|
WAF Articles
WAF replies to Tariq Modood
Journal no.6 1995. pp3-4.
Clara Connolly
MODOOD argues that secularism is the con-sensus of the British 'political classes'. Why then is no major political party arguing for disestablishment? Rather, the recent consensus is to avoid the subject altogether. Charter 88 (the radical democratic group which has recently put contstitu-tional reform on the agenda) argues for the abolition of the House of Lords, but studiously avoids dis-cussing constitutional arrangements between Church and State. The clearest voices for disestablishment have come from within the Anglican Church itself, embarrassed by its image as 'the Tories at prayer'.
Modood also argues that WAF is 'partly located in the (anti-Islamic) prejudices of most Britons'. Yes, we were founded in the wake of the fatwa against Rushdie, and our first public demonstration was on the occasion of the London anti-Rushdie March of 5 May 1989.1 Our slogan then was 'Rushdie's right to write is ours to dissent'. However, that does not make us participants in the demonisation of Islam - clearly a phenomenon in contemporary Britain and in the West. Nita Yuval-Davis has highlighted the impor-tance of Christianity in defining the parameters of 'European' identity, and in the projection of non- Christians, especially Muslims, as the alien other.' WAF has never concentrated its attention on Islam; our current campaign is aimed at the influence of Christianity in schools, and we have actively sup-ported Irish women in their struggles against the Catholic Church on the issue of abortion.3 We have consistently refused to speak on platforms focussing on 'Islam', or which recognise only Islamic funda-mentalism.' As our founding statement makes clear, we stand for the autonomy of women against ele-ments in all religions which attempt to circumscribe it. Unlike others who quietly agree with us, WAF will not be silenced by attempts to distort our position as 'anti-Islamic'.
I will now address Tariq Modood's four main points:
1. He argues that the way to offer public recognition to faiths other than Christianity is the reform of Establishment, already tolerant and open to the idea of pluralism. There are two problems here:
a) A 'multi-faith' position (currently influential among liberal Christians, Prince Charles amongst them) if expressed in public policy would be disastrous for women. A public consensus of the major religions on the position of women - if it could be reached - would inevitably be reflected in legal restric-tions on the freedoms of women, and of sexual minorities such as gays and lesbians. Although Britain is formally a Christian state, its current statutes in relation to sexual and family matters are not constrained by even the most enlightened Christian teaching. For example, divorced people may conduct legal second marriages, but may not re-marry in an Anglican Church. The truth is that the absolute majority of British citizens, though nominally Christian, are indifferent to religion and no longer expect legislation and public poli-cy to reflect religious teaching on questions of personal morality. Reforms in this area have been hard-won; feminists would be the first (but not the only) group to resist attempts to repeal the law on abortion, for example, or the provision of public funding for autonomous refuges for bat-tered women and their children.
b) A 'multi-faith' position would not, in any case, sig-nificantly change the status quo, which establish-es Christianity as the major, but not the only, reli-gion in Britain. Such a position is currently recog-nised by statute in the composition of SACRES, (Standing Councils on Religious Education), but there is such an overwhelming majority of Christians - based on their putative numbers locally and nationally - that representatives of 'minority' religions are, effectively, powerless. Besides, humanists and secular representatives are refused a place on such bodies. This is based on two undemocratic assumptions: that everyone with an interest in religious education has an affil-iation to some religion; and that since, demo-graphically, the major religion in Britain is Christianity, the religious education syllabus, as taught in non-religious schools, should reflect this. 'Multi-faith' positions then, can co-exist with the institutionalised dominance of Christianity, to the disenfranchisement of both minority faiths and of secularists. The Anglican Church may well be tolerant of pluralism, as Modood asserts. Indeed, its current difficulties over the ordination of women suggest that it is pluralist to a fault, leading to such confusion and incoherence as may prove unworkable. Meanwhile, the most conservative Christians - fundamentalists even -have hijacked pluralism, through the House of Lords, to insist on a daily act of Christian worship, and religious education that is 'in the main Christian' in county (i.e. non-religious) schools. This is the face of 'establishment' that Modood ignores.
