The ISIS Invasion and Climate Change

An article in Nature Climate Change has the title “Future Temperature in Southwest Asia Projected to Exceed a Threshold for Human Adaptability”. The article is not paywalled and can be downloaded and read by anyone. The following is taken from it (and I’ll remove it if Nature Climate Change complains).

In particular it predicts that by the end of this century all the cities in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Qatar, plus a few others in Iran will be unsuitable for human habitation. The mean temperatures will be above the threshold of survivability for a fit young adult in a well ventilated setting. This temperature is 35C.

It is fascinating to speculate on what will become of the annual Islamic Hajj if both Mecca and Medina (both on the list of potentially uninhabitable locations) cannot be visited.

More directly interesting is what the European response will be if the millions of Islamic “migrants” begin to exercise political and economic power and demand the entrance of virtually the entire Islamic population of the Middle East.

Earlier in 2015 those claiming to speak for ISIS said one of the reasons for their horrendous treatment of the local population in Syria and Iraq was to flood Europe with Islamic refugees and by so doing establish a large Islamic population which would accelerate the eventual Islamisation of Western Christendom.

This is a case of “Hijrah”. Jihad by emigration. Medina was the first location to be Islamised in this fashion.  Many more places followed.

Now an additional factor is to be considered. Those in the oil-rich gulf states have a reason other than simple religious imperialism to prosecute this adventure.  The survival of their own culture may depend on finding new colonies in which to establish themselves.  A new Islamic Homeland will soon become necessary.

If we add to this the realisation that Saudi Arabia is soon to be out of cash then the need for action is all the more urgent.

Saudi Arabia out of cash?

According to Al Jazeera, Saudi Arabia will be “running on empty” in five years if oil prices do not significantly rise. At a paltry $50/barrel the Kingdom cannot be expected to keep peace at home and also build 200 Wahabi Sunni Mosques in Germany. Oil prices must rise soon.

If Saudi goes into serious economic decline another question will have to be answered. Where will all their “migrant workers” go to find generous social benefits and a docile population which does not wish to offend them even if they arrive illegally?

Or maybe I’m just being alarmist. After all. Angela Merkel has assured us the newcomers will all be assimilated into German culture.

Checking Your (Unearned) Privilege: An Exercise in Intellectual Archaeology

What follows is a short example of what is more generally termed “systematically distorted communication” – a term coined by Jürgen Habermas – a leading figure in the Frankfurt School which is itself a major force in the development of Cultural Marxism. [Aside: The term “cultural marxism” is itself being treated as a form of systematic distortion. For those interested in exploring this thread it is reasonable to begin with the Wikipedia entry here and compare it to the link provided previously.]

This example does not originate with Habermas but comes from an Australian academic who is actively teaching his ideas to his students.

The exercise proposed here deals with the Index (and the index alone) to the book “Undoing Privilege” by Robert Pease published by Zed Books in 2010.

Before going ahead it might be worthwhile to clear up the meaning of the term “intellectual archaeology”.

Regular archaeology uses the material objects left behind by societies to determine what those societies were actually like. Tools, utensils, dwellings, buildings, roads, docks, ships, vehicles can all let us infer things about what kinds of people lived in a place and what their values were.

This presentation of only the index of a book permits a bit of “intellectual archaeology”. The index allows reader to make educated inferences (and these inferences are contingent on the education of the individual making them) about the writer, the writer’s worldview, and the worldview of those who may read it.

If we infer the “personality” of individuals from the way they speak or act, of if we infer the cultural affiliations of individuals from the way they dress or gesture, then we also engage in the intellectual process of theoretically guided inference from  so-called objective evidence.

Carrying out this task inappropriately can lead to charges of “jumping to conclusions”, “stereotyping”, and various kinds of either “-ism” or “-phobia” depending on the inference and the audience.

And how the “audience” infers the motives of the person making the inference.  The social legitimacy for people in specific categories to make  judgements is not symmetrical. Only certain kinds of individuals, for example, are permitted to make specific “-ism” charges. Only certain kinds of individuals, to extend this, are vulnerable to specific “-ism” charges.

That being said we can continue with the exercise.

In the last few years we have been exposed to the phrase “check your privilege”. There are many ways to be privileged. There is also the growing suspicion that the idea of “unearned privilege” may be an application of “partial rationality” because if all “unearned privileges” were simultaneously abolished the resulting set of social relationships would have no history, no path to the future, no plan for progress, and would therefore be an evolutionary dead-end.

