” 66. See Marcus, The Middle East on the Eve of Modernity, 39-48. 67. See Sulayman S. Nyang, “Convergence and Divergence in an Emergent Com- munity: A Study of Challenges Facing U.S. Muslims,’’ in The Muslims of America, edit- ed by Yvonne Haddad (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 237-38. 68. See Dale Eickelman, “Ethnicity,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, edited by John L. Esposito (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 1 :447-5 1. Press, 19%), 93-135. 69. See A. Uner Turgay, “Nation,” in ibid., 3:234. 70. See Aziz Al-Azmeh, Islams and Modernities (London: Verso, 1993), 18-19. 71. See Bilal Philips, The Evolution ofFiqh, 52-56. 72. See Aminah Beverly McCloud, “This is a Muslim Home: Signs of Difference in the African-American Row House,” in Making Muslim Space, edited by Barbara Metcalf, 65-73. 73. See the essays in the collection edited by Barbara Metcalf, ibid. 74. Edward Said, Orientalism (New York: Vintage Books, 1979). Edward Said, Covering Islam (New York: Pantheon Books, 1981). 75. John L. Esposito, Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality? (New York Oxford University Press, 1995). M. A. Muqtedar Khan, “Policy Entrepreneurs: The Third Dimension in American Foreign Policy Culture,” Middle East Policy, no. 53, (September 1997): 140-54. 76. For an interesting review of these images see Esposito, Islamic Threat, 3-6. Bobby Seyyid, A Fundamental Fear (London: Zed Books, 1997). Graham Fuller and Ian Lesser, A Sense of Siege: The Geopolitics of Islam and the West (Boulder, CO: Westview/ Rand, 1995). Fred Halliday, Islam and the Myth of Conjrontation: Religion and Politics in the Middle East (London: I. B. Taurus, 1996). 77. See the work of Jack Shaheen, Arab and Muslim Stereotyping in American Popular Culrure (Washington DC: Center for Muslim Christian Understanding, George- town University, 1997). Also Jack Shaheen, The E K Arab (New York Bowling Green State University, 1984). Esposito, Islamic Threat. Said, covering Islam. 78. Bernard Lewis, “Islam and Liberal Democracy: A Historical Overview,” J w d of Deniocrucy, no. 7:2 (April 1996): 52-63. Daniel Pipes, “Islam: L‘Option Tuque [Islam: The Turkish Option],” Politique Internationale, no. 68 (1995), 271-80. Judith Miller, “The Challenge of Radical Islam,” Foreign Affairs, no. 72:2 (Spring 1993): 43-56. Bernard Lewis, “Islam and Liberal Democracy.,” The Atlantic, no. 271:2 (1 February 1993), 89. Raphael Israeili, “Islam and Democracy,” Midrheum, no. 435 (June 1997): 4. Robert Mortimer, “Algeria: The Clash between Islam, Democracy and the Military,” Current History, no. 92570 (January 1993): 37. Martin Kramer, “Islam vs. Khan: Constructing Identity in “Glocal” Politics 105 Democracy,” Commentary, no. 95:l (1 January 1993): 35. William Zartman, “Democracy and Islam: The Cultural Dialectic,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences (November 1992): 18 1. Martin Kramer, “Fundamentalist Islam at Large: The Drive for Power,” Middle East Quarterly, no. 3:2 (June 1996): 37-49. 79. Aziz Al-Azmeh, Reconstituting Islam (Washington D.C.: Center for Muslim- Christian Understanding, Georgetown University, 1996). Reza Afshari, “An Essay on Islamic Cultural Relativism in the Discourse of Human Rights,” Human Rights Quarterly, no. 16:2 (May 1994): 235-76. Bassam Tibi, “Democracy and Democratization in Islam: The Quest for Islamic Enlightenment,” Universitas, no. 36:4 (Winter 1994): 244. 80. For example, see Daryush Shayegan, “Islam, Modernite et Democratie” (Islam, Modernity and Democracy),” Le Trimestre du Monde, no. 17 (1992): 53-60, who calls for the “secularization of Islam.” 81. Yahya Sadowski, “The New Orientalism and the Democracy Debate,” in Political Islam: Essaysfrom the Middle East Report, edited by Joel Beinin and Joe Stark (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1997), 33-50. 82. John L. Esposito and John Voll, Islam and Democracy (London: Oxford University Press, 1996). John Voll and John Esposito, “Islam’s Democratic Essence,” Middle Eust Quarterly, no. 1:3 (September 1994): 3-19. John Esposito and James PiscatOri, “Democratization and Islam,” The Middle East Journal, no. 45:3 (Summer 1991): 427. Robin Wright, “Islam, Democracy and the West,” Foreign Affairs, no. 71:3 (Summer 1992): 131-45. 83. See, for example, the essays in Azzam Tamimi (ed.), Power Shring Islam (London: Liberty, 1993). See also Mohamed Elhaschmi Hamdi, “The Limts of the Western Model,” Journal of Democracy, no. 7:2 (April 1996): 81-85. 