2. Secondly, Modood argues that 'a community which places primacy upon religious identity is like-ly to have just as much a problem with a radical sec-ular state, as with one which publicly recognises only one religion.' I argue above that a state founded on a pluralist Establishment - even if it were possible - would nevertheless institutionalise, as it does at pre-sent, the predominance of Christianity. The de-recognition of Christianity as the state religion would indeed be a radical move in contemporary Britain, if only because Christianity is now understood less as a body of doctrine, than as a cultural signifier. It is used by racists to define areas of privilege and segregation for themselves, which would be unlawful if they used 'white' or 'British' instead of 'Christian' or 'Catholic'.' (That private education is the primary segregator, based on class, goes without saying much of the time).
A secular state, as we envisage it, would be the best guarantor of freedom of worship for all, regard-less of religion. However, it does depend, as Modood points out, on the separation of the 'private' from the 'public'. This area has been difficult for feminists. When we argue that the 'personal' is 'political' we do so precisely to expose the limits of the definition of 'politics' as a settlement between men about the issues that primarily concern them. We insist that the domestic sphere, and sexual relations, should also be a matter for public discussion, policy, and legislation. The issue of women's subjugation in the 'private' sphere should be addressed, as well as in the 'public' sphere of paid work. The tenets of the major religions on the 'proper' sphere of women is a major obstacle to the recognition of women as 'persons' with equal rights as citizens. WAF absolutely opposes settle-ments between 'political' groups, which leaves the management of 'domestic' disputes to 'communities' of interest, dominated by men. Our suspicion of orthodox multiculturalisrn is based on our bitter experience of negotiations between 'majority' and 'minority' men, as to what constitutes the best inter-ests of 'the COMMUnity,.6 Communities of interest are not born; they are made, and construct themselves, according to prevalent ideologies. However, we also recognise the dangers of an autocratic secularism, such as that imposed on Kernalist Turkey, which establishes its own prejudices as laws without attempting to achieve a democratic consensus which takes account of gender and class, as well as ethnic and religious conflict.' If that is what Modood means by 'a radical secular state', we are happy to distance ourselves from it.
3. Modood argues from political realities: 'secularism 7. is one of the principal 'isms' which define the political and cultural centre of the country', regardless of anachronisms like Establishment. 1 read political real-ities somewhat differently. The 'Back to Basics' cam-paign, based on Christian values, was an ignominious attempt by an unpopular government to find an issue with popular resonance. It may have failed in its main purpose, but its consequences for the most vul-nerable - and least likely Tory voters - are serious. It has affected school children threatened with expo-sure if they seek advice on contraception; single mothers on benefit; and other refugees from the family as defined by Portillo et al. The fact that the Church of England may not support sonic of these measures is immaterial: they are successfully promot-ed on the basis of the status of Britain as a 'Christian' country. In a climate of political and moral Lin cer-tainty, there is scope for a return to (or a re-construc-tion of) 'traditional' values, at the expense of those least well served by them.
4. Modood argues that 'at the very time that we have entered an uncertain and potentially turbulent multi- culturalism it is unwise to dismantle a centralising institution without putting something else in its place'... it is here, I think, that WAF departs most sharply from Modood. We are not interested in attempts to establish social peace in the short term. There are deep divisions and inequalities within British society which need debate, and more impor-tantly, political struggle, at the most intense and far- reaching level. Seeking a public consensus about religion in the absence of wider considerations is short-sighted, precisely because 'religion' cuts across class, ethnic and gender conflict. WAFs demand for a secular state is not made because we assume that, in itself, it is the guarantor of pluralism and equality. Rather, we believe that it is one pre-condition, among many others, of a pluralist and egalitarian future.
Clara Connolly is an Irish member of WAF
NOTES |