The Appendix this post is long. It is the Index (scanned and tidied up reasonably well) to a book which is a veritable litany of all the kinds of “unearned privilege” and many of the groups which have arisen to combat them.

What examining the index allows us to do is gauge not only what is there but what is not there. We can see not only what kind of world the author is trying to build but also the kinds of themes which are sufficiently peripheral or marginal as to require either not mention at all or only negative depictions.

It is not fair, of course, to find fault with the book that was not written.  It is unreasonable to attack a book on poetry for its insufficient discussion of world economics.

What is fair is to examine a book advocating thoroughgoing social change and massive challenges to the existing social order with three questions: (a)where do you want to go? what kind of world do you want to build? (b)how can we get there from here? how long will this journey take and at what cost and who will bear the cost and who will benefit? (c)once this promised land is achieved will it be stable? will human beings as we know them to be through the scientific study of evolution and psychology be able to sustain this kind of society?

Two of the items missing from Pease’s index are “children” and “parents”.  Despite the frequent appeals to moral outrage there is no discussion at all of “ethics” or the need for education of the young (those missing children) into the habits of virtue.  White people are never the victims of racism. Men are never the victims of sexism. While “homophobia” is mentioned no hint to the possibility of “heterophobia” can be found. (My spell checker has put a red underline beneath “heterophobia” but not “homophobia”. No surprise.) Anti-Islamic views are in the index. Anti-Christian views are not there.

The lack of any kind of historical perspective prevents us from asking about any patterns of imperialism, colonialism, or hostility to outsiders other than that shown by White Europeans.

The subtitle of the book is “Unearned Advantage in a Divided World”. This obviously leads to the question of what an “earned advantage” might be. It also dovetails with the question of the missing “family” idea. The word “family” only shows up in the book as the name of the Dulwich Family Centre. What a “family” is does not factor into any analysis in this book despite the fact that some “privileges” are “inherited” because they were “earned” by the parents and the children inherited them.

Words such as “property” and “inheritance” as well as “culture” are missing.  Patriarchy is prominent but matriarchy is likewise absent.

Is this book in any way an attempt to describe a single “better world” to which we might aspire to travel? Or is it just a shopping list of grievances rooted in emotion, devoid of ethical coherence, and fully resistant to logical reconciliation?

I could go on. But I’ll let the Index speak for itself.  The overarching questions relate to what terms are not defined, what relationships not examined, and  what possible future scenarios are not entertained. The “margins” of the narrative tell us as much by what is excluded as what is kept in.

APPENDIX

Index

able-bodied gaze, 161

able-bodied privilege, 143-4; construction of, 157-60

able-bodied/disabled binary, 160

able-bodiedness: compulsory, 161; normativity of, 158; privileges of, 158-9; temporary, 160

ableism, xi, 149-65; challenging of, 163-4; cultural construction of, 155-7; definition of, 156; studies in, 158

Aboriginal people, 108,122-3

academics, privilege of, 32

accountability, models of, 182-3

additive analyses, 19-20

affluenza, 49

African experience, validation of, 54-6

Afrocentricity, 55-6

ageism, 155

aggression advantage, 88

aid, alternative to, 48

allies of oppressed groups, 180

anger, constructive use of, 186

anti-colonialism, 52-4,58

anti-gay attitudes, 133-4,138

anti-globalisation struggles, 6o

anti-Islamic views, 45

anti-oppressive theory, critique of, 21-4

anti-racism, 5, 125,127

Australia: Aboriginal reconciliation in, 114; discussion of whiteness in, 115; labour movement in, 68

Australian Association of Social Workers, 112

beauty, cultural views of, 151

black nationalism, 169

black women, 55

bodily normativity, 159

body: as form of social currency,  159-60; interest in, 150; multiplicity and fluidity of bodies, 164