84. Maulana Maududi, “Political Theory of Islam,’’ in Islam: Its Meaning and Message, edited by Khurshid Ahmad (Leicester: The Islamic Foundation, 1975), 147- 72. See Seyed Abdas Araghchi, “Islamic Theo-Democracy: The Political Ideas of Maulana Maududi,” Iranian Journal of International Affairs, no. 8:4 (Winter 1996- 1997): 772-97. Hasan Turabi, “Islam, Democracy, the State and the West,” Middle Eust Policy, no. 1:3 (Fall 1992): 49. Hassan Turabi, “The Islamic State,” in Voices of Resurgent Islam, edited byJohn Esposito (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 241 -25 1. Abdelwahab El-Effendi, Turabi k Revolution: Islam and Power in Sudan (London: Gary Seal Books, 1991), 159-62. Raschid Ghannouchi, “The Battle against Islam,” Middle East Affairs Journal, no. 1:2 (Winter 1993): 41. See “Ghannoushi in His Own Words,” in Emad Eldin Shahin, “Tunisia’s Rennaissance Party: The Rise and Repression of an Islamic Movement,” Middle East Insight, no. 11 :2 (January-February 1995): 32. 85. For instance, consider movements like mzb al T W , which reject democrcay as unlawful in Islam. See M. A. Muqtedar Khan, “First Islamic Society then Islamic State. But Democrcay Now!,” The Diplomat, no. 2:6 (November 1991): 49. 86. For example, see Anoushiravan Ehtheshami, “Islamic Governance in Post- Khomeini Iran,’’ in Islamic Fundamentalism, edited by Abdel Salam Sidahmad and Anoushiravan Ehtheshami (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997), pp. 143-162. 87. Clearly here I am working under the Qur’anic definition of the Muslim, for whom Islam is the primary source of principles and values that guide human existence and not any contemporary reformist ideas that allow Islam to be only a part-time indulgence or just a cultural artifact of Muslim societies. 88. See, for example, Mumtaz Ahmad, “Islam and Democracy,” 35. 89. See Paul Smith, Millennia1 Dreams: Contemporary Culture and Capital in the North (London: Verso, 1997). 106 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 15:3 90. See James Mittleman, “The Dynamics of Globalization,” in Globalization: Critical Reflections, edited by J. Mittelman, (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 91. Also explore other essays in J. Mittelman (ed.) Globalization: Critical 92. Yahya Sadowski, “The New Orientalism and the Democracy Debate,” 33-34. 93. Raphael Danziger and Bradley Gordon, “[End American Aid to Israel]: No, it Remains Vital,” Midde East Quarterly, no. 2:3 (September 1995): 13-21. 94. Said, Covering Islam, p. 3 1. 95. Halliday, Islam and the Myth of Confrontation, 187-92. %. John Esposito, The Islamic Threat, 19. 97. Mamoun Fandy, “Tribe vs. Islam: The Post-Colonial Arab State and the Dem- ocratic Imperative,” Middle East Policy, no. 3:2 (Summer 1994): 40-5 1. Ghassan Salame, “Islam and the West,” Foreign Policy, no. 90 (Spring 1993): 22-37. Lars Gule, “Islam and Democracy,” Forum for Development Studies, no. 2 (1992): 21 1-32. 98. James A. Bill, The Eagle and the Lion: The Trageh of American-Iranian Relations (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), pp. 81-96. 99. Ibid, pp. 81-96. 100. Samuel Huntington, “The Westernization of the World,” Resurgence, no. 182 (1 May 1997), 14. Samuel Huntington, “The Clash of Civlizations?,” Foreign Affairs, no. 72:3 (Summer 1993): 22. Samuel Huntington, “The West: Unique, Not Universal,” Foreign Affairs, no. 75:6 (November 1996): 28. Daniel Deudney and John Ikenbeny, “The Logic of the West,’’ World Policy Journal, no. 10:4 (Winter 1993): 17. John Ikenbeny, “The West: Precious, Not Unique,” Foreign Affairs, no. 76:2 (March 1997): 162. 101. Francis Fukuyama, “The End of History?,” The National Interest, no. 16 (Summer 1989): 3. Francis Fukuyama, “Are We at the End of History?,” Fortune, no. 121:2, (15 January 1990), 75. 102. See the collections of essays, Yahya R. Kamalipour (ed.), The U.S. Media and the Middle East: Image and Perception (Westport, C T Praeger, 1995). 103. See Samuel Huntington, “American Identity: The Erosion of American National Interests,” Current, no. 397 (1 November 1997): 8. Esposito, The Islamic Threat. 104. See M. A. Muqtedar Khan, “Dialogue of Civilizations?,” The Diplomat, no. 2:5 (June 1997): 45-49. 105. See also Timothy Skk, Islam and Democracy: Religion, Politics and Paver in the Middle Eart (Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace, 1992). 1996), 1-20. Reflections, for more on the subject.