Bourdieu, P., 26-7, 65

Bush, George, 45

capitalism, and class division, 118

caste, 52-3

class, 79-81, 143; concept of, marginalised, 69, 70, 71; construction of, 65; constructs identities, 85; impact of, on women’s lives, 19; intersectionality of, 79; marginalisation of concept of, 65; non-fluidity of, 69; personal narrative of, 6z-4; theorising of, 64-5

class analysis, reinvigoration of, 83

class-based oppression, 81-3

class consciousness: critical, 63-4; negative, 72

class elitism, 62-85

class mobility, 64

class privilege, benefits of, 77

class relations, challenging of, 70

classism, 81-3; meanings of, 82

coalitions, against oppression and privilege, 181-2

cognitive justice, 51

colonialism, 51,52,53, 54; research as part of, 57

colour blindness,

conscientisation, collective, 187

consciousness, individual, changing of, 170

consumption: conspicuous, 49-51; in North, reduction of, 50

corporate accountability, 61

critical psychology, ix

critical reference groups, 183

critical sociology, ix

222 Index

cross-class alliances, 78-9

cultural capital, 65

cultural competence, iii

cultural institutions controlled by men, 99

cultural studies approach, 64

decentring of Westerners, 59

decolonisation, 44, 48, 51, 60; of methodologies, 58

democratic manhood, 107

development, poverty of, 46-9

dialogue: across difference and inequality, 176-8; right to, 177

difference, 71; devaluation of, 13; in coalitions, AI; listening across, 178-9; seen as essential, 14

disability: as product of capitalist relations, 152; defining of, 152; fear of, 162.; feminist writings on, 154; gendered nature of, 154; intersectionality of, 154-5; seen as personal failing, 150; social model of, 151-4,157,164; tragedy model of, 152, 1624 use of term non-disabled, 160

disability awareness programmes, 164

disability people’s movement, 153

disability studies, 144, 158, 164

disabled people: non-homogeneity of, 154; use of term, 152

disablism: aversive, 156; challenge to, 164; cultural construction of, 155-7; definition of, 155-6

discrimination, concept of, 4

distribution, politics of, 84

diversity awareness, 111-12

diversity industry, 112

division of labour, in family, 98, 1o6

dominance: challenging of, xi; doing of, 33-5; internalisation of, 25-7, 76-8; Northern, 58-9; reproduction of, 7

domination: definition of, 26; matrix of, 21; relations of, 3-16

Dulwich Family Therapy Centre (Adelaide), 183, 186

ecological footprint, 49-50

ecosystem, destruction of, 50

Ehrenreich, Barbara, Fear of Falling…, 74

elite, concept of, 3, 7

elite domination, approval of, 7-8

elite studies, vii, 7-9

elitism, compatibility with democracy, 8

emancipatory interests, development of, 174^–5

emancipatory participatory action research, 183

embodiment of privilege, 149-65

entitlement: discourse of, 95-7; sense of, 15-16

epistemicide, 51

epistemological humility, 60

epistemological imperialism, 12.8

epistemological multiversity, 60

epistemological privilege, 5I-2

equal rights, and gay politics, I41-2

equalisation of incomes, 106

ethical listening, 179

ethical resistance, 174

ethnocentrism, 42, 53

Eurocentrism, 39-61; moving beyond, 43-4; term questioned, 44

fair trade, 60

false consciousness, 5

Family Centre (New Zealand), 182-3

feminine, denial of, 92

feminism, vii-viii, 19, 22, 71, 79, 80, 86, 106-7, 125, 139, 145, 158, 169, 179; black, 19; critique of, 18; engagement with psychoanalytic theory, 92; lesbian, 140; men’s support for, 29; postcolonial, 18; radical, 17-18, 80; second-wave, 5, 86; support for, 6

feminist standpoint theory, 27-31

fitness, preoccupation with, 120

foreign aid, question of effectiveness of, 47-8

Fraser, N., 24^–5

gay constructivism, 12.9

gay essentialism, 129

gay liberation, 5, 169

gay marriage, 140-1

gay politics, 140-2

gay rights, 147

gay theory, 12.9

gender, 54, 106,118 143; as code word for women, 13; intersectionality with whiteness, 117

gender difference, 87-90

gender domination, 24, 139-40

gender equality, 107

gender order, 86-107; theorisation of, 97-100

gender role beliefs, 142

gender studies, 87

gendering, of class, 79-81

globalisation, 57; challenge to, 60

greenhouse emissions, reduction of, 50

habitus, concept of, 26-7

health and appearance, as obsession, 150

hegemonic consciousness, 22

heteronormativity, 24, 136, 146

heteroprivilege, 128-48

heterosexism, 24, 134, 155

heterosexism awareness, 144; training workshops, 144

heterosexual privilege, 137-9

heterosexual/homosexual binary, 140-1,144

heterosexuality, xi, 34, 81, 99,

178; advantages accruing to, 137; and gender domination, 139-40; and masculinity, 142-3; compulsory, 136, 139, 143, 144; concept of, recent invention of, 131; construction of, 130-3; critique of, 141; deconstruction of, 12.8; destabilising of, 144; institutionalised, 128-48; intersectionality of, 143-4; non-homogeneity of category, 138; normalisation of, 130-I; pluralising of, 146; privileges of, 148; queering of, 146-8; reconstructing of, 106, 145-6; theorising of, 129-30

Index 223

heterosexuality questionnaire, 132-3

hierarchy, perceived naturalness of, 14

Hill-Collins, Patricia, 19, 21

homo-hatred, 135

homophobia, x, 6, 13, 17, 23, 55, 128, ¹33^–4, 135, 142, 143, 144, 146, 152; among black people, 22; internalisation of, 5

homosexuality: construction of, 130, 140; natural, 129; regulation of, 130

housework: division of, 106; men’s participation in, 86, 91

identities, multiple, 181

identity, 71; in communal space, 54

identity politics, 18, 72

ideological hegemony, 5

ideological justifications for social orders, 185

Ignatieff, Noel, 120

illness, seen as personal failing, 150

impairment, 156, 160; definition of, 153-4; fluctuating experience of, 160

imperial knowledge, 42

imperialism, 46, 57; concept of, 39-40

indigenous knowledge, 56-8

inequality: costs of, 3; in world systems theory, 39; legitimation of, 4; mobilisation against, 7; naturalness of, 14-15; responsibility for, 171

International Monetary Fund (IMF), 40, 48, 49

intersectionality, xi, 18-24, 186; in construction of African identity, 56; of class, 79; of disability, 154-5; of privilege, 35; whiteness and, 117-19

Jefferson, Thomas,x

Johnson, A., 137

Kimmel, Michael, 184^–5

knowledge, ecology of, 51

knowledge systems, diversity in, 51

224 Index

Latham, Mark, 68

listening, 180; as condition of democracy, 179

local knowledge, promotion of, 44

male crisis discourse, 103-4

male domination, 17-18

male entitlement, 104; internalisation of, 92

male privilege see privilege,

male male violence, 9, 15, 31, 86, 89, 90, 96, 98; prevention of, 183

marginalised, role of, 5

Marx, Karl, 73

Marxism, 17-18, 24, 26, 28, 53, 55, 56, 64^–5, 66^–7, 73, 75, 79, 80, 84, 92, 118, 143, 169

masculinity, 85-107, 142-3; complicit, 89-90; costs of, 103; dimensions of, 88; hegemonic, 89 (unlearning of, 119); hierarchy of, 90; institutionalised, 88; non-Western, 102; research, internationalization of, 102; social construction of, 87-90; straight queer, 147-8

masculinity studies, white Western bias in, 59

May-Machunda, P., 158

McIntosh, Peggy, 9, II, 77, 116-17

men: as agents of women’s oppression, 80-1; coalitions with feminist women, 181-2; deny reality of privilege, 102; natural entitlement of, 15; profeminist, 178, 180; resistance to change, 104-5; social divisions among, 101-3

Men Against Sexual Assault (MASA), 180, 182

men’s groups, 86

meritocracy, myth of, 67-70

Messerschmidt, J., 33

micro-enterprise lending, 60

middle class: activism of, 72, 78; black, 79; concept of, 67-8; new, 73; privilege of, 76-8; radicalism of, 75

Mills, C. Wright, 7-8

missionaries, 55

modernisation, 41, 46, 47

multi-issue coalitions, 169

negative identity, construction of, 175

neo-liberalism, 39

neo-Marxism, 53

new social movements, 71, 72

non-disablement, pathology of, 161-3

normal, politics of, 141

North, division and inequality in, 61

Occidentalism, 45

oppositional consciousness, 5; differential, 6

oppression, 3-16; challenging of, 172; class-based, not discussed in US, 66; complicity in, 186; consequences of, 82; elimination of, 170; interlocking, 34; internalisation of, 5; non-class, 79; personal experience of, 173; racial, 56; reproduction of, 4; responsibility for, 171; self-identification as oppressed, 186; single cause theories of, 17-18; social construction of, 84; strategies for challenging of, 169; theories of, 83

oppressor, concept of, 171

Orientalism, 44^–5

othering, process of, 13

partnership model of social organisation, 185-6

patriarchal dividend, 86-107, 117

patriarchy, 6, 20, 30, 81, 88, 92, 93, 145; and control, 96; and systemic domination, 93-5; challenge to, 107; critique of, 105

patriarchy awareness workshops, 86, 180, 182

Peavey, F., 179

pedagogy of the privileged, 171-4

phallocentrism, 93, 95

physical capital, 151

physical difference, fear of, 162

political economy, 62-85

positionality, viii, 27^–31, 39, 40, 58, 62, 109, 147, 149, 176, 186; of the privileged, 177

post-Marxism, 71

postcolonial studies, 52-4

poststructuralism, 53

poverty, vi; link to affluence in West, 49; reduction of, 48

privilege, x, 3-16, 176; able-bodied, 143-4 (construction of, 157-60); access to, 21-22; accompanied by oppression, 23; advantages of, 9; and positionality, 27-31; and sense of entitlement, 15-16; appropriated, 26; as function of power, 7; as structured action, 33-5; challenging of, xii, 184, 185, 187; concept of, 7; damaging effects of, 174; defence of, 28; education about, 172; embodiment of, 149-65; emotions associated with, 123; epistemological, 51-2; generation of, 6; globalising of, 40-1; heterosexual, 137-9, 178; historically specific, 20; institutionalisation of, 170; internalisation of, 25-7; investigation of, 35; invisibility of, 6, 9-12; male, vi, 27, 86, 200-1, 155, 175, 178; middle-class, 76-8; moral humility required, 178, 179; naturalisation of, 12-15 (challenging of, 170-1); of academics, 32; of activists, 172; of class, 83 (benefits of, 77); of men (consequences of, 103-4; theorising of, 90-3); of silence, 31; outside speakers for, 30; personal, interrogation of, 32; relinquishing of, 27, 183-5; reproduction of, challenged from within, 169; requires recognition, 115; social construction of, 14; social dynamics of, 17-35; strategies for challenging of, 169; to be made visible, 4; Western, 49; white, 43, 100, 111 (complexity of, 127); recognition of, 115-17; rejection of, 121,relinquishing of, vii, ix, 122; resistance to change, 123-4) see also pedagogy of the privileged

Index 225

professional work, proletarianisation of, 75-6

professionals, 64: class politics of, 62; contradictory class location of, 74; hybrid identity of, 76; in service occupations, 75; politics of, 72-6; theorisation of, 73

proletariat, as force for political change, 62

pronouns, reflecting power relations, viii

queer theory, 140-I, 144

queering, of heterosexuality, 146-8

race: as ‘other’, 111-12; impact on women’s lives, 19; invisibility of, 10; social construction of, 108; theory of, 71

race cognisance, 113

race relations, teaching of, 112

race theory, critical, 117

race to innocence, II, 173

race traitor, 120 see also traitorous identities

racial formations, 108-27

racialised gaze, 114-15

racialising of class, 79-81

racism, 6, II, 13, 20, 22, 79, 108, 109, 155; as prejudice, 109-10; as prejudice plus power, 111; aversive, 111; experience of, 126-7; institutionalised, 127; levels of, 121; see also anti-racism

radical scholars, challenge to, 32

recognition, politics of, 84

reconciliation circles (Australia), 186

redistribution, theory of, 24^–5

relations of ruling, 170

research epistemologies, critique of, 57

respectability, as normative standard, 77

revolutionary force, 62

Rich, Adrienne, 139

Rochlin, Martin, 132

Rudd, Kevin, 115, 122-3

226 Index

Said, Edward, Orientalism, 44-6

self-interest, 174-5

Sennett, Richard, and Jonathan Cobb, The Hidden Injuries of Class, 63

sexism, vi, II, 13, 17, 23, 55, 93; and coercive control, 95-7; use of term, 4

silence, privilege of, 31

slavery, abolition of, x

social dominance orientation, 28

social mobility, 67-70, 78

social sciences, perceived as universal, 58

social theory, ethnocentricity of, 58

social work, professional imperialism in, 57

social workers: as working middle class, 74-5; code of ethics for, 112

socialism, 66-7

Southern theory, 58-9

speaking for others, 30

stratification theory, 64

subaltern studies, 52; impact of, 53

subjectivity: different understanding of, 56; reconstruction of, 184

subsidies, agricultural, 48

symmetrical reciprocity, 178

third way approach, 68

traitorous identities, 29-30; construction of, 175-6

transnational capital, 39

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), fall of, 66

unionisation, 76

unmarked status,10

‘untouchables’, in India, 52.

victims, blaming of, 5

violence, male see male violence

wealth, inequality of, 46

Weber, Max, 64, 73

Weinberg, George, Society and the Healthy Homosexual, 133

West: as divided entity, 46; challenge to supremacy of, 42-3; idea of, 41; opposed to Orient, 45; seen as pioneering modern world, 42

Western dominance, 39-61

Western model of progress, 47

Western social work: challenge to, 57; models of, 55

white identity, autonomous, 119

white man’s burden, 48

white supremacy, 108-2.7

whiteliness, 121

whiteness: and intersectionality, 117-19; as invisible norm, 113; as privilege, 109, 125; connected to Western dominance, 43; critical, 114; defence of, 123-4; diversity within, 118; doing and undoing of, 12.0-2; internalisation of, 121; intersectionality with heterosexuality, 143-4; list of advantages of, 116; mediated by gender, 118; politics of, 124-6; positive identity of, 120; recognition of privilege of, 115-17; relation with heterosexuality, 143; theorisation of, 115; transforming of, 119-2.0; visibility of, 112-15 see also privilege, white

whiteness studies, 113, 12.4-5

Wittig, Monique, The Straight Mind, 139

women: autonomy of, 106; earnings of, 98-9; experience of oppression, 79-81; notion of privilege of, 23; struggles of, in USA, x; subordination of, 97;  white, privilege of, 18;  working-class, 82

working class, 83; living conditions of, 69; new, 73; radicalism of, decline of, 70; white, and racism, 119

World Bank, 40, 48, 49

World Social Forum, 25, 61

world travelling, 60, 176

youth, eternal, fantasy of, 162

The Niqab and The Visual Cortex

Most of what we’re reading these days about the niqab deals with the  arguments over facial coverings and whether these coverings are matters of “personal choice” or symbols of “cultural identity”. If the classification is “personal choice” then the Libertarian position is advocated. If the belief the niqab is a symbol of loyalty to a particular set of cultural values then the debate’s focus shifts over to the more involved attempt to decide if the values symbolised by the niqab are “congenial with” or “alien to” those of Western Liberal Democracy.

It is not necessary to into the details of why it is that the niqab is not required by Islam at all. Trying to parse the nuances of niqabs versus hijabs is likewise too  esoteric for this post. This comment only addresses the matter of a cultural (but, note, to explicitly religious) tradition which requires women to cover their faces while in public.

We all know these discussions. We have seen them unfolded with emphases on the emotional appeals (fear on the one side,  acceptance on the other),  ethical appeals (bigotry is bad, cultural loyalty is good) and longer term appeals to social and political abilities of Western society to absorb and integrate – into the broader values of Western Democracy – large numbers of people whose cultural history is neither Western nor democratic.

This comment is different. It deals with a speculation on the social implications of covering one’s face.

Facial recognition is something people do very well. We’re extremely good at it. Facial recognition software is still fairly primitive and consumes many machine cycles. Humans do it with something all primates and many other creatures have: The Fusiform Gyrus. (A brief aside. The fusiform gyrus is arguably not really part of the visual cortex but if the title had “fusiform gyrus” in it then the link to vision would not have been as obvious.)

We can ask a new question here: If “facial recognition” were not vitally important to human survival then why would Mother Nature (in the guise of Natural Selection) have spent all that time and effort creating such a highly evolved capacity?

Now I’ll speculate.

Facial recognition allows us quickly and accurately to determine if other people, from a distance, are family, village mates, familiar strangers (i.e. “safe strangers”), unfamiliar strangers (i.e. “who are those people?”), provocateurs, or enemies.

Facial recognition also allows us to evaluate the mood-state of others. Preoccupied (lost in thought), Confused (just plain lost), happy, unhappy, calm,  afraid, deranged, demented, scary, ill, well, and so on.

Walking around with our faces exposed to the community allows us to be fully engaged and involved in the Public Sphere. We are “in public”.  We are participating fully in the “visual presentation of self”.

People who walk around shrouded and with facial coverings are withdrawn from full participation in the Public Sphere.  Those who do so for “personal reasons” may make the others in the Public Sphere inquire about the individual. Friend? Enemy? Stranger? Mentally ill?

Perhaps in “niqab requiring” public spheres donning such garb allows people to be “appropriately invisible” – in the sense of “knowing their place”. In those cultures where the Public Sphere does not have an acceptable category for people who should “know their place by being individually invisible” then such attire not only attracts attention but invites one or two questions.

“Why are you hiding?”

“Should men also have to dress like this?”

The niqab is only worn in Islamic societies and Islamic societies are based on Sharia law.  Sharia law endorses many things. Including Jihad. Neither of these is truly compatible with “Western Values”.

Equating the niqab (and, in fairness, also the hijab) with the endorsement of sharia and jihad elides the meaning of the classification from “personal choice” to “cultural symbol”. Classifications are often not fully objective. The way we classify things determines how we react emotionally and socially to them.

Here is another “face covering” option. Is it to be considered a “personal choice” or “symbolic statement”? Would it arouse concern if someone wanted to be so attired and swear a citizenship oath? Would anyone be perturbed if members of the civil service dressed this way?

This option is fairly light-hearted. Other options — and they are easy to imagine — are much more “symbolically incendiary”. One fairly tame one allows us to ask if wearing a certain article of clothing while taking an oath is the equivalent to the Western meaning of “crossing ones fingers”. Western societies have two meanings for “crossed fingers”. One is “good luck”. The other is “the words I am speaking are invalid”.

It should not be overlooked that Islam has the concept of “taqiyya” which permits “dissumulation” (lying) for three reasons. Two of them relate to self-defense. The third to the prosecution of jihad.

This raises an interesting and officially “never asked” question: How can a person swear a holy oath in the name of a religion which permits lying?

Would asking for clarification be a politically incorrect microaggression?

Humans are social. Humans cannot live long or well outside a social context. It is only logical to conclude the most important sense we have – vision – should be optimally adapted to improve our chances to survive.

When we see things we cannot properly classify we seek more information. When the failure to classify increases the probability that a threat is present then the response is predictable as well.

When someone is compelled by cultural convention to “faceless” in the Public Sphere then that person is, arguably, compelled by cultural convention to be ineligible for full participation in the culture — second class. The forms of “public” nonverbal communication are reduced to: the observation of the walking gait, the various permitted fashion accessories, any bundles or burdens which they may have, and the direction of travel.

The Ideology of Multiculturalism demands that the host population make as many allowable accommodations to newcomers as possible. Multiculturalism, by its very nature, must keep “assimilation” and “integration” to an absolute minimum.

Meanwhile, the ideology of democracy usually means that “all people are equal”. To say “all people are equal” is another way of saying  that no people are inherently “second class”.

It is consequently essential to determine if the donning of the niqab is “personal” or “cultural”. This means we need to know what “culture” is before we can ask if all “cultures” are equally congenial with the constraints of coexisting in a “Multicultural Society”. There are some cultures which regard the “loss of face” to be so devastating as to justify suicide.

But by failing to articulate what, exactly, a “culture” is in the first place the ideology risks becoming incoherent and thereby self-destructive. One such incoherence is the inclusion in the Public Sphere of symbols which are, or can be interpreted as being, at variance with the fundamental values of Western Society itself.

Denmark, for example, has just recently decided that “foreigners” will not longer be eligible for Danish Citizenship. The term “integration has failed” sums up the Danish experience with Multiculturalism.

The multiple monologues on the status of the niqab in particular and Islam in general  in Western society have yet to begin to converge on the standards of an honest dialogue. This is clearly part of a much greater dialogue: one which deals with the uniqueness of Western Culture and whether it is worth protecting.

This dialogue is long overdue.

Addendum. Last week I walked past a woman I know. She was on the phone and she looked very sad. I waved and kept walking. Yesterday I saw her again. Again she was on the phone. This time she was smiling and looked very happy. I waved. She waved back. She said “I’ll call you back in a few minutes.” I told her she seemed very sad to me last week and very happy now. I expressed my pleasure at this change. Her reply? “Thank you, thank you, thank you!!”  It is not necessary to continue with the substance of the conversation. It is enough to note it could not have happened at all if she had been wearing a niqab.